Full Frame Mirrorless: Sideline or Replacement of dSLR?

[BillB]

One way to think about it might be to ask when mirrorless sales will reach a 75 percent (to pick a number) share of various camera types, such as aps-c, entry level FF, mid level, FF, and high end FF. Of course, coming up with numbers that could be used to keep score might be a challenge.

 

[YuengLinger]

I remember similar debates (to those over the EVF now) about the quality of flat-panel TV's replacing CRT's. Some claimed the LCD could never be fast enough for action movies or live sports, so plasma was a stopgap that is now a mere memory.

And then, way at the low-tech end of the spectrum, "no-flip" mattresses quickly and quietly took over the industry--and not because consumers preferred them; they were simply cheaper to produce and needed replacement more often.

These are just two examples of how things can change quickly. The camera companies are going to do what makes sense to survive and profit. Throwing out numbers such as 75% mirrorless sales as a threshold is wild guessing, as, admittedly, are my speculations. But dSLR sales are down dramatically the past five years, and to imagine Canon or others could sustain production of dSLR's even losing ANOTHER 75% of sales is beyond even my wild imagination.

I am fully confident that Canon has worked out a glidepath for dSLR's and EF lenses, but they likely have some "if-then" branching built in too. Predicting how long dSLR's will continue to be produced for the masses is not possible for me, though I could see the very highest-end pro market surviving five years beyond the 5D-xx class.

 

[Mikehit]

But dSLR sales are down dramatically the past five years, and to imagine Canon or others could maintain production of dSLR's even losing ANOTHER 75% of sales is beyond even my wild imagination.

You are conflating two things, and two things that are completely independent at that.
DSLR sales are down dramatically but this is not due to the creation of mirrorless, if my mirrorless you do not include mobile phones. Mirrorless have not significantly increased their share in the last 3-4 years which suggests they are neither cause of, nor the cure for the problem.
Cameras such as we are interested in are fighting against a range of imaging devices from smart phones, to tablets to GoPro. None of these are markets that cameras from Sony, Canon and Nikon can even hope to touch - all of them rely on someone with an smartphone wanting to take better quality images and upgrading to something with a bigger sensor and more controls. And every step in sophistication of cameraphone design makes it that little bit harder for camera manufacturers. Sony is in a strong position if only based on their presence in the phone market as manufacturer and supplier of sensors.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If mirrorless cameras are cheaper than dslrs, then why are crop dslrs cheaper than mirrorless cameras?

Thats a good point. The answer is twofold.

1. Companies want to recover their development cost, so they set high prices.
2. Lack of competition allows companies to set prices higher and boost profits, prices will not drop until there is serious competition.

 

[ahsanford]

Thats a good point. The answer is twofold.

1. Companies want to recover their development cost, so they set high prices.
2. Lack of competition allows companies to set prices higher and boost profits, prices will not drop until there is serious competition.

...and that whole thing about producing an order of magnitude* more SLRs than mirrorless, which allows SLRs to be made at a lower cost.

*total Fermi swag here, I lack hard data

- A

 

[unfocused]

...and that whole thing about producing an order of magnitude* more SLRs than mirrorless, which allows SLRs to be made at a lower cost.

*total Fermi swag here, I lack hard data

- A

...and no one really knows what the actual costs are. There is an assumption that electronic viewfinders are cheaper to produce than mirrored viewfinders, but what evidence is there of that? It's based on the unproven assumption that electronics are always cheaper to produce than mechanical devices. But, given that Canon has had about 100 years to perfect the manufacturing process, who really knows? And, are the cost differences significant?

In the end, I really don't believe cost of production will have any impact on the longevity of mirrored vs. mirrorless cameras. Consumer preferences will weigh much more heavily.

 

[3kramd5]

... and Cost does not equal Price. They may correlate, but market dynamics significantly affect the latter (if people will pay 1500, why charge 1400?).

 

[unfocused]

You are conflating two things, and two things that are completely independent at that.

He also conflates two other completely independent things: mirrorless technology and lens mounts.

Like too many others, he assumes that If and when Canon moves to mirrorless technology for some future 5D XX or 1Dx XX model that they must change the mount of these bodies. There is no reason why, if all the problems associated with electronic viewfinders are ultimately resolved, that means that all future bodies must take some new mount designed for small form factor mirrorless bodies.

