CIPA Global Camera Sales Numbers for March 2018 Released

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
Mikehit said:
First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough.

no. read what i wrote.

i say: many people I know will accept APS-C as *minimum sensor size* for visibly and significantly better IQ than the currently best smartphones. And they are buying compact APS-C MILC systems - IF their preferred brand has them. So, Canon EOS M yes. Nikon not (yet). Many would also be willing to buy compact mirrorless FF gear in the 6D II / D610 price bracket - especially IF their preferred brand would offer them and they could use existing DSLR FF glass with a simple, fully functional adapter.
Most of the people I know would rather not switch to Sony due to less than optimal user interface and lack of decent "affordable" FE lenses.

re. mFT: gear is too big relative to APS-C and even FF. Just look at that OMD-EM1 / III - as large as a FF Sony A7 (1st gen) and larger than any Canon EOS M body with APS-C sensor. Additionally mFT gear is either dated and cheap like most of the "Pen" stuff or "functionally decent" but way too pricey relative to mirrorless APS-C - e.g. Canon EOS M / EF-M system. It is not only me seeing things this way, it is the market at large. See market shares for Olympus and Panasonic.

Some "lower end", inexpensive mFT gear might possible make sense IF it was as small as 1" cameras or like Nikon 1 system (CX sensor).
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,340
544
fullstop said:
Mikehit said:
First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough.

no. read what i wrote.

i say: many people I know will accept APS-C as *minimum sensor size* for visibly and significantly better IQ than the currently best smartphones. And they are buying compact APS-C MILC systems - IF their preferred brand has them. So, Canon EOS M yes. Nikon not (yet). Many would also be willing to buy compact mirrorless FF gear in the 6D II / D610 price bracket - especially IF their preferred brand would offer them and they could use existing DSLR FF glass with a simple, fully functional adapter.
Most of the people I know would rather not switch to Sony due to less than optimal user interface and lack of decent "affordable" FE lenses.

re. mFT: gear is too big relative to APS-C and even FF. Just look at that OMD-EM1 / III - as large as a FF Sony A7 (1st gen) and larger than any Canon EOS M body with APS-C sensor. Additionally mFT gear is either dated and cheap like most of the "Pen" stuff or "functionally decent" but way too pricey relative to mirrorless APS-C - e.g. Canon EOS M / EF-M system. It is not only me seeing things this way, it is the market at large. See market shares for Olympus and Panasonic.

Some "lower end", inexpensive mFT gear might possible make sense IF it was as small as 1" cameras or like Nikon 1 system (CX sensor).

How do you know they will accept APS-C as a minimum? Have they seriously investigated the use of MFT: hands on, tried them, used them and made images?
I have FF, I have APS-C and I have MFT - for the same field of view, MFT is significantly smaller - I guess you, or they, have not used them yourself with a lens, and carried a kit in a bag all day and compared images in the intended use (FYI - pixel peeping is not 'intended use' other than for measurebators and spec sheet freaks).

Market shares for MFT (Olympus and Panasonic) are whupping Sony. Unless you can prove otherwise. So your point is....what, exactly.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,093
380
Vancouver, BC
Mikehit said:
fullstop said:
Mikehit said:
First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough.

no. read what i wrote.

i say: many people I know will accept APS-C as *minimum sensor size* for visibly and significantly better IQ than the currently best smartphones. And they are buying compact APS-C MILC systems - IF their preferred brand has them. So, Canon EOS M yes. Nikon not (yet). Many would also be willing to buy compact mirrorless FF gear in the 6D II / D610 price bracket - especially IF their preferred brand would offer them and they could use existing DSLR FF glass with a simple, fully functional adapter.
Most of the people I know would rather not switch to Sony due to less than optimal user interface and lack of decent "affordable" FE lenses.

re. mFT: gear is too big relative to APS-C and even FF. Just look at that OMD-EM1 / III - as large as a FF Sony A7 (1st gen) and larger than any Canon EOS M body with APS-C sensor. Additionally mFT gear is either dated and cheap like most of the "Pen" stuff or "functionally decent" but way too pricey relative to mirrorless APS-C - e.g. Canon EOS M / EF-M system. It is not only me seeing things this way, it is the market at large. See market shares for Olympus and Panasonic.

