p.21 #1 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
These companies are not your friends, or even your football team.
Perhaps if they had agreed on a common lens mount, battery standard, flash protocol etc. there might be a modest future for them.
As it is, I can't be the only one who has decided not to buy anything because I have no way of knowing which, if any, of the competing systems will make it.
It's hard for me to feel any sympathy for them. Nikon sat on their hands for decades with 1950s-style mechanical linkages—some DSLR lenses you can buy from them today work that way. So now they have no choice but to start again with the Z mount. At least their mind has been concentrated, although it must be an unfamiliar experience for them.
Canon are still at it crippling video modes in their latest full frame mirrorless. While passing off sensor tech that is half a decade behind everyone else's. I have a big Canon DSLR system, the equipment is incredibly robust, but I won't be falling for the sunk cost fallacy.
Sony is... Sony. Very hard to forgive them for the rootkit scandal. Still they want admin privileges on my Mac to install a damn firmware update for a camera. The sheer hide. (I did it on an old Vista laptop, but that machine can't be much longer for this world.)
There is an awful lot of used DSLR equipment about, and as people move to mirrorless and cameras in general become less popular, there'll be more in the future. It does work; there's no real need to fret about who (if any) of these players will "win" with mirrorless.
p.21 #2 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
melcat wrote:
These companies are not your friends, or even your football team.
Perhaps if they had agreed on a common lens mount, battery standard, flash protocol etc. there might be a modest future for them.
As it is, I can't be the only one who has decided not to buy anything because I have no way of knowing which, if any, of the competing systems will make it.
It's hard for me to feel any sympathy for them. Nikon sat on their hands for decades with 1950s-style mechanical linkages—some DSLR lenses you can buy from them today work that way. So now they have no choice but to start again with the Z mount. At least their mind has been concentrated, although it must be an unfamiliar experience for them.
Canon are still at it crippling video modes in their latest full frame mirrorless. While passing off sensor tech that is half a decade behind everyone else's. I have a big Canon DSLR system, the equipment is incredibly robust, but I won't be falling for the sunk cost fallacy.
Sony is... Sony. Very hard to forgive them for the rootkit scandal. Still they want admin privileges on my Mac to install a damn firmware update for a camera. The sheer hide. (I did it on an old Vista laptop, but that machine can't be much longer for this world.)
There is an awful lot of used DSLR equipment about, and as people move to mirrorless and cameras in general become less popular, there'll be more in the future. It does work; there's no real need to fret about who (if any) of these players will "win" with mirrorless. ...Show more →
You got that right. Much of the DSLR’s and their lenses can be had for a song.
May 09, 2019 at 08:46 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #3 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
CATProductions wrote:
Maybe mirrorless mania is a fad?
And how would that explain the first point in the post your responded to that Sony is dominating and growing market share?
p.21 #5 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
Steve Spencer wrote:
True, but part of that at least is that they aren't really decreasing spending on R & D despite making less revenue. Reading the report as a whole it seems despite the reduced profits Nikon is quite committed to the photo business, so although the news is not great it doesn't look like they are even close to thinking about giving up yet. They seem to fighting the downward trend with a quite robust effort.
It really is a situation in which you can see the glass as half full or half empty and Nikon seems to say both.
They say, "the digital camera-interchangeable lens type market is expected to remain solid in the full-frame category."
But they also say, "the market as a whole is forecast to continue to shrink . . ."...Show more →
I say it's still too early to throw in the towel. But if this continue a few more years down the road, Nikon is certainly in trouble. We'll see how it goes of course.
p.21 #6 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
1bwana1 wrote:
It looks like the D850, the best DSLR ever made, continues to sell well. Nikon was a bit vague on the Z6/Z7 cameras. Only saying they were working on ways to increase sales of these.
This is easy to understand. The D850 is arguably one of the most competitive cameras today. The Z6 and Z7 don't sell well because they lack some features that competitors are offering such as eye AF, some hunting is experienced in low light with adapted lenses, and native lenses are few and far between. Nikon are reportedly going to release firmware updates that improve the low light AF by 2 EV and the eye AF should be coming later this quarter. Additionally at least where I am based, the Z7 has had a massive price reduction, which brings its price in line to other markets and the competition. I think these price adjustments and firmware improvements will make the cameras more competitive. Finally, new lenses are being launched for the Z system. All of these will likely improve Nikon's chances in the full frame mirrorless market. I think personally it would be unthinkable to purchase such a camera before some native telephotos hit the market and one can see how the AF works with them.
