The Mirrorless Movement: Sony Boasts Record Growth in Expanding Mirrorless Digital Camera Market

[sdsr]

I have never hand-on 4/3 system before. I do not how small and light weight they are. Having to shoot with a7, a7r and a7s I don't know if Sony or other companies can go any smaller or lighter for 35mm sensor. Their current native FE 28mm, 35mm and 55mm are great from size to weight.

And image quality, for that matter. I own m4/3 as well as an a7r and a7s (and a couple of Canon dslrs, FF & APS-C) and yes, m4/3 is definitely lighter and smaller, especially when you compare lenses with similar angles of view as lenses get longer (compare, say, the Olympus 45mm 1.8 to any 85-100mm prime, or, especially the Olympus 60mm macro to any 100mm macro (does anyone make a 120mm macro?). (There are ways to get small FF lenses, but you end up in vintage MF territory here, and they often end up weighing proportionately more since they're usually (beautifully made) metal.) But of course you end up having to compare more than just angle of view since the crop factor affects everything else, so as often as not there's no direct comparison to be made; trying to chase shallow focus, for instance, and you end up paying a lot for f0.95 lenses that are usually heavy and MF and still not as fast, in FF terms, as f1.4. And for all that m4/3 are impressive given their sensor size, I would be rather surprised if you thought any m4/3 gave you comparable results to what you can get from your a7s in just about any light. Since acquiring my a7r and a7s I've stopped using my m4/3 equipment; I should sell it....

 

[Hector1970]

I'm sure it will still take a few years for mirrorless to surpass mirrored in terms of quality but it makes sense for manufacturers to go that direction. It's not where cameras sales are now it's where they will be in a few years. There will be a tipping point. Mirrorless is a less complex set up and opens up options for fast FPS for the masses.
Its the sound of inevitability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odIEhkLBH4Y

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If we accept that more and more people these days are introduced to photography via their cell phone, What would be the logical next step when these people want to move up to a dedicated camera

DSLR?
Mirrorless?

I think that if you are going from a cell phone that the next step would be a mirrorless camera. Afterall a mirrorless camera is just big cell phone that can't make phone calls. ;D

It depends on the culture again. US and many European buyers see the large DSLR's as being higher quality cameras, and the small mirrorless cameras look similar to $100 point and shoot cameras. Canon was surprised when the "M" sales flopped so badly in the US and Europe, and did a lot of asking buyers for their opinions. They admitted this in some interviews, the answers they received were basically that buyers wanted large cameras because they took higher quality pictures. Many buyers are wary of Sony and their history of dropping a line on a moments notice.

Most US buyers rely on the experts at Best Buy or the like, so who knows what they may be told or sold. Our local Costco stores put the mirrorless cameras in with the P&S, and the large DSLR's get prominent spots, its subtle but influences sales.

In Asia, small cameras are popular, users tend to have smaller hands and fingers, and probably word of mouth is influencing sales, and camera store experts are pushing the smaller bodies.

 

[sanj]

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.

Disagree, respectfully.

Once a mirrorless rig becomes 90-95% as good as an SLR, manufacturers* will push them over SLRs as they are cheaper to make (no mirror box, less material, etc.) and therefore represent higher profit margins.

* the whopping exception are Canon and Nikon, who strategically are holding off a robust entry into mirrorless not to protect DSLR sales so much as to avoid a billion dollar plus obsolescence of their staggering FF SLR lens portfolios.

Now the wild card above is "once mirrorless is almost as good as an SLR", which will happen at different times depending on how highly performing a specific SLR is today or how demanding its users are.

Consider: For your entry-level Rebel crowd, mirrorless is not far off from SLR performance. In that price point, the IQ is effectively the same, but the responsiveness, AF, battery life (and to a lesser degree) ergonomics are clearly a step behind. That gap between the two will get smaller with time. In a few years there really will be no incentive to keep selling entry level SLRs and some manufacturers (without huge stables of FF SLR lenses) might just give up mirrors altogether in that market segment.

...and when you consider the % of users in the entry level SLR market (i.e. most of the market!), it's not a major leap to see an A6000 Mk II or III leap frog a future Rebel T8i or T9i in sales someday. That time is not that far away.

So, no. I don't see mirrorless going away. Quite the opposite. In X years time (might be 10-15 years), I expect new SLR offerings to be limited to only products that just can't be matched performance-wise -- sports/wildlife/action rigs like the 1DX.

