The upcomming Dead of EOS DSLR / EF-line

[JonSnow]

Lol. Sure, quoting yourself out of context really makes your case.

Fine...2017. In 2017, MILC shipments managed to struggle back to 2012 levels, helped by the recovery boost after the 2016 earthquake.

But you're right, MILC market share appears to be increasing. For 2016 it was 27%, and 2017 it was 35%. However, after the first 7 months of 2018 it's 37%. Oops, there goes your trend (remember that earthquake boost I mentioned?). At the YTD rate, MILC share should equal DSLR share in 2021 or so. That's equal market share, not the end of the DSLR.

As your namesake says, Winter is Coming. Just not very soon. As was said to your namesake, "You know nothing, Jon Snow."

where did i say that mirrorless market share has risen constantly over the past 5 years?
the only one quoting out of context is you.

you are maybe so old that the past is the only thing you think of. but the past is obviously not the future.
i speak about the future with nikon and canon as players in the FF mirrorless market.
with new mounts and some innovations coming to mirrorless only.

both mirrorless cameras are not even available on the market today.

you speak about a past where canon and nikon did everything to protect their DSLR sales.


Mehr als die Vergangenheit interessiert mich die Zukunft, denn in ihr gedenke ich zu leben.

MILC share should equal DSLR share in 2021 or so. That's equal market share, not the end of the DSLR.

who exactly said the DSLR will be dead in 3 years? it wasn´t me... i am sure.


by the way one country where mirrorless grew constantly is thailand.
thailand’s mirrorless camera market has seen consecutive year on year double digit growth for the past five years.

According to insights from a GfK consumer study on mirrorless cameras, 10% of the online population in Thailand had purchased a mirrorless camera in the past year, and the intention to purchase one in the next 12 months is even higher, at 14%—an indication that the robust market condition is likely to continue.

“Mirrorless cameras are rising in popularity among photography enthusiasts who are interested to take high quality images as they are light, compact and easy to operate; as well as more affordable than the higher-end DSLR,” highlighted Gerard Tan, Senior Director, Technology Retail Tracking, GfK Asia. “It is also interesting to highlight that in Thailand, mirrorless cameras are increasingly desirable as they are akin to luxury goods, which consumers tend to acquire to achieve a certain social status.”

The consumer study revealed that two-thirds of mirrorless camera users are within the age range of 18 to 35 years of age, and three-fifth of those who have the intention to purchase also fall within this age bracket.

 

[fullstop]

As was said to your namesake, "You know nothing, Jon Snow."

reported. Incessant ad hominem attacks. Why can't you state your opinions and arguments without personal attacks?

 

[JonSnow]

reported. Incessant ad hominem attacks. Why can't you state your opinions and arguments without personal attacks?

yeah well i wondered about that too. seems to be a character trait of this user ,as far as i can tell from other posts he made.

a typical passive agressive behavior.

 

[Mikehit]

canon has produced mirrorless aps-c yes.... with sub par specs to protect the DSLR line.
bad or no EVF. point and shoot ergonomics.

Define 'bad EVF'.
Sub par specs? Yet it still the top selling mirrorless range in Japan. That suggests to em that all those specs in the Sony cameras mean squat to the average consumer

canon has to thank it´s reputation and low price that the EOS-M line sold so well.

So what you are saying is that the Sony camera is so good, so excellent.... that it cannot overcome the supposed reputation of the Canon range. I suggest to you that that shows how low down the scale of priorities the Sony technical gizmos are and that all people really care about is taking a picture.

many of the old canikon customer and many of the new customer will decide to buy mirrroless in the future.

Very likely. The question is whose will they buy

it´s only logical that EVF market share will rise and DSLR markt share will drop (as it has constantly over the last years).

The DSLR curve has plateaud and the mirrorless curve is not showing significant advance. Basing prediction on that is always risky.

i think that some people underestimate what it means that canon and nikon are now introducing FF mirrorless.

Really? Do you care to educate us and where people are gong wrong?

it´s a sign that mirrorless is "here" now.

Mirroless has been here for 10 years and Canon has been part of it for 5 years. Sony for 6.

the technology (EVF, AF etc) is now good enough to be in canikon pro cameras.

