Where does an 800 lb gorilla sit in a room with no mirrors?

[Jorgen Udvang]

This is, if my memory serves me right, what an 800 lbs gorilla looks like:

 

[pegelli]

This is, if my memory serves me right, what an 800 lbs gorilla looks like:

That's always a great graph, puts some perspective and reality in the discussion. I wonder if we'll be able to see a bump in July/August due to the A7Rii. Guess we'll know that in a few weeks.

 

[Annna T]

That's always a great graph, puts some perspective and reality in the discussion. I wonder if we'll be able to see a bump in July/August due to the A7Rii. Guess we'll know that in a few weeks.

A bulge in July-August ? They are not shipping fast enough for that. Way to difficult to get at, at least here were I live. Plus given the price, it isn't as if they were targetting the masses.

 

[4season]

This is, if my memory serves me right, what an 800 lbs gorilla looks like:

Your gorilla has lost a lot of weight lately.

 

[Tim]

While I second most of what you say - especially when it comes to what C/N can doe when they feel the time is right - I am absolutely not with you WRT Pentax/Ricoh!

They have shown in the past that they do not follow up the right way, have a miserable sales structure at least here in Europe and I would rate them not any better than Sony WRT interest in photography.

This is some of the worst commentary I have read in this thread.
Europe like America is not the whole world. To rate them low just because you don't like their sales structure only in Europe is just ridiculous.
Ricoh is one of the few companies to post on their website pages about their Engineers who ARE photographers explaining the design of the GR Digitals and the enjoyment from their work. Ricoh like Fuji bring out firmware after firmware improving the functionality of their camera even after the model has been replaced, and they do this time after time. I rarely see anything like this from C/N.

If using your standards of judgement about manufacturers who care about photography, then we should all be using Fuji.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Your gorilla has lost a lot of weight lately.

That is natural. The transition from film to digital is over and DSLR cameras were already more than good enough five years ago so the market is saturated. If photography was only a hobby for me, I would still be using a D700 only, or a GH3.

The mirrorless market is getting saturated as well. You can buy anything from pocket sized cameras to technical monsters that do excellent images as well as 4K video. Those who own an A7 II, a GH4 or an E-M1 have little need for upgrade. Although some are still going from DSLR to mirrorless, the trend must have slowed down to a virtual halt if you read the statistics, and some, like me, have actually gone back.

Those who wait for the final transition due to some exceptional technical improvement may have to wait for a long time. Electronic viewfinders will become better, but they are already very good. The problem is that they will always represent an artificial curtain between the photographer and the subject. Batteries will become better to, and power consumption may be reduced, but an LCD will never consume less power than a pentaprism.

DSLR cameras are improving too of course, making the competition harder. The D810 was a surprisingly large step from the D800, and one year after, it's still a camera that is very hard to beat when it comes to total usability.

Add to all this the fact that I suspect an increasing number of people are getting fed up with consumerism. They want other values in their lives than shopping. When the equipment they just upgraded to hasn't contributed dramatically to the photography experience in several generations of cameras, spending the money on other things, like travel or food, is more tempting. The marketing departments will of course do what they can to tempt the infidels, but to me, it looks like they are running out of steam. They keep repeating themselves.

 

[f/otographer]

So after someone gave me a polite explaining of what Jack most likely meant by his post and my possible (or actual) over reaction to it, I hereby retract any statement that I will be leaving GDPI. And thanks to the users who pm'd me asking not to leave, especially over something so silly. However, I still believe that one should be judged on the quality of ones postings. Not the quantity. Any troll can spam out post after post. Forums are full of them, including this one.

Now back to business.

This is, if my memory serves me right, what an 800 lbs gorilla looks like:

I don't think this graph shows anything that anyone here is not aware of. Traditional DSLR's are outselling mirrorless by a wide margin. And it clearly shows where we have been but does not paint a clear picture of where we are heading. Now speculating on the future is just that, speculation. But it would be hubris to believe that the status quo will be maintained irregardless of any outside forces acting upon it.