I think the financial results were as expected. Nikon and Canon were always going to take rough tumble when they were to launch their serious mirrorless offerings as initially the new lines would not be competitive and the current users of their DSLR systems would potentially interpret the launch as a reason to stop buying DSLR products, though personally this is not my own reaction.
p.21 #7 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
Steve Spencer wrote:
And how would that explain the first point in the post your responded to that Sony is dominating and growing market share?
I interpret that sentence to mean that the *mania* about mirrorless is a fad and it doesn't change photography or its results all that much, while costing a huge amount of money. I do not interpret it to mean that mirrorless itself is a fad (obviously it is useful to many people), but many people's reaction to it.
p.21 #8 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
Ikka,
I think the Z cameras were way over priced on release. Nikon was harvesting extra profit from its loyal user base. A strategy that seems to have backfired a bit. I know it helped push me to choose a Sony as my next camera.
However, the price reductions you speak about are bringing the cameras more in line with the competition. Since the reductions, I have seen the Z6 start showing up much higher in the Amazon Mirrorless best sellers list. Today, Nikon had 6 SKUs in the top one hundred. The Z6 had 5 of those SKUs with its highest position at number 29. A big improvement over recent performance. Sony still holds 54 positions in the top 100 SKUs however, so represent more than the rest of the industry combined.
p.21 #9 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
melcat wrote:
These companies are not your friends, or even your football team.
I would consider the camera, lens, flash etc. manufacturers my collaborators in producing the results I want to make.
Perhaps if they had agreed on a common lens mount, battery standard, flash protocol etc. there might be a modest future for them.
I disagree, a common lens mount would mean a very complicated process in introducing new features and it would mean that one brand could not introduce features without others getting the wind of how they are implemented.
I personally specifically want to use one manufacturers' lenses because I want a consistent look across focal lengths so that I can present a series of images together, taken with different lenses, so that the character of the results, color, bokeh etc. is as similar as possible so as to achieve consistency in the final images as easily as possible. I choose the manufacturer based on personal preference and past experiences.
As it is, I can't be the only one who has decided not to buy anything because I have no way of knowing which, if any, of the competing systems will make it.
If you don't buy anything, you are helping to reduce the adverse impact of unnecessary industrial production on the planet's living environment, pollution etc. This is a good decision (for everyone else enjoying life on the planet that we share).
Personally I think one should buy what one needs to do what one urgently needs to do, and it would be ideal if we bought nothing else. Especially if the production of said items consume energy and produce toxic substances into the environment.
Nikon sat on their hands for decades with 1950s-style mechanical linkages—some DSLR lenses you can buy from them today work that way.
This is simply because they wanted people to be able to use the lenses they buy as long as possible. This again is a solid decision on Nikon's part on the planet's environment. Lenses should be used as long as they can possibly service for the purpose. By buying newer cameras the image quality, autofocus etc. has improved without having to buy new lenses.
So now they have no choice but to start again with the Z mount.
Some other manufacturers have left their users in the dust by changing mounts one or multiple times.
Canon are still at it crippling video modes in their latest full frame mirrorless.
Canon have the dual pixel AF which means the sensors have twice as many pixels as are realized in the normal image files. This makes it difficult to process the data for a perfect video (simply because there is so much data to process). I think the dual pixel AF is a legitimate approach and has some unique merits such as the fact that all the light entering the sensor is used for phase-detect AF, leading to potentially superior ability to focus in very low light.
While passing off sensor tech that is half a decade behind everyone else's.
The 5D IV and 1DX II sensors are very close to other manufacturers products according to sites that measure and characterize such things. They may have some other products that are less competitive but this doesn't seem to bother many users that don't care about technical figures of merit.
There is an awful lot of used DSLR equipment about, and as people move to mirrorless and cameras in general become less popular, there'll be more in the future. It does work; there's no real need to fret about who (if any) of these players will "win" with mirrorless.