Some "lower end", inexpensive mFT gear might possible make sense IF it was as small as 1" cameras or like Nikon 1 system (CX sensor).

How do you know they will accept APS-C as a minimum? Have they seriously investigated the use of MFT: hands on, tried them, used them and made images?
I have FF, I have APS-C and I have MFT - for the same field of view, MFT is significantly smaller - I guess you, or they, have not used them yourself with a lens, and carried a kit in a bag all day and compared images in the intended use (FYI - pixel peeping is not 'intended use' other than for measurebators and spec sheet freaks).

Market shares for MFT (Olympus and Panasonic) are whupping Sony. Unless you can prove otherwise. So your point is....what, exactly.

His point is the same tiresome rubbish that keeps coming up: he wants a big sensor, little body, little lens camera with lots of little lens options and an EVF, and he wants it for a price tag that is small for a pro model but still totally out of the realm of possibility for most consumers.

Aside from all that defying the laws of physics, it would be a bad idea commercially because it satisfies a tiny niche. It is people with this kind of thinking that believe that a7III will totally change the camera market despite the overwhelming evidence that $2000 bodies is nowhere close to the median camera body selling price.

It basically falls into the AvTvM philosophy that "all camera manufacturers are stupid because they won't make my dream camera."
 

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
Talys said:
Mikehit said:
fullstop said:
Mikehit said:
First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough.

no. read what i wrote.

i say: many people I know will accept APS-C as *minimum sensor size* for visibly and significantly better IQ than the currently best smartphones. And they are buying compact APS-C MILC systems - IF their preferred brand has them. So, Canon EOS M yes. Nikon not (yet). Many would also be willing to buy compact mirrorless FF gear in the 6D II / D610 price bracket - especially IF their preferred brand would offer them and they could use existing DSLR FF glass with a simple, fully functional adapter.
Most of the people I know would rather not switch to Sony due to less than optimal user interface and lack of decent "affordable" FE lenses.

re. mFT: gear is too big relative to APS-C and even FF. Just look at that OMD-EM1 / III - as large as a FF Sony A7 (1st gen) and larger than any Canon EOS M body with APS-C sensor. Additionally mFT gear is either dated and cheap like most of the "Pen" stuff or "functionally decent" but way too pricey relative to mirrorless APS-C - e.g. Canon EOS M / EF-M system. It is not only me seeing things this way, it is the market at large. See market shares for Olympus and Panasonic.

Some "lower end", inexpensive mFT gear might possible make sense IF it was as small as 1" cameras or like Nikon 1 system (CX sensor).

How do you know they will accept APS-C as a minimum? Have they seriously investigated the use of MFT: hands on, tried them, used them and made images?
I have FF, I have APS-C and I have MFT - for the same field of view, MFT is significantly smaller - I guess you, or they, have not used them yourself with a lens, and carried a kit in a bag all day and compared images in the intended use (FYI - pixel peeping is not 'intended use' other than for measurebators and spec sheet freaks).

Market shares for MFT (Olympus and Panasonic) are whupping Sony. Unless you can prove otherwise. So your point is....what, exactly.

His point is the same tiresome rubbish that keeps coming up: he wants a big sensor, little body, little lens camera with lots of little lens options and an EVF, and he wants it for a price tag that is small for a pro model but still totally out of the realm of possibility for most consumers.

Aside from all that defying the laws of physics, it would be a bad idea commercially because it satisfies a tiny niche. It is people with this kind of thinking that believe that a7III will totally change the camera market despite the overwhelming evidence that $2000 bodies is nowhere close to the median camera body selling price.

It basically falls into the AvTvM philosophy that "all camera manufacturers are stupid because they won't make my dream camera."

Exactly right. And his comments about m4/3 are so totally bogus that he loses all credibility. I have owned FF, and currently own APS-C and M4/3. The images from M4/3 and APS-C are pretty much indistinguishable from one another. Daylight shots from all 3 formats are pretty much indistinguishable when printed at 8 x 12 or so. Yes, the Olympus E-M1 II is not small, but the lenses are top quality. When I had both the Sony A7 II and the Olympus E-M1 - and needed to return one - it was the Sony that lost out. If you actually use the cameras, then the usual internet baloney really jumps out at you.