So here is how I interpret this chart. First of all, you have a relatively new mirrorless technology (like within the last 5-8 years or so, 11 if you count the Epson digital RF) going up against a market of entrenched digital imaging machines which had their beginnings back in the film days of the mid 80's. And an important fact not be overlooked is that mirrorless FF cameras exploiting high quality EVF's and all sorts of interesting and new technology have been available for just about 2 years. Talk about a infant David product going up against the entrenched giant of Goliath DSLR's.

Of course the DSLR will show current market dominance over the new product. How could it not? It will continue to do so for many, many years to come as a majority of professional photographers are using these cameras as their bread and butter machines. But if you put your ear to the ground or your eye to the keyhole (or whatever silly metaphor you like) and actually listen to the subtle clues then you can begin to posit that a change is not just coming, but beginning right here, right now. The easy clue that anyone should get is that once technology is out of the bag, there is no way in hell to put it back in. Take the EVF for example. Most diehard pro photogs today (and there have been several in this thread) say that there is no way they will choose an EVF over an Optical. And there is nothing wrong with that. But we are forgetting the up and coming generation of photographers who will replace us. The ones going to school for photography right now. Or in high school right now. Or in elementary school right now. They will not be weaned on the subtleties of the optical VF and will instead expect the best that technology has to offer them. They have also grown up, I mean from the get go, with a cell phone or tablet in their hand. They are familiar and comfortable with little TV screens in their hands and when these photographers mature into the market place I wager that most of them will want to see another little TV screen when they look into their camera, along with all of the useful information and exposure options clearly visible. These photographers will expect professional quality mirrorless cameras.

What is also interesting about this chart is that mirrorless is holding its own. While the compact market has tanked and people rely on cell phones as their primary imaging device sale of mirrorless are doing quite well. Im pretty sure the market is driven more by enthusiasts at this point but the number of pros who are making the switch, and doing so publicly, is increasing. Just google it. There has also been quite a lot of discussion on the force of mirrorless in the prof market recently on many podscasts. If you don't already listen to the TWIP podcast (This Week In Photo) then I highly recommend it.

Change is coming whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not. I have to accept the fact that my next high end mirrorless will probably have 4k, which I neither need nor want.

I don't expect anyone to share my view on this. I am not trying to convince anyone that this camera is better then that one, or that my version of the future is 100% gonna happen. It is what I believe, and you are neither required nor expected to share it. But I do fervently hope that Canon will enter into the mirrorless market soon with a high end device supported by Canons legendary service. I cant say this loudly enough....I believe Canon can build a better mirrorless system then Sony and I want it in my hands now.

Here's an idea. How about everybody interested in Canon (or Nikon) making a pro level mirrorless chime in with a wish list of what you would like to see. And I mean anything...form factor, sensor type(FF or crop), lenses, flange distance....whatever you can think of. And I suppose it doesn't even have to be limited to Canon or Nikon.

I want to see Fuji skip the whole FF thing and go straight to a pro level mirrorless medium format camera with great set of prime lenses in something about the size or a little bigger then an a7. Talk about my dream camera.

 

[dandrewk]

[HR][/HR]

DSLR cameras are improving too of course, making the competition harder. The D810 was a surprisingly large step from the D800, and one year after, it's still a camera that is very hard to beat when it comes to total usability.

Seriously? The single "surprisingly large step" being a shutter mechanism that doesn't spray oil on the sensor? That's HUGE!

 

[Tim]

What surprises me about those that don't like mirrorless is they are happy to make an image using an optical viewfinder but they only ever look at the resulting output on an LCD screen or on paper. But they don't want to look at a LCD screen to make the image while using the camera?

How often do you look at the final image output using an optical viewfinder? A: Never.

 

[PeterA]

What surprises me about those that don't like mirrorless is they are happy to make an image using an optical viewfinder but they only ever look at the resulting output on an LCD screen or on paper. But they don't want to look at a LCD screen to make the image while using the camera?

How often do you look at the final image output using an optical viewfinder? A: Never.

I much prefer reflected via mirror or rangefinder view - because it is clearer/cleaner/crisper/sharper - I do appreciate some of the benefits of EVF though - focus peeking and amount of information ala HUD can be useful and no mirror CLUNK can be a real bonus...it all depends on what one is making a photograph of where the exact benefits/costs actually fall ...

