neuroanatomist said:
Darkly said:
Many arguments here are missing a major point, and that is Sony's proven ability to enter a given field and dominate it before the well-established players can play catchup. Look at the PlayStation.
Look at Vaio. How'd that work out for Sony?
I can't speak for this user, but the way I read that says it is very possible Sony can take over this market and become the leader, not that it is guaranteed to. I didn't see an argument that Sony is unstoppable. So not sure why you pointed out a failure, when all companies have failures at times.
Darkly said:
Now, while mirrorless may represent a small proportion of camera sales right now, this will change as Sony get their act together with user interface design and handling.
Will it? With no evidence to back up such a claim, it's merely an opinion.
Why are you expecting conclusive evidence to prove a prediction? You're very oppositional I think for the sake of just arguing with people.
Perhaps one can look at a trend and speculate. Sony is looking to make money. They keep building better and better mirrorless bodies and introducing more lenses in the FF realm. They are obviously trying to move into this market. If they are trying to do that, it isn't unreasonable to predict that they'll make improvements to appeal to more users and gain more market share.
Darkly said:
However, if you're new to photography what reasons are there for choosing Canon? Or Nikon? Or Sony? They all have merits but Sony's reputation is in the ascendant, particularly with relation to imaging sensor technologies.
New or not, there's more to photography than a sensor. Sony can have the greatest sensor on Earth, the camera handles like a piece of crap. It literally has no grip. You are holding on to the end of a minimalist body.
Yes, there will be many thousands of pros who will skip a superior sensor that offers them no practical advantage, for a camera that actually has handling that allows them to get work done.
Grip > Sensor.
As I've written about in the past, try holding and wielding a camera for 8 hours or more in a day - active shooting. Being able to comfortably wrap your hand around a grip is of big value. And given that Canon and Nikon offer up plenty of IQ for what many need, the priority then shifts to other factors.
For mirrorless to really move into DSLR, I said in another post that there will need to be mirrorless bodies the size of 5D4 w/ battery grip, or 1DX2 sized.
Think of it this way, you could build a Honda Civic into the greatest car in the World - it won't matter, as there will always be a market for a larger, more comfortable vehicle even though it might be inferior in features.
Battery is another factor. Before mirrorless can do anything serious - they have to get the battery life issue under control. Right now, their battery life even at the best of the best is pathetic compared to DSLR.
Darkly said:
Canon need to up their game significantly before they lose their reputation as one of the big two go-to, no-brainer camera manufacturers. Anyone citing figures showing mirrorless sytems as having a small market share, let alone Sony's modest market share would do well to look at other incumbent giants who lost their way through complacency. Remember Nokia? They could do no wrong until a lean and hungry Samsung came along and innovated their way to the top (even if the they were blatantly taking design cues from Jony Ives).
Reputation.
Canon's reputation among pros is still the best. Canon's reputation among hobbyists and amateurs is fading. One group does work with cameras. The other doesn't mind the various shortcomings of Sony, and values all-out sensor performance.
Darkly said:
So, I think Canon either need to follow the same technological direction as Sony/Nikon to achieve similar noise and dynamic range figures
So, Canon should follow the same technological direction as Sony'a a9 and Nikon's D5, both of which have more low ISO noise and thus less DR than their predecessor? The a9 is billed as a 'pro' camera and yet it has over a stop less low ISO DR than the 1D X II. Why, exactly, should Canon follow suit?
TL
R — YAPODFC.
Nikon took a step back on DR for sure. They realized, and rightly so, that high ISO performance is of more value in the these bodies than the silliness of maxing out the DR at ISO 100.
Speaking of which. I remember countless, endless threads where people told us that DR doesn't come at the expense of ISO. Oh really? What are the SoNikonian pseudo-electrical engineers saying now about the D5? Shouldn't the D5 be a high ISO beast and still crank out the big DR?
Obviously, sensor design can be TUNED for an expected result.
Looking at the various tests and charts, the D5 gives up low ISO performance, to gain it at high ISO's. It follow more of a Canon style approach of having a flatter graph to give the best results across a wide spectrum of ISO.
The mighty D810 is a turd at high ISO. But all we see and hear about from the Sony crew is how amazing underexposing a shot at ISO 64 by 5 stops allows excellent recovery.
New school of photography. The ISO 64 underexpose by 5 stops method and recover in post. Look ma! I saved the highlights!
Even though my photos look flat, have no punch, with weaker colors and have an HDR'ish character to them.
But I hear you, any reduction in weight should be welcomed. And Canon is doing that. Latest gen L lenses are lighter than the prior revisions, the 5D4 shed 150g from the weight of the 5D3, etc. 