The problems often is - when someone has an idea that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny (like mirrorless hasn't taken off because there aren't enough good mirrorless cams) the you have to come up with even more ridiculous arguments to try and prove your originally incorrect idea is correct. Rather than admit you were wrong, you just dig yourself deeper into ridiculousness.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,217
3,620
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
dak723 said:
The problems often is - when someone has an idea that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny (like mirrorless hasn't taken off because there aren't enough good mirrorless cams) the you have to come up with even more ridiculous arguments to try and prove your originally incorrect idea is correct. Rather than admit you were wrong, you just dig yourself deeper into ridiculousness.

Well fortunately, in this case Fullstop/AvTvM made a concrete prediction with a very short time frame -- 2019. So, we won't have to wait long to see if his bold prediction comes true. I'm guessing that's as likely to happen as Harry's magical codec. And, I will predict that when it fails to materialize, his excuse will be just as lame as Harry's fictional tale.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
unfocused said:
dak723 said:
The problems often is - when someone has an idea that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny (like mirrorless hasn't taken off because there aren't enough good mirrorless cams) the you have to come up with even more ridiculous arguments to try and prove your originally incorrect idea is correct. Rather than admit you were wrong, you just dig yourself deeper into ridiculousness.

Well fortunately, in this case Fullstop/AvTvM made a concrete prediction with a very short time frame -- 2019. So, we won't have to wait long to see if his bold prediction comes true. I'm guessing that's as likely to happen as Harry's magical codec. And, I will predict that when it fails to materialize, his excuse will be just as lame as Harry's fictional tale.

His prediction is contingent on the availability of the right camera(s) at the right price. If DSLR's are not wiped out, we can expect repeated explanations of how stupid Canon produced the wrong camera and/or lenses at too high a price. Either that, or everything will just disappear into a memory hole.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,093
380
Vancouver, BC
dak723 said:
Talys said:
Mikehit said:
fullstop said:
Mikehit said:
First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough.

no. read what i wrote.

i say: many people I know will accept APS-C as *minimum sensor size* for visibly and significantly better IQ than the currently best smartphones. And they are buying compact APS-C MILC systems - IF their preferred brand has them. So, Canon EOS M yes. Nikon not (yet). Many would also be willing to buy compact mirrorless FF gear in the 6D II / D610 price bracket - especially IF their preferred brand would offer them and they could use existing DSLR FF glass with a simple, fully functional adapter.
Most of the people I know would rather not switch to Sony due to less than optimal user interface and lack of decent "affordable" FE lenses.

re. mFT: gear is too big relative to APS-C and even FF. Just look at that OMD-EM1 / III - as large as a FF Sony A7 (1st gen) and larger than any Canon EOS M body with APS-C sensor. Additionally mFT gear is either dated and cheap like most of the "Pen" stuff or "functionally decent" but way too pricey relative to mirrorless APS-C - e.g. Canon EOS M / EF-M system. It is not only me seeing things this way, it is the market at large. See market shares for Olympus and Panasonic.

Some "lower end", inexpensive mFT gear might possible make sense IF it was as small as 1" cameras or like Nikon 1 system (CX sensor).

How do you know they will accept APS-C as a minimum? Have they seriously investigated the use of MFT: hands on, tried them, used them and made images?
I have FF, I have APS-C and I have MFT - for the same field of view, MFT is significantly smaller - I guess you, or they, have not used them yourself with a lens, and carried a kit in a bag all day and compared images in the intended use (FYI - pixel peeping is not 'intended use' other than for measurebators and spec sheet freaks).

Market shares for MFT (Olympus and Panasonic) are whupping Sony. Unless you can prove otherwise. So your point is....what, exactly.

His point is the same tiresome rubbish that keeps coming up: he wants a big sensor, little body, little lens camera with lots of little lens options and an EVF, and he wants it for a price tag that is small for a pro model but still totally out of the realm of possibility for most consumers.

Aside from all that defying the laws of physics, it would be a bad idea commercially because it satisfies a tiny niche. It is people with this kind of thinking that believe that a7III will totally change the camera market despite the overwhelming evidence that $2000 bodies is nowhere close to the median camera body selling price.