I do believe that a camera has idiosyncratic utility to each user - different marginal utility for each feature benefit according to individual indifference curves..

however all that being said ( basically - photographers as opposed to gear fetishists) will and do use what they like using...

I think your point above hilarious. What does a monitor looking at an image have to do with the capture process ? Nothing. Or are you accusing people who prefer optical finders of some form of techno retardation - ludditism? Funny dude very funny.

 

[PeterA]

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/image-presentation/


I do like the picture of the week idea

Well do something about it...:ROTFL:

 

[Tim]

I much prefer reflected via mirror or rangefinder view - because it is clearer/cleaner/crisper/sharper - I do appreciate some of the benefits of EVF though - focus peeking and amount of information ala HUD can be useful and no mirror CLUNK can be a real bonus...it all depends on what one is making a photograph of where the exact benefits/costs actually fall ...

I do believe that a camera has idiosyncratic utility to each user - different marginal utility for each feature benefit according to individual indifference curves..

however all that being said ( basically - photographers as opposed to gear fetishists) will and do use what they like using...

I think your point above hilarious. What does a monitor looking at an image have to do with the capture process ? Nothing. Or are you accusing people who prefer optical finders of some form of techno retardation - ludditism? Funny dude very funny.

I am glad there are a few laughs for you here. Often I click away from this site dejected. :facesmack:

Peter I am in no way making any accusations of any kind. What I typed was about me and my understanding.
I've been a photographer for over 40 years and used OVFs for a looong while.

For ME,The monitor has plenty to do with the process as a whole digitally. To separate them is just silly to ME. ME, I can't seriously separate the monitor OR paper from the image. Whats the point of making images if you don't look at them? I can't see your resultant images using an OVF can I?

I love the X100, great camera IMO, slow focus and all. But when using the OVF I got this lovely clear image (no argument there) during the taking process only to be less impressed with what I saw on my LCD afterwards. In other words it was not WYSIWYG. For ME this ruined up my expectations. The OVF is a tool but it in no way can anyone argue it accurately represents the final output. I occasionally use a OVF but now have to adapt my expectations, its less accurate FOR ME.

I am very much in the "what suits you, use it" crowd.
Users can use what they like and I am happy for them. But I'll enjoy their output on.... A monitor or paper not a OVF.
I'm out of this thread from here on....

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well do something about it...:ROTFL:

I'm not the programming guy here. Lol

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Change is coming whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not.

Oh? Really? Not for me. If I don't like the change, I don't buy into it. That "whether we like it or not" thing is something corporations try to convince us about, and very successfully so. For me, that has stopped in most areas. I decide what changes I'm going to adapt, and if my current supplier insist on change that I don't want, I change supplier. When conservative suppliers are drive out of the market, which very nearly happened with Leica a few years ago, I buy second hand (which I mostly do anyway).

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

[HR][/HR]

Seriously? The single "surprisingly large step" being a shutter mechanism that doesn't spray oil on the sensor? That's HUGE!

You're thinking about the D600/610. The D810 brought:

- Less noisy shutter (and much less noisy than most mirrorless shutters, in spite of flip-flopping the mirror)
- Better low ISO, extended down to ISO 32
- Better video with much better auto ISO for video
- Low contrast option
- Improved ergonomics
- Better AF with the option of clustered AF points

etc.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

So after someone gave me a polite explaining of what Jack most likely meant by his post and my possible (or actual) over reaction to it, I hereby retract any statement that I will be leaving GDPI. And thanks to the users who pm'd me asking not to leave, especially over something so silly. However, I still believe that one should be judged on the quality of ones postings. Not the quantity. Any troll can spam out post after post. Forums are full of them, including this one.

Now back to business.



I don't think this graph shows anything that anyone here is not aware of. Traditional DSLR's are outselling mirrorless by a wide margin. And it clearly shows where we have been but does not paint a clear picture of where we are heading. Now speculating on the future is just that, speculation. But it would be hubris to believe that the status quo will be maintained irregardless of any outside forces acting upon it.

So here is how I interpret this chart. First of all, you have a relatively new mirrorless technology (like within the last 5-8 years or so, 11 if you count the Epson digital RF) going up against a market of entrenched digital imaging machines which had their beginnings back in the film days of the mid 80's. And an important fact not be overlooked is that mirrorless FF cameras exploiting high quality EVF's and all sorts of interesting and new technology have been available for just about 2 years. Talk about a infant David product going up against the entrenched giant of Goliath DSLR's.