- A

Mirrorless is already better than the Rebel cameras. The only reason Canon/Nikon can keep selling cameras like that is because of brand name recognition and the fact that they have shelf space whereas most other brands do not. It isn't because of any technical superiority of some sort.

My belief. Exactly.

 

[sanj]

Mirrorless is already better than the Rebel cameras.

As judged by..... You? DxOMark? Bob? Yuki? DPReview? Sven? Mr. Ever Y. One? He's always right...but by the numbers, he hasn't chosen mirrorless.

Numbers don't represent 'better'. When Canon/Nikon start making mirror less (which they WILL) the numbers will change rapidly. When Canon does something the public buys. Such is the power of brand name.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Mirrorless is already better than the Rebel cameras.

As judged by..... You? DxOMark? Bob? Yuki? DPReview? Sven? Mr. Ever Y. One? He's always right...but by the numbers, he hasn't chosen mirrorless.

Numbers don't represent 'better'. When Canon/Nikon start making mirror less (which they WILL) the numbers will change rapidly. When Canon does something the public buys. Such is the power of brand name.

What does represent 'better'? Who decides?

Brand name? I suspect Sony is a much more widely recognized name than Canon, in general. You'd think once they entered the ILC camera market, they'd clobber CaNikon. Hasn't happened yet.

 

[unfocused]

...
These are not camera "system" buyers. Most will buy a camera with a kit lens and never buy another lens. That means the opportunity for after-market sales is limited. It also means that the customers are not invested in a "system."

And that type of buyer is about 90% or more of the people that buy Canon DSLRs. So if the majority of camera buyers are going to buy smaller cameras and not care about the system, who does Canon sell their DSLRs and system to?

As usual, you are taking things out of context. Which seems to be a favorite trait of yours.

This was in connection with the point that Canon and Nikon can afford to take their time and watch to see how the market develops. Because most mirrorless camera buyers are not investing in a system, it will be easier for Nikon and Canon to entice them to switch to a better system.

Customers who are interested in a system are still better served by a DSLR and the cost of entry into DSLR systems remains less than mirrorless.

These customers represent the minority of people buying cameras.

If you were Canon, would you be happy making cameras that trends were suggesting would in the future only be bought by a minority of customers?

That's a non-sequitur, that has nothing to do with my statement. Try to pay attention: I said customers who are interested in a system, are better off with DSLRs. I said nothing about the interests of Nikon or Canon. Try to stay on topic.

But, since you ask. Nikon and Canon are interested in making a profit and in the current market the best way to make a profit is to focus on the enthusiast segment, which has more disposable income and is more willing to part with their dollars.

Sony is a niche marketer. This demonstrates that. They are in the mirrorless market because they can't compete against Nikon and Canon in the DSLR market.

I don't recall who created the mirrorless market but it is a natural thing to do (to create a new segment of a market.) And in this, Sony is no more a niche player than is Canon.

It's like you are just stringing random words together. In case you don't understand what a niche player is, it is an entity that doesn't dominate the overall market, but instead focuses on generating sales by going after a subset of the market. Canon and Nikon are not niche marketers. Sony is.

And, for your information, I suppose George Eastman could be considered the originator of the mirrorless market ("You push the button, we do the rest") For professionals, I guess one could say Leica invented the mirrorless market

But, there is much to be said for these same customers moving to "real" cameras (DSLRs) as they move into specific sub-categories of photography (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.).

This is snobbery, plain and simple. No one camera is more or less real than any other camera. They're all real cameras. Don't fool yourself into thinking that because you've spent more or yours is bigger that you can say "that's not a camera, THIS is a camera." The best camera in the world is no good if it is too big to keep with you when you see that million dollar moment.

No. It was (mostly) sarcasm. But, again, you seem to like stringing words together without comprehending what anyone else writes. Since I was referring to specific subcategories such as sports, wildlife and birds, the limiting factor is the reach of the lens and in these subcategories, the lens will always dwarf the camera, so the camera is not going to be "too big" to keep with you.

 

[Dylan777]

I have never hand-on 4/3 system before. I do not how small and light weight they are. Having to shoot with a7, a7r and a7s I don't know if Sony or other companies can go any smaller or lighter for 35mm sensor. Their current native FE 28mm, 35mm and 55mm are great from size to weight.