For a lot, not all, people.
The secret is putting that technology into a product people like using - and several DSLR users on this forum have tried it and they have found the advantages of mirrorless are not enough to outweigh the handling.

that will also push entry level mirrorless to be more "accepted" by soccer moms and dads who bought a KISS DSLR before.

Problem is those KISS users now find that their phone is good enough.

 

[JonSnow]

Define 'bad EVF'.
Sub par specs? Yet it still the top selling mirrorless range in Japan. That suggests to em that all those specs in the Sony cameras mean squat to the average consumer

when i drive on our autobahn i see way more VW golf than porsche.

EOS-M is cheaper. the line has cheaper models.
i bought my sister an EOS M100. it´s all she will ever need. doesn´t make it a camera i would buy.
sony would need an entry level model around 330 euro like the canons.

the brand name (as i already said) plays a role.

but that all doesn´t mean that I would prefer an EOS M10 over a sony A6500.

but i thought this discussion is about mirrorless vs. DSLR??
not sony mirrorless vs. canon mirrorless???

Really? Do you care to educate us and where people are gong wrong?

i think i already did that. and time will prove that i am right.

So what you are saying is that the Sony camera is so good, so excellent.... that it cannot overcome the supposed reputation of the Canon range. I suggest to you that that shows how low down the scale of priorities the Sony technical gizmos are and that all people really care about is taking a picture.

canon and nikon have a large userbase. for the uphill battle sony had to face they are doing pretty good.
if sonys claim is correct they have overtaken canon in the american market (FF).

that´s pretty impressive i would say.

canons EOS R mirrorless will push back. i am sure.
but this is DSLR v.s mirrorless. instead you try to make it sony vs. canon (old habits are hard to kill i guess? ).

Mirroless has been here for 10 years and Canon has been part of it for 5 years. Sony for 6.

as i wrote, canon with mostly sub par cheap models.

The secret is putting that technology into a product people like using - and several DSLR users on this forum have tried it and they have found the advantages of mirrorless are not enough to outweigh the handling.

and what kind of percentage would that be overall?

some still have vinyl players.

i did not like EVF either. the sonys are to small for my taste.

but the latest generation of EVF brings more advantages than disadvantages.
the EOS R seem to be of good size and handling.

 

[Kit.]

when i drive on our autobahn i see way more VW golf than porsche.

I would put it this way: when I drive on our autobahns, I see more Cayennes than Caymans.

 

[JonSnow]

I would put it this way: when I drive on our autobahns, I see more Cayennes than Caymans.

when i visit sylt that could be true.


when we think back the same kind of arguments came from people who where 60 years old when digital cameras made their entry.

"film will never die".

well it´s is not completely dead but i would call it a zombie.

the people who are 60 now have the same nostalgic view i guess.
and like the film guys back then... some of their arguments are true.. at least for a while.

"film has a higher resolution than digital files"... true back than.
"film will always have an advantage because it has a higher resolution" ... wrong.

"colors look better on film" .... true back than.
"film will always look better because of the color rendition".... wrong.

today a technology will maybe not die completely.
i have friend who still use floppys to store TXT files and i have friends who shoot occasionally on film.

but i have no friends who watch the latest movies on betamax or VHS.
some may keep the recorder to watch old family videos.

the DSLR will go the way of the DODO just like other technology.
a small percentage will use it for notalgic reasons. just as i collect roleiflex cameras.

 

[scyrene]

well not as weak as your try.
if your unable to find arguments pro and contra and make up your mind i pity you.. but i am sure not supporting your lazyness.

past sales numbers are sure not more convincing arguments for future developments than the extrapolation of current developments.
if that would be the case you would be the guy that predicted DVD would never replaced VHS and we would still all listen to vinyl in 2018.


ps:

its´ strange that some peope here can´t have a discussion without making it personal on some levels. it´s a bad character trait.
if you want to talk about some points you don´t agree with, mention them.

What's personal about it? You sound defensive. But your evidence is slight and your analogies poor, so I'm not surprised you have both resorted to personal comments (see quote below) whilst simultaneously claiming you've been personally attacked. I see this a lot online, it's not worth engaging with.

you are maybe so old that the past is the only thing you think of.