I agree with that, and the low-cost used equipment is a huge benefit for someone starting out and building a system.
With mirrorless, if one wants native lenses, they will cost a lot of money since they're basically all new products.
p.21 #10 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
1bwana1 wrote:
Ikka,
I think the Z cameras were way over priced on release. Nikon was harvesting extra profit from its loyal user base. A strategy that seems to have backfired a bit. I know it helped push me to choose a Sony as my next camera.
I agree regarding the Z7 but not for the Z6. Note that the Nikon Z6/Z7 have reportedly superior weather sealing compared to other mirrorless products on the market (according to evaluation by lensrentals), this has got to cost money in manufacturing. They also have excellent EVF in terms of image detail and stability (although I prefer OVF) again the more complicated optical system probably costs extra money to manufacture. However the Z7 is not as good as the D850 in many ways and should not have been priced as highly as it was. This has no doubt adversely affected sales.
However, as you note the price reductions have brought the cameras closer to competing products and this should help Nikon get their system in the hands of the users.
I am a DSLR user and prefer the OVF but recognize that for some applications the mirrorless have their advantages. If the AF improvements in the Z6 to be released by firmware bring a significant advance then I may consider purchasing a Z6 and a couple of lenses to use at indoor events where quietness is a significant benefit and may even be expected. I get along with Qc mode in my DSLRs now quite well but I think the mirrorless are still quieter.
I don't consider Sony because I find their EVF flickering too much in artificial light (something I don't notice in the Z) and the grip is too small for my right hand and feels uncomfortable. Additionally many of the controls are different from what I'm used to so it would make it more complicated to switch between my Nikons if I also used Sony gear. Sony E mount does have excellent lenses some of which have no equivalent for Nikon. E.g. the 135mm f/2.8 Batis is something that I quite envy.
May 09, 2019 at 11:51 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #11 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I interpret that sentence to mean that the *mania* about mirrorless is a fad and it doesn't change photography or its results all that much, while costing a huge amount of money. I do not interpret it to mean that mirrorless itself is a fad (obviously it is useful to many people), but many people's reaction to it.
That is an interesting interpretation but I don't see how it follows from the previous post and it requires a reading into the post that there is a claim that there is a *mania* around mirrorless, which I just don't see, but perhaps that is exactly what the poster meant. It wasn't at all clear to me what the poster meant and that is why I asked a question.
So, if your interpretation is right, then does the poster or you, suggest that people's reaction to mirrorless is going to fade and that the pattern we see now in which sales of mirrorless cameras are increasing and are now well over half the cameras sold will not continue and that we may well go back to the time when DSLRs sold a lot more than mirrorless cameras? If that is the interpretation, then again I ask how in any way that is consistent with the original post that Sony is dominating sales and growing, whereas Canon and Nikon are struggling. Why would the poster or you think that such a reversal is likely to happen?
p.21 #13 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
Steve Spencer wrote:
So, if your interpretation is right, then does the poster or you, suggest that people's reaction to mirrorless is going to fade and that the pattern we see now in which sales of mirrorless cameras are increasing and are now well over half the cameras sold will not continue and that we may well go back to the time when DSLRs sold a lot more than mirrorless cameras?
I don't think that will happen and think no doubt most camera users will choose mirrorless.
However, there is this fatalistic / fanatical attitude among some posters where DSLR equipment is now considered junk and mirrorless will somehow save photography. I think this is an exaggeration and many people will likely continue to use and enjoy DSLR equipment into the foreseeable future, and I believe camera manufacturers will continue to supply equipment to satisfy such needs.
However, as I said I believe the majority will no doubt use mirrorless cameras as their primary choice. This is because mirrorless cameras can be easier to use (more automation is possible) and they can be lighter and smaller, which is what the majority want from their equipment.
May 09, 2019 at 12:24 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #14 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I don't think that will happen and think no doubt most camera users will choose mirrorless.
However, there is this fatalistic / fanatical attitude among some posters where DSLR equipment is now considered junk and mirrorless will somehow save photography. I think this is an exaggeration and many people will likely continue to use and enjoy DSLR equipment into the foreseeable future, and I believe camera manufacturers will continue to supply equipment to satisfy such needs.