And image quality, for that matter. I own m4/3 as well as an a7r and a7s (and a couple of Canon dslrs, FF & APS-C) and yes, m4/3 is definitely lighter and smaller, especially when you compare lenses with similar angles of view as lenses get longer (compare, say, the Olympus 45mm 1.8 to any 85-100mm prime, or, especially the Olympus 60mm macro to any 100mm macro (does anyone make a 120mm macro?). (There are ways to get small FF lenses, but you end up in vintage MF territory here, and they often end up weighing proportionately more since they're usually (beautifully made) metal.) But of course you end up having to compare more than just angle of view since the crop factor affects everything else, so as often as not there's no direct comparison to be made; trying to chase shallow focus, for instance, and you end up paying a lot for f0.95 lenses that are usually heavy and MF and still not as fast, in FF terms, as f1.4. And for all that m4/3 are impressive given their sensor size, I would be rather surprised if you thought any m4/3 gave you comparable results to what you can get from your a7s in just about any light. Since acquiring my a7r and a7s I've stopped using my m4/3 equipment; I should sell it....

Good info on the 4/3 system sdsr.

At this time in my life, I don't think I would buy another small or 4/3 system. My recent attempt with 7D II will be my last crop sensor body. There is something about FF image quality that I can't describe. I enjoy shooting my 1Dx + 85L II + 200f2 + 400mm f2.8 IS II. At the same time, my a7s and native lenses are working great with my DSLR setup. I know this setup could be hard for many to adapt to. These are completely different systems. The cost is higher due to lens compatibility.

Will I commit 100% to DSLR or 100% to mirrorless? Time will tell

 

[Keith_Reeder]

My belief. Exactly.

Numbers don't represent 'better'. When Canon/Nikon start making mirror less (which they WILL) the numbers will change rapidly. When Canon does something the public buys. Such is the power of brand name.

And there is it...

I'm so sick of this crap - the unsubtle, patronising inference that those who choose DSLR of mirrorless (or Canon over Sony) do so only because we're gullible, ignorant, easily-duped vicitms of advertising and/or naive brand loyalty, rather than being informed, knowledgeable photographers who make intelligent choices based on knowing exactly what we want to achieve, and exactly what we need in order to achieve it.

"The numbers" are everything.

For God's sake, this thread is about Sony boasting about "the numbers" - and no doubt they do have the edge in this niche, given that Canon is understanbdably not interested in it...

 

[Tugela]

To get a high performance camera Canon have to stuff at least three CPUs into their bodies, whereas Sony and Samsung only need one.

Does Samsung's high performance single CPU deliver the full bit depth with continuous shooting?

Does Canon's "high performance" triple CPU system do 15 fps at 28mpixels? Nope. It would choke.

Bit depth on the NX1 is reduced to 12 at 15 fps, but that is a very large amount of data being processed, far in excess of what any Canon is capable of handling.

The NX1 has many continuous shooting modes btw.

 

[Tugela]

Mirrorless is already better than the Rebel cameras.

As judged by..... You? DxOMark? Bob? Yuki? DPReview? Sven? Mr. Ever Y. One? He's always right...but by the numbers, he hasn't chosen mirrorless.

This is the part I struggle with.

I've said many times that mirrorless will eventually be the camera everyone uses save for really high-end rigs for sports and wildlife. That said, I'm no mirrorless fanboy. I love my OVF and the industry can take it from my cold, dead hands.

But the worldview on mirrorless' progress is comically fragmented. There are people in this very forum who believe:

• Mirrorless is a fad that will go away.
• Mirrorless will never get off the ground because of cell phones.
• Mirrorless will never surpass same-priced SLRs for performance.
• Mirrorless has already surpassed same-priced SLRs for performance.
• Mirrorless isn't coming -- it's already here and the few remaining SLR believers are clinging to our mirror boxes like the people who used to hug their Amigas and snuggle with them in bed each night.
• Mirrorless will be steamrolled by Lightfield cameras before they take over the market.

...and a good number of them speak in absolute terms like it is so.

But few are backing up their arguments with data. Third parties offer charts like the attached and harp on year over year change in the mirrorless/SLR ratio. Mirrorless haters pick on what they don't like about mirrorless (battery life, poor AF, responsiveness, etc.) but that's changing the subject.

Does anyone really know how much mirrorless makes up of the overall ILC market?

- A

My response to that would be anecdotal since I am not a market research company, but, from my personal observation:
(A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years has bought a MILC. None have bought a DSLR. These are not professionals, but ordinary people.
(B) When I walk around taking photographs or shooting video on the weekends, the people I see with DSLRs for the most part are middle aged or elderly. The ones with MILCs are almost always young adults. There is a distinct generation thing happening. The people who understand technology and grew up in the digital age are choosing the digital option, those who grew up prior to that are choosing the analog option (on average).