 

[Mikehit]

canon and nikon have a large userbase. for the uphill battle sony had to face they are doing pretty good.
if sonys claim is correct they have overtaken canon in the american market (FF).
that´s pretty impressive i would say.

I don't think even Sony are really claiming that, and won't until they have long term data. Impressive? I'd say "file under M for m'eh"

as i wrote, canon with mostly sub par cheap models.

You say that this is not a Canon vs Sony yet keep referring to M series as sub par. Sub par to what if not referring to Sony?

but the latest generation of EVF brings more advantages than disadvantages.

It is all personal preference

the people who are 60 now have the same nostalgic view i guess.
and like the film guys back then... some of their arguments are true.. at least for a while.

It is nothing like that at all - why do you assume people unimpressed with mirrorless are all 60-year olds stuck in their ways - you are probably now going to deny that is what you meant, but it is what you keep on saying.
I have been using DSLR since the 1970s

 

[JonSnow]

What's personal about it? You sound defensive. But your evidence is slight and your analogies poor, so I'm not surprised you have both resorted to personal comments (see quote below) whilst simultaneously claiming you've been personally attacked. I see this a lot online, it's not worth engaging with.

well i don´t take your bait. we both now who is the passive agressive one here. i just reacted to personal attacks with a little gibe.

try to stay on topic.

 

[JonSnow]

You say that this is not a Canon vs Sony yet keep referring to M series as sub par. Sub par to what if not referring to Sony?

fuji, olympus....

well i thought you see what i am after

your refered to canon having mirrorless cameras for a while .... i agreed.
canon has offered mirrorless to a certain kind of customer.
those who don´t want/need an EVF and are happy with point and shoot ergonomics.

that only changed with the M5 as i wrote. the first canon mirrorless i would even consider buying.

the point is that there was no good mirrorless from canon (similiar to a REBEL).

i would prefer a rebel DSLR to an EOS M too.
but not to a canon mirrorless similiar to the A6xxx series or fuji X series.

It is nothing like that at all - why do you assume people unimpressed with mirrorless are all 60-year olds stuck in their ways - you are probably now going to deny that is what you meant, but it is what you keep on saying.
I have been using DSLR since the 1970s

not all. a majority.

it s a fact that mirrorless sells best to people between 18-40.
surveys show that.. i already quoted one here in this thread.

in fact i offered more valid arguments than people arguing against me.

It is all personal preference

well in the end everything is.
film shooter will tell you that.
you will tell them digital offers instant results. they will tell you they love working for hours in the darkroom...

 

[Mikehit]

the point is that there was no good mirrorless from canon (similiar to a REBEL).

Yet thousands and thousands of people would disagree with you and demonstrated that by buying one. You want a discussion on DSLR vs mirrorless but keep on comparing to other mirroless. Please make up your mind.

it s a fact that mirrorless sells best to people between 18-40.

If you mean ILCs (as opposed to phones/compacts) then PLEASE show me the data. Or are you making it up?

 

[JonSnow]

Yet thousands and thousands of people would disagree with you and demonstrated that by buying one. You want a discussion on DSLR vs mirrorless but keep on comparing to other mirroless.

because it is important if something sucks or not for the acceptance in the market.
especially when BOTH market leaders are trying to PROTECT their DSLR lines.

IF canon had produced GOOD mirrorless, same price, features and ergonomics as REBEL DSLR, the market share of mirrorless would be even higher today.

it is not that hard to understand?

 

[neuroanatomist]

reported. Incessant ad hominem attacks. Why can't you state your opinions and arguments without personal attacks?

As I have stated previously, ridiculous claims invite ridicule.

 

[neuroanatomist]

because it is important if something sucks or not for the acceptance in the market.
especially when BOTH market leaders are trying to PROTECT their DSLR lines.

IF canon had produced GOOD mirrorless, same price, features and ergonomics as REBEL DSLR, the market share of mirrorless would be even higher today.

it is not that hard to understand?

Conceptually, it’s quite easy to understand. It’s alsoconceptually easy to understand that some people may believe the world is flat. In the case of a round earth, we have actual data to support that. But your ‘IF Canon had done X, people would have done Y and Z would have happened’ claim has no evidence to support it.

