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

[biglouis]

The only thing that matters, is if I can get my hands on a Zeiss Batis 25mm. I am starting to think it is a figment of my imagination.


Why am I posting this here? Good question, I have no idea.......:banghead:

A bit OT but my desire for the Batis 25mm has evaporated with the long wait and two things have lead me to cancel my pre-order. Firstly, the 24mm end of the 24-70 which I now use a lot. A versatile lens and good results stopped down. Secondly, I just obtained a FE 2/28. What a beauty of a lens. Awful RAW distortion but fully corrected in LR and the colouration from this lens is lovely. What the 35/2.8 should have been. I may be tempted by 25/2 when they finally become widely available but I am hoping in the meantime Zeiss or Sony will announce a fast 21mm prime which is what I really want.

LouisB

 

[fotografz]

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

I wonder what the breakdown of this chart would be?

For example, is GoPro counted amongst the Mirror-Less statistics? If the answer is yes for what is touted as "the top selling camera in the world", then there can't be much left for all the other mirror less models.

http://gizmodo.com/how-the-gopro-became-the-best-selling-camera-in-the-wor-1462288770

All that aside, a quick search of top selling cameras reveals that Canon and Nikon already make the more popular mirror-less cameras. So, if we divvy up the Mirror-less sector into cameras suited for advanced amateurs or Pros (like the A7 stuff from Sony), I suspect they'd barely be a blip on that chart … in the same way that a D810, Canon's latest 5D, or any pro spec DSLR would probably barely register on this chart, if at all.


Personally, I like this fellows' even handed take on the subject at hand:

http://www.slrlounge.com/dslr-vs-mirrorless-cameras-future-of-photography/

If one buys into that POV, then it seems co-existence is the foreseeable future.


Optional read: my personal approach to the subject:

Frankly, I do buy into co-existence, and that is my current state of trimmed down photographic gear as I retire/transition from semi-pro, to mostly personal photography. If I still shot weddings/events, I'd overwhelmingly be equipped with dual card DSLR gear sporting sophisticated lighting features. The Sony A7R never really made the cut.

My current kit: One B&W Leica mirror-less rangefinder with an OVF, one Sony A7R Mirrorless with EVF … one Leica S DSLR with an OVF (and a second S camera coming). Oh, and I can't exclude the iPhone. So, my eggs are not all in one basket, and I still like the notion of "Horses for Courses". In very few cases can one "system" fully take the place of the other.

The S camera is dual shutter, shoots to two cards, and has the biggest, cleanest and most realistic view-finder … neither of the others can do all that. I can use my Leica M 21/1.4 on the A7R without the clunky aux viewfinder that the M camera requires, and it is high res without the size of the S camera. The rangefinder provides a unique content oriented view of the world unfettered by focal length effects other than framing that the other two SLRs cannot. The iPhone wins based on … immediacy, being there, and instant sharing … so it always wins when high-aesthetics or making prints are less important. When I shoot with the Leica MM, the companion to it is the iPhone for the inevitable "color snap" opportunities that may arise while on a "serious" B&W hunting trip.



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

I quess that's the difference between needing to confirm what you are doing with the camera, and intuitively knowing. I think EVF cameras are a really cool teaching aid, but as far as being representative of what may get printed later, it hardly ranks as being better or worse than OVF.

- Marc

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Marc: I believe that list only contains mirrorless cameras with exchangeable lenses. I'm not sure if rangefinder cameras are included, but my guess is that they aren't, and that doesn't really matter, since the volume is so low anyway.

 

[pegelli]

Jorgen, a question on the graph (you seem to be adding these stats, so I hope you know the basis).

What you see in July 2015 is the green line at ~300.000 units and the orange line at ~1.000.000 units.

Does this mean there is a total of 1.000.000 units sold, of which 300.000 mirrorless and 700.000 DSLR (as stacked graphs) or is it 300.000 mirrorless sold vs. 1.000.000 DSLR's (two independent graphs using the same axis).

Hope you can help with this.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen, a question on the graph (you seem to be adding these stats, so I hope you know the basis).

What you see in July 2015 is the green line at ~300.000 units and the orange line at ~1.000.000 units.

Does this mean there is a total of 1.000.000 units sold, of which 300.000 mirrorless and 700.000 DSLR (as stacked graphs) or is it 300.000 mirrorless sold vs. 1.000.000 DSLR's (two independent graphs using the same axis).

Hope you can help with this.

Based on statistics that I've seen previously that these graphs are built on, it's 300,000 plus 1,000,000. The graphs appear on several websites now and then, but I believe they origins from a company in Germany that I can't remember the name of at the moment. It's a part of a much more extensive set of graphs.