It basically falls into the AvTvM philosophy that "all camera manufacturers are stupid because they won't make my dream camera."

Exactly right. And his comments about m4/3 are so totally bogus that he loses all credibility. I have owned FF, and currently own APS-C and M4/3. The images from M4/3 and APS-C are pretty much indistinguishable from one another. Daylight shots from all 3 formats are pretty much indistinguishable when printed at 8 x 12 or so. Yes, the Olympus E-M1 II is not small, but the lenses are top quality. When I had both the Sony A7 II and the Olympus E-M1 - and needed to return one - it was the Sony that lost out. If you actually use the cameras, then the usual internet baloney really jumps out at you.

The problems often is - when someone has an idea that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny (like mirrorless hasn't taken off because there aren't enough good mirrorless cams) the you have to come up with even more ridiculous arguments to try and prove your originally incorrect idea is correct. Rather than admit you were wrong, you just dig yourself deeper into ridiculousness.

re- MFT - No kidding. I had an Olympus MFT system for a couple of years and I was very happy with it; the main reason I ended up trading it with a friend for some other stuff was that from a maintenance standpoint, it's easier to share LPE6 batteries (and of slightly lesser importance, lenses) between Canon bodies. It's just nice to be able to have a bag full of charged LPE6's that 3 of my cameras use. I can go through them, then charge a whole bunch of them at the same time once every couple of months.

In my mind, the two main reasons to go full frame are if you need high ISOs (driven by high shutter speeds, for bird photos in my case), or if you need to shoot very wide, because practically, nothing has as wide a field of view as a full frame camera if you're willing to pay the big bucks for the ultrawide full frame lenses.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
Jan 28, 2015
5,626
4,037
Irving, Texas
Talys said:
dak723 said:
Talys said:
Mikehit said:
fullstop said:
Mikehit said:
First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough.

no. read what i wrote.

i say: many people I know will accept APS-C as *minimum sensor size* for visibly and significantly better IQ than the currently best smartphones. And they are buying compact APS-C MILC systems - IF their preferred brand has them. So, Canon EOS M yes. Nikon not (yet). Many would also be willing to buy compact mirrorless FF gear in the 6D II / D610 price bracket - especially IF their preferred brand would offer them and they could use existing DSLR FF glass with a simple, fully functional adapter.
Most of the people I know would rather not switch to Sony due to less than optimal user interface and lack of decent "affordable" FE lenses.

re. mFT: gear is too big relative to APS-C and even FF. Just look at that OMD-EM1 / III - as large as a FF Sony A7 (1st gen) and larger than any Canon EOS M body with APS-C sensor. Additionally mFT gear is either dated and cheap like most of the "Pen" stuff or "functionally decent" but way too pricey relative to mirrorless APS-C - e.g. Canon EOS M / EF-M system. It is not only me seeing things this way, it is the market at large. See market shares for Olympus and Panasonic.

Some "lower end", inexpensive mFT gear might possible make sense IF it was as small as 1" cameras or like Nikon 1 system (CX sensor).

How do you know they will accept APS-C as a minimum? Have they seriously investigated the use of MFT: hands on, tried them, used them and made images?
I have FF, I have APS-C and I have MFT - for the same field of view, MFT is significantly smaller - I guess you, or they, have not used them yourself with a lens, and carried a kit in a bag all day and compared images in the intended use (FYI - pixel peeping is not 'intended use' other than for measurebators and spec sheet freaks).

Market shares for MFT (Olympus and Panasonic) are whupping Sony. Unless you can prove otherwise. So your point is....what, exactly.

His point is the same tiresome rubbish that keeps coming up: he wants a big sensor, little body, little lens camera with lots of little lens options and an EVF, and he wants it for a price tag that is small for a pro model but still totally out of the realm of possibility for most consumers.

Aside from all that defying the laws of physics, it would be a bad idea commercially because it satisfies a tiny niche. It is people with this kind of thinking that believe that a7III will totally change the camera market despite the overwhelming evidence that $2000 bodies is nowhere close to the median camera body selling price.

It basically falls into the AvTvM philosophy that "all camera manufacturers are stupid because they won't make my dream camera."