However, as I said I believe the majority will no doubt use mirrorless cameras as their primary choice. This is because mirrorless cameras can be easier to use (more automation is possible) and they can be lighter and smaller, which is what the majority want from their equipment.
I totally agree with how you see things. I think about 80% of sales of cameras will be mirrorless within 5 years, but even 10 or 15 years out there will be a niche market for DSLRs. I don't think DSLRs are going away and just because most sales will be mirrorless in 5 years, doesn't at all mean most people using an ILC will be using a mirrorless. For awhile there will be tremendous bargains for those choosing a DSLR. I think it will take 8 to 10 years for the majority of people using an ILC to be using a mirrorless even though even now the majority of sales are of mirrorless. I also agree that I don't think mirrorless is going to grow the overall market for ILCs, which may if anything gets smaller. I see two opposing forces affecting the overall market. Growth will be fostered by the growing middle class in China and India which make up almost a third of the world's population, but growth will also be stymied by new and for many people compelling ways to take photos--phones being the obvious one but probably not the only one. These other options will be a lot cheaper than ILCs and many people will find them adequate. I think for people who see photography as an art form, however, some sort of ILC or similar sort of shooting platform will be compelling for a lot of years going forward. I think this base that has been around for decades will be the core market going forward.
p.21 #15 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
ilkka_nissila wrote:
If you don't buy anything, you are helping to reduce the adverse impact of unnecessary industrial production on the planet's living environment, pollution etc. This is a good decision (for everyone else enjoying life on the planet that we share).
Personally I think one should buy what one needs to do what one urgently needs to do, and it would be ideal if we bought nothing else. Especially if the production of said items consume energy and produce toxic substances into the environment.
+1
Unfortunately, the whole market and politics are firmly opposed to this approach. I have had countless discussions in the past with the e-waste recycling authorities about upgrading or reselling used digital cameras (and other gear) to give them a longer life and reduce waste. But for the people in the industry this is the worst possible idea. They want to keep the factories humming, if possible with ever shorter lifetime of products (just look at the smartphone industry, horrible ...). The only "recycling" of electronic gear that they approve of is through the shredder, which is often the worst solution for the planet.
In general the price of a product is a good indication of the energy cost and environmental destruction caused by the production, and most camera gear is expensive ... On the other side, sometimes new gear offers very significant benefit and the company that develops and produces such products should be rewarded; but the current approach of "build-in obsolescence" and a constant stream of new gear with infinitesimal improvements sure isn't the way to go (it's also a relatively recent approach, invented in the USA shortly after WWII).
p.21 #16 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
I believe that the EU is introducing legislation which would make it illegal to sell appliances which cannot be serviced. This is, in my opinion, a good step in the right direction and would motivate manufacturers to put more attention into the construction of the devices so that they can be serviced and this in turn would make it less likely that they end up as e-waste sooner than they are worn out beyond repair.
Some lens and flash manufacturers do not provide any service facilities and basically if the item is broken it needs to be replaced. This is really unfortunate though they seem to be very popular due to low cost. Although I know that some have had bad experiences with Nikon service, but I have had generally very positive experience and most things that have been broken have been repairable, though unfortunately in some cases the service has been replacement of most of the internal parts (which may be a practical solution for the manufacturer but it's not very ecological).
p.21 #17 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
Steve Spencer wrote:
I totally agree with how you see things. I think about 80% of sales of cameras will be mirrorless within 5 years, but even 10 or 15 years out there will be a niche market for DSLRs. I don't think DSLRs are going away and just because most sales will be mirrorless in 5 years, doesn't at all mean most people using an ILC will be using a mirrorless. For awhile there will be tremendous bargains for those choosing a DSLR. I think it will take 8 to 10 years for the majority of people using an ILC to be using a mirrorless even though even now the majority of sales are of mirrorless. I also agree that I don't think mirrorless is going to grow the overall market for ILCs, which may if anything gets smaller. I see two opposing forces affecting the overall market. Growth will be fostered by the growing middle class in China and India which make up almost a third of the world's population, but growth will also be stymied by new and for many people compelling ways to take photos--phones being the obvious one but probably not the only one. These other options will be a lot cheaper than ILCs and many people will find them adequate. I think for people who see photography as an art form, however, some sort of ILC or similar sort of shooting platform will be compelling for a lot of years going forward. I think this base that has been around for decades will be the core market going forward....Show more →
Question is how much advancement will DSLR's see going forward? With a shrinking market I just can't see R&D being equally split between mirrorless ( growing ) and DSLR ( shrinking ).