 

[Steen]

Do the Graphs perhaps origin from CIPA ?

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201507_e.pdf

 

[pegelli]

Do the Graphs perhaps origin from CIPA ?
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201507_e.pdf

Thanks Jorgen and Steen, the numbers in the linked CIPA table indeed look very much like what's in the graph. According to the table it's 331.567 mirrorless vs. 967519 DSLR's in July 2015.
Bottom line, Non-reflex Interchangeable lens camera's is about 1/3 of DSLR shipments looking at January - July 2015 as a 6 month period.
It seems the 800 lb gorilla is happily enjoying his bananas

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say I agree with your analysis.

What I would add is that Canon can enter the market at a time of their choice. They are the leader in interchangable lens cameras. They can let Sony make the mistakes and do it right the first time.

I would think that Sony is the main actor in that market, as they are the only ones using full frame sensors. That said, smaller sensors make a lot of sense.

Regarding megapixels, I don't think you can have to many. With each technology we have some kind of optimum. Having more pixels is helpful in handling demosaic artefacts. Eventually, it may be possible that when we arrive at say 200 MP, simple bilinear interpolation may be good enough. In that case the in camera processing may be able to produce a 50 MP raw file without artefacts, while today's 16-80 MP raw files need advanced demosaic methods, making raw conversion a slow process. Jim Kasson has made some research on this and found that around two microns are needed for balanced performance on lenses like the Otus and we are quite a bit from that.

One of the reasons Canon can and should wait is that no one right now knows the optimum form factor for mirror less.

Sony A7 is a great success, but it is a small camera with big lenses. Does it has the right dimensions for the bayonet. Some smaller models are smaller than the bayonet, while the bayonet may be to crowded for a full frame sensor with large aperture lenses. So Canon can sit out Sony's mistakes and develop their systems once they see what sells.

Best regards
Erik

Apparently, quietly in the corner. Or even not at all. Which are not the traditional answers to this question.

I would like to discuss the 800lb gorilla that is not in the room. And by this I mean the seeming overwhelming reluctance of Canon to enter into the mirrorless market in any type of serious manner. The lackluster M/M2/M3 jokes notwithstanding.

Now you may think I am a bit silly to be posting a Canon question in the Sony forum but wait. There is method to the madness. For one thing I want to get the opinions of a serious cross section of mirrorless users who are experienced with this new technology and have shown themselves capable of producing beautiful art with it. That would be the majority of the Sony users here. For another, the Canon part of this forum gets very little play and I don't feel the answers from that forum alone would be as insightful or as well rounded as I am looking for.

I have actually been pondering Canons lack of seriousness concerning mirrorless cameras for some time now. I really love Canon as a company and have been anxiously awaiting for them to release a new from the ground up, kick *** mirrorless camera for some time now. A camera system that would compete head to head with the ever strengthening onslaught that is the a7 line. But month after month, year after year there is seeming apathy on the part of Big Red.

Then a few days ago the new hits. Canon is coming out with (soon) a 120mp DSLR. That's right....120mp. DSLR.

Now at first I wanted to praise Canon a little bit for having the balls to so greatly leap ahead in the MP war with both feet first. But as the news has sunk in over the last few days and I have really thought about it and there is something very much wrong with this.

Here's the problem. For Canon to seriously enter the mirrorless market with a new, professional quality mirrorless camera they are going to have to do something that they simply wont do. They are going to have to give up their current dominance of their lens line (think all those hundreds of EOS lenses) and start over with a new mount and a new line of lenses like everyone else has done. And the very thought of that is probably giving them fits. The sheer amount of R/D which will need to be spent to bring them up to even a fraction of their current lens choices might not even be in the company budget with the way the economy has been going.

So what is an 800lb gorilla to do to stay relevant against the stronger and stronger oncoming tide of Fuji X's and Sony Alphas? What can they possibly do save their treasured DSLR's and the total lens dominance they now have in their hand.

Why, they simply need to come up with a new sensor for the old camera and give it some stoopid amount of megapixels. Say around 120 or so. That should do it.

Im sorry, but I see this a Canons complete misreading of the next decade of camera design. Mirrorless is here to stay, DSLR's are anachronistic machines that are on the way out. Will they hang around for several more years in a last gasp of life? Yes, I truly believe they will. There are to many pros still using them and to be honest they do get the job done. But the problem is that DSLR have basically matured as a platform. Whereas mirrorless is just at the beginning of its development cycle and has decades or research and advancements ahead of it. EVF's will get better and better, auto focus systems will mature, etc etc.