Exactly right. And his comments about m4/3 are so totally bogus that he loses all credibility. I have owned FF, and currently own APS-C and M4/3. The images from M4/3 and APS-C are pretty much indistinguishable from one another. Daylight shots from all 3 formats are pretty much indistinguishable when printed at 8 x 12 or so. Yes, the Olympus E-M1 II is not small, but the lenses are top quality. When I had both the Sony A7 II and the Olympus E-M1 - and needed to return one - it was the Sony that lost out. If you actually use the cameras, then the usual internet baloney really jumps out at you.

The problems often is - when someone has an idea that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny (like mirrorless hasn't taken off because there aren't enough good mirrorless cams) the you have to come up with even more ridiculous arguments to try and prove your originally incorrect idea is correct. Rather than admit you were wrong, you just dig yourself deeper into ridiculousness.

re- MFT - No kidding. I had an Olympus MFT system for a couple of years and I was very happy with it; the main reason I ended up trading it with a friend for some other stuff was that from a maintenance standpoint, it's easier to share LPE6 batteries (and of slightly lesser importance, lenses) between Canon bodies. It's just nice to be able to have a bag full of charged LPE6's that 3 of my cameras use. I can go through them, then charge a whole bunch of them at the same time once every couple of months.

In my mind, the two main reasons to go full frame are if you need high ISOs (driven by high shutter speeds, for bird photos in my case), or if you need to shoot very wide, because practically, nothing has as wide a field of view as a full frame camera if you're willing to pay the big bucks for the ultrawide full frame lenses.

Well guys, I just took delivery today of the Olympus OM-D 5 II and their 12-40 pro lens. It's an upgrade for my wife who's been using our Canon XSi since 2008. It is small. Very small to me. I'm 6'2" and have catcher's mitts for hands. I cannot imagine it being any smaller and I wouldn't have it for myself. My wife is 4'11". It is fine for her as she's about the size of a 12 year old.

It seems very well built (magnesium body), has a cool retro look, and is weather sealed. So is the lens with an impressively machined body. No rubber on the lens. Beautiful, really.

However, there is absolutely no way this size camera is going to replace a regular crop sensor size Canon DSLR, let alone FF body. The ergonomics just aren't there. The price? $300 off which made it $799 for a tiny sensored camera that was released in 2015.

We'll be keeping it, but the argument that a tiny camera will replace something the size of a Canon crop sensor camera or ff camera for comfort alone is BS. Yes, even if it had a FF sensor. Not gonna happen. I don't think the OP has ever tried one of these little things.

Probably, around Christmas, I'll get their 70-200 equivalent zoom. That'll just make things worse ergonomically.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,340
544
CanonFanBoy said:
Well guys, I just took delivery today of the Olympus OM-D 5 II and their 12-40 pro lens. It's an upgrade for my wife who's been using our Canon XSi since 2008. It is small. Very small to me. I'm 6'2" and have catcher's mitts for hands. I cannot imagine it being any smaller and I wouldn't have it for myself. My wife is 4'11". It is fine for her as she's about the size of a 12 year old.

It seems very well built (magnesium body), has a cool retro look, and is weather sealed. So is the lens with an impressively machined body. No rubber on the lens. Beautiful, really.

However, there is absolutely no way this size camera is going to replace a regular crop sensor size Canon DSLR, let alone FF body. The ergonomics just aren't there. The price? $300 off which made it $799 for a tiny sensored camera that was released in 2015.

We'll be keeping it, but the argument that a tiny camera will replace something the size of a Canon crop sensor camera or ff camera for comfort alone is BS. Yes, even if it had a FF sensor. Not gonna happen. I don't think the OP has ever tried one of these little things.

Probably, around Christmas, I'll get their 70-200 equivalent zoom. That'll just make things worse ergonomically.

I am not sure if I am the 'OP' you refer to but I have three MFT cameras and printing to A4 (A3 in some cases) it is often very difficult to tell in isolation if an image was taken with the MFT or APS-C or FF.
If, however, your criteria include size of the body then that is a personal choice rather than capability of the camera: many (myself included) prefer the larger body of my DSLR, but when mooching around I am far more likely to have my MFT with me because of the kit size.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,882
1,029
UK
www.flickr.com
neuroanatomist said:
BillB said:
I don't see much reason to think that improvements in mirrorless design are going to lead to increased sales.