Of course the DSLR will show current market dominance over the new product. How could it not? It will continue to do so for many, many years to come as a majority of professional photographers are using these cameras as their bread and butter machines. But if you put your ear to the ground or your eye to the keyhole (or whatever silly metaphor you like) and actually listen to the subtle clues then you can begin to posit that a change is not just coming, but beginning right here, right now. The easy clue that anyone should get is that once technology is out of the bag, there is no way in hell to put it back in. Take the EVF for example. Most diehard pro photogs today (and there have been several in this thread) say that there is no way they will choose an EVF over an Optical. And there is nothing wrong with that. But we are forgetting the up and coming generation of photographers who will replace us. The ones going to school for photography right now. Or in high school right now. Or in elementary school right now. They will not be weaned on the subtleties of the optical VF and will instead expect the best that technology has to offer them. They have also grown up, I mean from the get go, with a cell phone or tablet in their hand. They are familiar and comfortable with little TV screens in their hands and when these photographers mature into the market place I wager that most of them will want to see another little TV screen when they look into their camera, along with all of the useful information and exposure options clearly visible. These photographers will expect professional quality mirrorless cameras.

What is also interesting about this chart is that mirrorless is holding its own. While the compact market has tanked and people rely on cell phones as their primary imaging device sale of mirrorless are doing quite well. Im pretty sure the market is driven more by enthusiasts at this point but the number of pros who are making the switch, and doing so publicly, is increasing. Just google it. There has also been quite a lot of discussion on the force of mirrorless in the prof market recently on many podscasts. If you don't already listen to the TWIP podcast (This Week In Photo) then I highly recommend it.

Change is coming whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not. I have to accept the fact that my next high end mirrorless will probably have 4k, which I neither need nor want.

I don't expect anyone to share my view on this. I am not trying to convince anyone that this camera is better then that one, or that my version of the future is 100% gonna happen. It is what I believe, and you are neither required nor expected to share it. But I do fervently hope that Canon will enter into the mirrorless market soon with a high end device supported by Canons legendary service. I cant say this loudly enough....I believe Canon can build a better mirrorless system then Sony and I want it in my hands now.

Here's an idea. How about everybody interested in Canon (or Nikon) making a pro level mirrorless chime in with a wish list of what you would like to see. And I mean anything...form factor, sensor type(FF or crop), lenses, flange distance....whatever you can think of. And I suppose it doesn't even have to be limited to Canon or Nikon.

I want to see Fuji skip the whole FF thing and go straight to a pro level mirrorless medium format camera with great set of prime lenses in something about the size or a little bigger then an a7. Talk about my dream camera.

All this would make sense if the mirrorless market didn't look increasingly saturated. The curves of mirrorless mostly follow those of DSLR, and that's a very bad sign for manufacturers of mirrorless cameras. With lower production numbers (lower total sales volume and higher number of suppliers), plus probably higher development costs, that means lower profit if any at all for Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and Samsung. The only reason why mirrorless cameras survive in the market at all is probably because it represents a tiny niche for the companies involved. It's not even close to being their core business. The disadvantage is that it's an easy product to ax if the going gets tough.

Remember also that, although Canon and Nikon are very small players in the mirrorless market, they do make mirrorless cameras, and at least in Nikon's case, they are rather advanced. That means that they have done their homework and continue to develop the concept. If the market changes, they will be able to come up with a product with a larger sensor relatively fast. I have predicted earlier that this could happen within the first half of 2016. Then the question will be: If Canon and Nikon both launch full frame mirrorless cameras that are as good as or better than the Sony A7R II and with adapters that offer full compatibility with older lenses, what will Sony do then? Their market share in the mirrorless market would be reduced overnight to a tiny fraction of what it is today, since it would be no point for current Canon and Nikon users to buy a Sony camera due to compatibility issues with legacy lenses. Their mirrorless camera division will be fighting for their survival, plain and simple.

Maybe Sony users should be happy for the status quo.