 

[Tugela]

Agree 100% with the sales numbers. But that's because SLRs are clearly still better than mirrorless in critical areas: responsiveness, AF speed/reliability, and battery life.

But what happens when the A6000 Mk III or Mk IV (or EOS-M6) is only 3-5% less responsive and has similar AF performance to a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5XXX? It will be a smaller camera that does the same quality job for the same price. Most consumer electronics history has shown us that combination will win in the marketplace, especially for soccer moms and hockey dads that make up the bulk of the units in camera sales.

The question is: when is mirrorless going to catch up in those performance areas it trails SLRs?

- A

That's a reasonable question, but do we know for sure that the three areas you list explain the huge disparity in sales between mirrorless and dslrs?

That is the thing, the disparity is not really all that large. And if you look at that chart and ignore the osccillations, the overall trend of DSLRs is downwards, and the overall trend of MILCs is upwards. Sooner or later they are going to cross over.

 

[sanj]

Agree 100% with the sales numbers. But that's because SLRs are clearly still better than mirrorless in critical areas: responsiveness, AF speed/reliability, and battery life.

But what happens when the A6000 Mk III or Mk IV (or EOS-M6) is only 3-5% less responsive and has similar AF performance to a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5XXX? It will be a smaller camera that does the same quality job for the same price. Most consumer electronics history has shown us that combination will win in the marketplace, especially for soccer moms and hockey dads that make up the bulk of the units in camera sales.

The question is: when is mirrorless going to catch up in those performance areas it trails SLRs?

- A

That's a reasonable question, but do we know for sure that the three areas you list explain the huge disparity in sales between mirrorless and dslrs?

That is the thing, the disparity is not really all that large. And if you look at that chart and ignore the osccillations, the overall trend of DSLRs is downwards, and the overall trend of MILCs is upwards. Sooner or later they are going to cross over.

I don't wish for either to be inferior to either. Want both to progress steadily. Both serve a different purpose in my photography.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Does Canon's "high performance" triple CPU system do 15 fps at 28mpixels?

Does it need to? Should super-innovative Samsung put a 3 GHz Core i7 in the Galaxy Tab? Processing power should be matched to the needs of the system.

That is the thing, the disparity is not really all that large. And if you look at that chart and ignore the osccillations, the overall trend of DSLRs is downwards, and the overall trend of MILCs is upwards. Sooner or later they are going to cross over.

I suggest you look more carefully at that chart. The overall trend of dSLRs is downward, the overall trend of mirrorless is basically flat. The still camera market is shrinking, and while it's good for MILCs that they're not trending down, they're also not trending up.

 

[neuroanatomist]

(B) makes complete sense to me. The younger generation will reject the big chunky camera and go for the smaller, funky camera and since the pics that come out of it look ok on the web (zoom at 100% is not an issue), what's the problem?

Some people saw the writing on the wall about DSLRs when mirrorless arrived but others still can't understand the message.

Yes, the people who predicted 6 years ago that MILC's would overtake dSLRs in 5 years showed a very keen understanding of reality. Almost as keen as yours, dilbert. At least they can console themselves that they'd be correct if they lived in dilbertland.

As for seeing the writing on the wall, I'm sure Canon can read. Not only do they pay for market research, they collect demographic data every time someone registers a purchase.

Anecdotally, plenty of Millenials using dSLRs from what I've seen, both in the US and in Europe. Walking around Luzern this week, there was a mix of dSLRs and MILCs in the hands of people of all ages, but definitely more dSLRs than MILCs. MILCs were more common in the hands of people from Asia, but even in that demographic there were more dSLRs. Of course, the smartphones and selfie-sticks outnumbered both by a wide margin.

 

[sanj]

...
My response to that would be anecdotal since I am not a market research company, but, from my personal observation:
(A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years has bought a MILC. None have bought a DSLR. These are not professionals, but ordinary people.
(B) When I walk around taking photographs or shooting video on the weekends, the people I see with DSLRs for the most part are middle aged or elderly. The ones with MILCs are almost always young adults. There is a distinct generation thing happening. The people who understand technology and grew up in the digital age are choosing the digital option, those who grew up prior to that are choosing the analog option (on average).