I think that Canon has blinders on and really believes that they can pull out this dog and pony show of 150mp while smiling and saying "See world, look at how cool DSLR's are. They are all the camera you will ever need". It is so much easier to do this then it is to actually sit down and design a new camera with a new set of lenses. The danger in being this moribund is that you will alienate your userbase by not having interesting and fresh new designs like the competition does.

And, on a technical side, have they considered what the 220mb files that this new camera produces are going to be like to work with? My god, the memory cards alone.....And lets not forget how even now high end machines can struggle with photo processing. Imagine the computing power you will need on your desk to work with files of this size. I have also read an interesting article suggesting that with such a high MP count diffraction is going to raise its ugly head much earlier in the aperture range then normal. Like say, around f/4. I seriously don't think Canon has thought this thru all the way.

Anyway, I would really like to hear everyones thoughts on Canon and their reluctance to produce a serious mirrorless camera. Again, I don't mean the M3. I mean getting serious about maturing a mirrorless camera line which has all the perks, designs and expectations of a professional level camera. Much like what Sony seems to be doing with the a7 line.

There is no reason that Canon cannot go head to head with Sony in this market. They are simply choosing not to.

Lets hear what you think.

 

[Steen]

Thanks Jorgen and Steen, the numbers in the linked CIPA table indeed look very much like what's in the graph. According to the table it's 331.567 mirrorless vs. 967519 DSLR's in July 2015.
Bottom line, Non-reflex Interchangeable lens camera's is about 1/3 of DSLR shipments looking at January - July 2015 as a 6 month period.
It seems the 800 lb gorilla is happily enjoying his bananas

You are welcome, Pegelli

Here's another link with some more CIPA graphs that clearly indicate the use of independent graphs using the same axis (not stacked).

Camera sales, May 2015 data, ??????????? - Personal View Talks

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Do the Graphs perhaps origin from CIPA ?

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201507_e.pdf

You are probably right, Steen. The "German confusion" probably comes from the fact that I first saw these data published via Photokina a year or three ago.

 

[tn1krr]

Hi,

I would say I agree with your analysis.

What I would add is that Canon can enter the market at a time of their choice. They are the leader in interchangable lens cameras. They can let Sony make the mistakes and do it right the first time.

Maybe check out the progression over last few years from CIPA numbers. DLSR sales are about -45% or so down in last 3 years, mirrorless is slightly up. So it is not like Canon is sailing smoothly, their camera business is hurting/stale while other units are doing nice. Check their quarterly reports. DSLR sales freefall that started a few years ago has stabilized quite a bit in last 12 months, but that is pretty much the only good news there is.

As for Canon being able to enter mirrorless FF on their convenience, I do not agree. If they were to enter today they would have lens disadvantage in comparison to Sony, outside the few low quality STM models Canon lens lineup us not that good for CDAF focusing (they do not have focus motors optimized for efficient small correction), that is the stuff that makes mirrorless magic happen like Eye-AF, superb accuracy and makes mirrorless AF tick in low light. The necessity of CDAF in mirrorless is caused by PDAF sensel size related physics (small on-sensor PDAF sensels not sensitive/accurate enough to drive these lenses efficiently in all the same conditions where huge cross-type mirror-PDAF AF sensels can) so it is not gonna change overnight. This in addition to the fact that Canon struggles to produce up to date sensors even to their mirror-cameras, with mirrorless sensor development is even more crucial.

IMO Canon and Nikon are now in position where Nokia (I'm from Finland so I had 1st row seat to follow their fall) was several (7-8) years ago. They have market leadership, but they present very little innovation, seem arrogant and are ignoring that trends are clearly pointing to direction they are not moving into.

 

[PeterA]

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....

Tim - I a confused here- by LCD are you saying on camera LCD- because I thought you were saying EVF helps you see your image on the monitor you do your post processing on better. Which I don't get.
anyway mate- as I said people will use whatever they liek to use and so they should.
Whatever works buddy.

-Pete

 

[fotografz]

Being the 800lb Gorilla, Canon probably could do anything they wanted to do. The question is probably more of a business one than a photographic one. Would Canon want to invest heavily in an existing concept for a rapidly changing consumer market? I would think that a more disruptive approach would better serve them … but only if and when they would need it.

The most disruptive technology in photography has been the cell phone, less so traditional cameras. I found an interesting tidbit on use rather than volume of sales: Apple dominates usage for obvious reasons.

However, Canon makes it into the top ten most used with four DSLRs (including the 5D-III!), and Nikon with one. Various Apple iPhone models fill all the other slots by frequency of photographic use (other cell phones are way down the list). This fits with another study that showed people chose DSLRs as their "more serious" camera in tandem with their cell phones.

http://bighugelabs.com/topcameras.php

It'd be interesting to speculate what type of disruptive photographic technology that could be on the horizon. Probably something that better fits with people's changing lives and how they interact with making images … perhaps more importantly, how they use those images.