 

[f/otographer]

Oh? Really? Not for me. If I don't like the change, I don't buy into it. That "whether we like it or not" thing is something corporations try to convince us about, and very successfully so. For me, that has stopped in most areas. I decide what changes I'm going to adapt, and if my current supplier insist on change that I don't want, I change supplier. When conservative suppliers are drive out of the market, which very nearly happened with Leica a few years ago, I buy second hand (which I mostly do anyway).

I think you misunderstand me. I meant change is coming to the established markets due to continued advancements in technology and a changing (over time) user base. Which doesn't take a crystal ball to predict, just common sense. And you are entirely right. The personal choices you make can always, to an extent at least, mitigate the effects of change from larger, external forces. People still shoot with film and how many times have we heard 'film is dead'? Hell, people still shoot with collodion wet plates....

 

[f/otographer]

All this would make sense if the mirrorless market didn't look increasingly saturated. The curves of mirrorless mostly follow those of DSLR, and that's a very bad sign for manufacturers of mirrorless cameras. With lower production numbers (lower total sales volume and higher number of suppliers), plus probably higher development costs, that means lower profit if any at all for Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and Samsung. The only reason why mirrorless cameras survive in the market at all is probably because it represents a tiny niche for the companies involved. It's not even close to being their core business. The disadvantage is that it's an easy product to ax if the going gets tough.

Remember also that, although Canon and Nikon are very small players in the mirrorless market, they do make mirrorless cameras, and at least in Nikon's case, they are rather advanced. That means that they have done their homework and continue to develop the concept. If the market changes, they will be able to come up with a product with a larger sensor relatively fast. I have predicted earlier that this could happen within the first half of 2016. Then the question will be: If Canon and Nikon both launch full frame mirrorless cameras that are as good as or better than the Sony A7R II and with adapters that offer full compatibility with older lenses, what will Sony do then? Their market share in the mirrorless market would be reduced overnight to a tiny fraction of what it is today, since it would be no point for current Canon and Nikon users to buy a Sony camera due to compatibility issues with legacy lenses. Their mirrorless camera division will be fighting for their survival, plain and simple.

Maybe Sony users should be happy for the status quo.

I don't know if I quite buy into the 'mirrorless is saturated' idea very strongly right now. Sure, there are plenty of choices to choose but the variety in those choices are staggering. You want a really compact, small sensored camera with a great line up of lenses. Then buy into Micro 4/3. How about apsc with a great lens selection and the ability to use speedboosters for vintage lenses. Fuji has you covered. How about Full frame mirrorless in your choice of budget friendly, resolution beast or Jedi Master see in the dark? Step right up to the Sony booth sir they have all three.

I do see where you are coming from though, and I don't expect all of the models/makers to survive a Canon or Nikon pro level revolution. No tears shed there, that's just business. But I firmly believe any saturation that may be in the market will be displaced as more users make the choice to use a mirrorless camera instead of a DSLR. We are in the beginning leg of that now and the going is slow, but over time I believe the migration from DSLR will more fully fill out the ranks and mirrorless will not be so niche. Every single advancement in our craft starts out as niche but slowly, to a lesser or greater degree, supplants the technology it is superior to or was made to replace. From fully manual film cameras to electronic cameras with auto exposure modes, from manual focus lenses to auto focus lenses, from film to digital...this analogy especially. The pundits of the day thought digital would never, could never replace film as the main form of image creation. There were just to many issues with it and it would never possibly resolve as well as film.

And here we are.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Digital cameras were disruptive technology that changed photograph forever, with much lower cost and better quality as a result. Mirrorless offers a smaller body and a different viewfinder and not much more. The sales development of mirrorless is very similar to that of tablet computers, another product that set out to revolutionise the world, but is being pushed from the below by great mobile phones and from above by smaller, lighter laptop computers that run circles around them when it comes to performance.

 

[dandrewk]

You're thinking about the D600/610. The D810 brought:

- Less noisy shutter (and much less noisy than most mirrorless shutters, in spite of flip-flopping the mirror)
- Better low ISO, extended down to ISO 32
- Better video with much better auto ISO for video
- Low contrast option
- Improved ergonomics
- Better AF with the option of clustered AF points

etc.

You're right (every once in a while ). I was confusing the D600/610.