 

[JonSnow]

correct is you have no evidence to support your claim.

you have data from the past ... even data that shows how well vinyl records sold in the past.

while the decline of other technologys in the past at least shows a great probability that i am right.

But your ‘IF Canon had done X, people would have done Y and Z would have happened’ claim has no evidence to support it.

well looking at how people reacted to canons mirrorless releases i say my bet is on the safe side.
it is obvious that a lot of people wanted better mirrorless options from canon. they decide to buy a DSLR because canon did not offer such options.

when we see sales numbers of the EOS R and NIKON Z cameras i bet they show that my predictions are pretty good.

 

[JonSnow]

As I have stated previously, ridiculous claims invite ridicule.

yes of course everyone who disagrees with you has ridiclous opinions. why do you even participate in discussions?
you are obviously not interested in a discussion.

 

[Mikehit]

because it is important if something sucks or not for the acceptance in the market.
especially when BOTH market leaders are trying to PROTECT their DSLR lines.

IF canon had produced GOOD mirrorless, same price, features and ergonomics as REBEL DSLR, the market share of mirrorless would be even higher today.

it is not that hard to understand?

In whose opinion does it 'suck'? That is a purely subjective assessment that many thousands do not agree with. Since when were you (or I ) the arbiter of what is a 'good' camera'? Are you denying that if Sony could be a leading camera manufacturer by releasing something like the M5/M6 that they would not do so?

especially when BOTH market leaders are trying to PROTECT their DSLR lines.

You have absolutely zero evidence that that that was the design behind the M series. This is the Rebel series we are talking about for Christ's sake, not the premium xD series.

IF canon had produced GOOD mirrorless, same price, features and ergonomics as REBEL DSLR,

More likely to be that they cannot. Would it not make sense to test their tech on the lower end? Just like they are releasing the mid range R series first and not the main body?

it s a fact that mirrorless sells best to people between 18-40.
surveys show that.. i already quoted one here in this thread.

No you didn't. You made an unsupported claim.

in fact i offered more valid arguments than people arguing against me.

Really?

 

[JonSnow]

That is a purely subjective assessment that many thousands do not agree with. Since when were you (or I ) the arbiter of what is a 'good' camera'?

well you seem to be happy with point and shoot ergonomics and no EVF in a mirrorless. ...i am not.

for me the M models without a viewfinder are not a good mirrorless cameras. cameras that can compete with a REBEL.
and when we talk about the success of the KISS cameras and DSLR market share that is important.

that is why many people, who would have bought a "rebel like" canon mirrroless, then decided to buy a rebel instead of the less appealing EOS M.
you really want to tell me that you think that has no influence on how the mirrorless vs. DSLR numbers look?

and i dare to say the majority... outside this forum....will agree with me that the EOS M cameras are not good mirrorless cameras compared to the competition.
with the exception of the M5 and M50, as i said.

In whose opinion does it 'suck'? That is a purely subjective assessment that many thousands do not agree with. Since when were you (or I ) the arbiter of what is a 'good' camera'? Are you denying that if Sony could be a leading camera manufacturer by releasing something like the M5/M6 that they would not do so?

read again you may get what i mean.
i explained it a few times now and i don´t do it again.

No you didn't. You made an unsupported claim.

The consumer study revealed that two-thirds of mirrorless camera users are within the age range of 18 – 35 years of age, and three-fifth of those who have the intention to purchase also fall within this age bracket.

that is from one survey done in thailand.
i have seen the same surveys for germany, UK and france. with basically the same numbers.
when you are really interested you sure find a way to use google.

 

[dak723]

Oh, the usual internet BS and everyone trying so hard to be smart - and failing.

Why? Because we have no idea how the market will go in the future. Neither Canon or Nikon's FF mirrorless have even hit the market yet, so we have no idea how popular they will be over the next 3 or 4 years. We have no idea when Canon and Nikon will produce a full mirrorless line of APS-C cameras. That will be the biggest factor as crop sells far more than FF.

But saying, "We have no idea what the future holds in terms of DSLR vs. Mirrorless sales" is obviously too boring for the internet geniuses. At the moment, there are advantages and disadvantages to Mirrorless. There is no evidence to support that Mirrorless is somehow a technological advance that will replace DSLRs - at this time. Only time will tell. Ho-hum.....