(B) makes complete sense to me. The younger generation will reject the big chunky camera and go for the smaller, funky camera and since the pics that come out of it look ok on the web (zoom at 100% is not an issue), what's the problem?

btw, since someone else decided that Sony's MILC cameras were niche, by extension you could conclude that young people are a niche market. Indeed. Some people saw the writing on the wall about DSLRs when mirrorless arrived but others still can't understand the message.

Absolutely!!!

 

[dak723]

My response to that would be anecdotal since I am not a market research company, but, from my personal observation:
(A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years has bought a MILC. None have bought a DSLR. These are not professionals, but ordinary people.
(B) When I walk around taking photographs or shooting video on the weekends, the people I see with DSLRs for the most part are middle aged or elderly. The ones with MILCs are almost always young adults. There is a distinct generation thing happening. The people who understand technology and grew up in the digital age are choosing the digital option, those who grew up prior to that are choosing the analog option (on average).

Hmmm...in the past 2 years I bought a 6D (DSLR) a SL1 (DSLR) and an Olympus OM-D EM-1 (Mirrorless). What that tells me is that there is no competition between DSLR and Mirrorless. Both are essentially the same and are in competition with cell phones (now that they have taken over the P&S market). Only those endlessly debating nonsense think the two types are competing and that one will eventually "beat" the other.

 

[AvTvM]

That is the thing, the disparity is not really all that large. And if you look at that chart and ignore the osccillations, the overall trend of DSLRs is downwards, and the overall trend of MILCs is upwards. Sooner or later they are going to cross over.

I suggest you look more carefully at that chart. The overall trend of dSLRs is downward, the overall trend of mirrorless is basically flat. The still camera market is shrinking, and while it's good for MILCs that they're not trending down, they're also not trending up.

Hehe, that's the funny part: despite all their marketing and brand muscle, canon and ninons mirrorslappers are in decline, while MILC sales from only a small number of makers are slightly increasung (trend is not flat). Basicslly Sony and Fuji (plus Samsung joining in) are swinging the global camera market towards MILC all by themselves. While Nikon mucks around with their desrg-sensored 1 system and Canon does not even dare to offer their halfassed M system
In the US. I find this quite amusing.

As I've stated before, if canon and nikon would stop selling consumer APS-C DSLRs today and replace them with fully competitive MIL systems matching Sony A6000 to Fuji XT1 and Samsung NX-1, MILCs would immediately have 90% share in unit sales. Globally. And hardly anyone would miss those puny "digital rebel" or Nikon 3000/5000/7000 mirrorslappers. Sole exception being the 7D2 (given that there is still no Nikon D400).

The same holds true for FF and mirrorless. Anything lesser than 5D3 and D810 could easily be replacrd today ba Sony A7 II/R (II) and s. Unit sales of Ff sensored ILCs would be 60% mirrorless instantly, if pricing and native lens lens line up were ok. And a "free" EF-adapter included with every Canon MILC.

CaNikon got a little bit more grace time than deserved due to 1. sony's poor vhoice of FE moznt and lens rollout (only stupidly expensive and or too large "Zeiss"-badged lenses at first) and Fuji's pricing of their X-lenses and their inability to not only bring an APS-C MILC system but also an Ff-sensored one.
Without those 2 fumbles, sales of canikon mirrorslappers would have been in even steeper decline.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Basicslly Sony and Fuji (plus Samsung joining in) are swinging the global camera market towards MILC all by themselves. While Nikon mucks around with their desrg-sensored 1 system and Canon does not even dare to offer their halfassed M system

Kitteh sez, "Show me(ow) the data."

Here, I'll show you some...

Last year in the largest geographic market for MILC, we see Sony on top but trending down, Olympus catching up, and Canon nearly tied with Panasonic for 3rd. Fuji is battling hard with Nikon to see who can be at the bottom of the list, and Samsung...is a no-show.

 

[RobertG.]

I still think that they can keep the EF mount and just make a really small body with no mirror.
I just wish they would try a full frame SL type body, but more than that I can't help but look at the huge EF mount and think that they could make the most compact Medium Format body on the market just by removing the mirror.
Medium Format is probably the thing that could benefit most from removing the mirror.

Take a look here: http://www.hartblei.de/en/hartbleicam2.htm The larger image circle of the TS-E lenses works well for "medium format" sensors. It would not work that well with real 6 cm x 4.5 cm sensors.

I wish somebody finds a way to adapt the TS-E lenses to the Pentax 645D....