That's where you're wrong. If someone builds his perfect camera tailor-made to his specific needs, sales will increase by the one camera AvTvM will buy. If you want to, you could also count the millions of people who live in his imagination that will buy one, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Why is he using a sockpuppet account?
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
Jan 28, 2015
5,626
4,037
Irving, Texas
Mikehit said:
CanonFanBoy said:
Well guys, I just took delivery today of the Olympus OM-D 5 II and their 12-40 pro lens. It's an upgrade for my wife who's been using our Canon XSi since 2008. It is small. Very small to me. I'm 6'2" and have catcher's mitts for hands. I cannot imagine it being any smaller and I wouldn't have it for myself. My wife is 4'11". It is fine for her as she's about the size of a 12 year old.

It seems very well built (magnesium body), has a cool retro look, and is weather sealed. So is the lens with an impressively machined body. No rubber on the lens. Beautiful, really.

However, there is absolutely no way this size camera is going to replace a regular crop sensor size Canon DSLR, let alone FF body. The ergonomics just aren't there. The price? $300 off which made it $799 for a tiny sensored camera that was released in 2015.

We'll be keeping it, but the argument that a tiny camera will replace something the size of a Canon crop sensor camera or ff camera for comfort alone is BS. Yes, even if it had a FF sensor. Not gonna happen. I don't think the OP has ever tried one of these little things.

Probably, around Christmas, I'll get their 70-200 equivalent zoom. That'll just make things worse ergonomically.

I am not sure if I am the 'OP' you refer to but I have three MFT cameras and printing to A4 (A3 in some cases) it is often very difficult to tell in isolation if an image was taken with the MFT or APS-C or FF.
If, however, your criteria include size of the body then that is a personal choice rather than capability of the camera: many (myself included) prefer the larger body of my DSLR, but when mooching around I am far more likely to have my MFT with me because of the kit size.

Sorry Mike. You aren't the guy. I get a little lost sometimes. I meant avtvm's alter ego, fullstop. And yes, ergonomics and size are a personal choice. My choice wouldn't be this type regardless of the capabilities and I think that was part of his argument; size. In addition, it just seems laggy in some respects. Never got that sense with a mirrored camera.

I am happy with the articulated screen, something I have missed since getting rid of my 70D. This thing is supposed to be weather sealed. I don't know if anyone has tested that independently. I do remember people saying this could not be accomplished with an articulated screen, an argument I always thought was silly. The doubters have gone silent in their opposition to an articulated screen when it comes to Canon.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,217
3,620
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
scyrene said:
neuroanatomist said:
BillB said:
I don't see much reason to think that improvements in mirrorless design are going to lead to increased sales.

That's where you're wrong. If someone builds his perfect camera tailor-made to his specific needs, sales will increase by the one camera AvTvM will buy. If you want to, you could also count the millions of people who live in his imagination that will buy one, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Why is he using a sockpuppet account?

He got banned under the old name. So he started a new account.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,882
1,029
UK
www.flickr.com
unfocused said:
scyrene said:
neuroanatomist said:
BillB said:
I don't see much reason to think that improvements in mirrorless design are going to lead to increased sales.

That's where you're wrong. If someone builds his perfect camera tailor-made to his specific needs, sales will increase by the one camera AvTvM will buy. If you want to, you could also count the millions of people who live in his imagination that will buy one, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Why is he using a sockpuppet account?

He got banned under the old name. So he started a new account.

Oh wow, I missed that! Thanks for the info. I wonder what finally tipped him over the line?
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
Jan 28, 2015
5,626
4,037
Irving, Texas
scyrene said:
unfocused said:
scyrene said:
neuroanatomist said:
BillB said:
I don't see much reason to think that improvements in mirrorless design are going to lead to increased sales.

That's where you're wrong. If someone builds his perfect camera tailor-made to his specific needs, sales will increase by the one camera AvTvM will buy. If you want to, you could also count the millions of people who live in his imagination that will buy one, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Why is he using a sockpuppet account?

He got banned under the old name. So he started a new account.

Oh wow, I missed that! Thanks for the info. I wonder what finally tipped him over the line?

Sometimes people just snap. I heard he's a postal worker.