Thoughts?

- Marc

 

[Jack]

Re a picture a week place, great idea! Here is one to start with! : http://www.getdpi.com/forum/artful-...ing-nsfw/56185-paw-picture-week-have-fun.html

 

[Chris Giles]

I don't think lenses are an issue for Canon in regards a mirrorless body. A lot of the A7 buzz is based on Canon lenses working quite well on the newer bodies via the metabones.

Canon already have a massive high quality and fast lens line up. They just have to release a kick *** mirrorless body in EF mount (or with functionality) and we're done. Imagine if they did drop a mirrorless rangefinder into the market with 2.8 zooms available and 1.2 85's.

 

[Arne Hvaring]

What puzzles me is why Canon and Nikon don't bring out a separate high resolving EVF to mount in the hotshoe. In one simple ( I believe) stroke they would have improved and extended the usability of their DSLRs considerably. It would give us the best of both worlds, OVF for general use and the EVF when needed, like high precision manual focusing. Actually both companies already have this solution implemented in other camera lines, so why we can't get it in the DSLR realm beats me.

 

[dandrewk]

Being the 800lb Gorilla, Canon probably could do anything they wanted to do. The question is probably more of a business one than a photographic one. Would Canon want to invest heavily in an existing concept for a rapidly changing consumer market? I would think that a more disruptive approach would better serve them … but only if and when they would need it.


- Marc

General Motors. Blackberry. Kodak. IBM (personal computers). To name a few, and all had the same corporate "strategy". Brand loyalty only goes so far. After awhile, even the most confirmed fanboys/fangirls feel they've been deserted.

 

[hcubell]

Hi,

Sony A7 is a great success, but it is a small camera with big lenses. Does it has the right dimensions for the bayonet. Some smaller models are smaller than the bayonet, while the bayonet may be to crowded for a full frame sensor with large aperture lenses. So Canon can sit out Sony's mistakes and develop their systems once they see what sells.

Best regards
Erik

The Sony A7 series of cameras are only small cameras with big lenses if you choose to put big lenses on them. The FE 35mm 2.8, the FE 55 1.8 and the FE 24-70 4.0 are quite small. Try them and see what you are missing. I generally photograph landscapes and have no need for high speed lenses. Fast lenses equal big lenses. Lloyd Chambers is now championing the concept of a very high quality and very expensive series of manual lenses that are 2.8 or 3.5 and have an Otus level of quality. I completely agree. Only Sony can give you a choice. Small camera body. Small and high quality lenses when I want them. Bigger and faster lenses with excellent AF when I need them. High ISO when I need it. IBIS when I need it. Excellent manual focus with EVF when I want it. Excellent Phase Detect AF when I want it. Excellent dynamic range.
The problem for a Canon or Nikon that is incapable of innovating but watches what Sony does and then wants to emulate it is that Sony innovates so fast Canikon's eyes are rolling in their heads. Sony keeps moving the goal line on them.

 

[fotografz]

General Motors. Blackberry. Kodak. IBM (personal computers). To name a few, and all had the same corporate "strategy". Brand loyalty only goes so far. After awhile, even the most confirmed fanboys/fangirls feel they've been deserted.

"fanboys' is a term used by a very small % who indulge in photography at this level of quality, intensity and expense.

The analogy of other failed manufacturers doesn't quite work here. American car makers failed on a number of fronts lead by quality and followed by quality of ownership experience/service, and lack of relevant innovation. Kodak failed to see the importance of a disruptive technological change … namely the digital revolution in all forms of communications (which then swiftly effected professional and personal photography). IBM and Blackberry failed to see the blending of personal and business into one technology … Apple didn't really innovate anything new, they made it better and more relevant … while doing it with great design and style.

Relatively speaking, Canon produces a quality product, has an established service path, and produces digital imagery that does not differ from Sony. The only difference is the camera size and EVF. That IS a difference but not a disruptive one like film to digital, or the camera in an iPhone.

That why I wondered out loud as to what may be the next "disruptive" step.

- Marc

 

[MrSmith]

just a little update on my previous post about Sony in the pro/London/rental market. I was buying a camera bag in one of the main lighting and rental outlets off the high st today and while chatting about the bag I was buying I mentioned that I needed room for a cambo actus, A7r and lenses in a carry-on bag when flying.

"We have been approached by Sony asking us to stock their products"

So they are looking to be taken seriously in that market even though it's a small one compared to the high st/amateur. A few years ago those 3 rental houses would think you were mad to suggest they would have Sony mirrorless cameras on their shelves in a couple of years.