May 09, 2019 at 01:04 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.21 #18 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
1bwana1 wrote:
The latest from BNC on camera sales in Japan.
Sony, dominating and growing market share.
Canon, made a big play for volume at the low end which appears to be fading.
Nikon, at the bottom by a huge margin with no growth. Almost a non player market share wise. Sad....
What does Canon need to do to establish the market dominance in FF mirrorless that it traditionally held in DSLR? It looks like Canon's play of less camera for less money is not working.
What can Nikon do to compete, and not end up a small niche player in FF mirrorless. The Z cameras are clearly not doing well in the market. It looks like Nikon's play of less camera (still a pretty good one though) for more money is also not working.
I don't think lower price is a good strategy for mirrorless. Mirrorless is currently a lot of more skilled users, often able to pay more for cameras, imo.
Honestly it seems like you have haves and have nots, in this country, and the "haves" have the money, and want status, higher quality, etc. Read something on here about the D850 making Nikon a lot of money, and it's not an inexpensive camera.
I think the Rebels & aps are the excellent budget line.
As far as sensor innovation, seriously, how good were the sensors, even years ago?
Idk that there's that big a difference between 18mp & 24mp aps cameras, I was shooting a 60D a few months ago, and it seemed pretty good. Came out in 2010, almost a decade old. 7D even older.
Sure, 24mp is better, high iso looks a bit better but 18 to 24mp isn't really expected to make a big difference in resolution. Low iso DR supposed to be better. But, even at this late date, not really sure how much better the new sensors are than the (OK someone's going to scream at me for saying this ) decade old 7D.
And one major advantage of FF is high iso. The original 6D looked good in this regard and it came out in 2012 or so.
So that might have something to do with sensor innovation. And idk that anyone else has more than 24mp on aps, either. I don't think fuji and nikon have more than that at this point
I see the R more as getting the ball rolling, foot-in-the-door (although it looks like an excellent camera) than the 100% pinnacle of technology. Thinking we'll see a significantly better new version in the next year or two,
p.21 #20 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
AmbientMike wrote:
I don't think lower price is a good strategy for mirrorless. Mirrorless is currently a lot of more skilled users, often able to pay more for cameras, imo.
Honestly it seems like you have haves and have nots, in this country, and the "haves" have the money, and want status, higher quality, etc. Read something on here about the D850 making Nikon a lot of money, and it's not an inexpensive camera.
I think the Rebels & aps are the excellent budget line.
As far as sensor innovation, seriously, how good were the sensors, even years ago?
Idk that there's that big a difference between 18mp & 24mp aps cameras, I was shooting a 60D a few months ago, and it seemed pretty good. Came out in 2010, almost a decade old. 7D even older.
Sure, 24mp is better, high iso looks a bit better but 18 to 24mp isn't really expected to make a big difference in resolution. Low iso DR supposed to be better. But, even at this late date, not really sure how much better the new sensors are than the (OK someone's going to scream at me for saying this ) decade old 7D.
And one major advantage of FF is high iso. The original 6D looked good in this regard and it came out in 2012 or so.
So that might have something to do with sensor innovation. And idk that anyone else has more than 24mp on aps, either. I don't think fuji and nikon have more than that at this point
I see the R more as getting the ball rolling, foot-in-the-door (although it looks like an excellent camera) than the 100% pinnacle of technology. Thinking we'll see a significantly better new version in the next year or two, ...Show more →
But there multiple levels of sensor innovation. The A9 does not have high mpix nor that great DR...but it’s one beast of a lens for processing and moving pixels. If CaNikon want to compete with a mirrorless D5 or 1DX2, it is in sensor development.
) decade old 7D.