Far more likely, in my opinion, is that future 5D, 1Dx, 7D and possibly 80D mirrorless bodies will look a whole lot like today's DSLR bodies and continue to take EF lenses as the native lens mount. Should Canon go that route, they would actually be able to reduce their production costs because they would no longer have to offer both mirrored and mirrorless bodies, and instead simply offer a choice in lens mounts.

 

[hmatthes]

From what I've read in this forum and elsewhere online, and heard from camera-club friends, the major drawback to mirrorless at this point is the electronic viewfinder. Either it lags a bit or it just doesn't feel right compared to an optical viewfinder.

The real world examples of EVF run the range of lousy to brilliant. I borrowed a M43 mirrorless that was horrid to use compared to OVF.
My Leica Q (Mirrorless FF, fixed 28mm f1.7 lens) has an amazing EVF that has very little (imperceptible) delay. The Leica SL is even faster (to my eyes) plus it offers a vast array of lenses and adapters.

EVF offers what is missing from OVF in my opinion:
Real Time viewing of the image seen by the sensor AFTER adjustments. -- Color Balance! Exposure! Depth of Field without having to stopdown!
(I miss the EVF when shooting my FF Canon DSLRs. And I can never fund their tiny stopdown buttons!)

If I make serious adjustments, ½ press of shutter causes a very short delay while re-displaying the sensor in it's final state for imaging. Perhaps not great for sports but vital for landscapes and portraits.

 

[YuengLinger]

You are conflating two things, and two things that are completely independent at that.
DSLR sales are down dramatically but this is not due to the creation of mirrorless, if my mirrorless you do not include mobile phones. Mirrorless have not significantly increased their share in the last 3-4 years which suggests they are neither cause of, nor the cure for the problem.
Cameras such as we are interested in are fighting against a range of imaging devices from smart phones, to tablets to GoPro. None of these are markets that cameras from Sony, Canon and Nikon can even hope to touch - all of them rely on someone with an smartphone wanting to take better quality images and upgrading to something with a bigger sensor and more controls. And every step in sophistication of cameraphone design makes it that little bit harder for camera manufacturers. Sony is in a strong position if only based on their presence in the phone market as manufacturer and supplier of sensors.

I never said the drop in sales over the past 5 years is related to mirrorless, so I am not conflating here.

But since you bring it up, don't smartphones qualify as mirrorless?

Unfocused, obviously I'm predicting Canon will be using a new mount for FF mirrorless. That's conjecture based on Canon APS-C mirrorless, Nikon's use of a new mount, and the opportunity Canon has to bring in a new native mount for FF mirrorless now. Plus many tech column predictions. If I'm wrong, I fall off the limb I'm out on. No conflation here either.

 

[Mikehit]

I never said the drop in sales over the past 5 years is related to mirrorless, so I am not conflating here.

Well that was the conclusion when you said "dSLR sales are down dramatically the past five years, and to imagine Canon or others could sustain production of dSLR's even losing ANOTHER 75% of sales is beyond even my wild imagination. " Sales of all cameras has dropped dramatically as evidenced by mirrroless not making real gains in % marketshare. Why would sustaining DSLRs production be difficult but not mirrorless? On past performance a 75% drop in DSLR would be mirrored by (see what I did there...?) a 75% drop in mirrorless as well.

 

[YuengLinger]

Well that was the conclusion when you said "dSLR sales are down dramatically the past five years, and to imagine Canon or others could sustain production of dSLR's even losing ANOTHER 75% of sales is beyond even my wild imagination. " Sales of all cameras has dropped dramatically as evidenced by mirrroless not making real gains in % marketshare. Why would sustaining DSLRs production be difficult but not mirrorless? On past performance a 75% drop in DSLR would be mirrored by (see what I did there...?) a 75% drop in mirrorless as well.

In that scenario, Canon is doomed.

 

[unfocused]

...Unfocused, obviously I'm predicting Canon will be using a new mount for FF mirrorless. That's conjecture based on Canon APS-C mirrorless, Nikon's use of a new mount, and the opportunity Canon has to bring in a new native mount for FF mirrorless now. Plus many tech column predictions. If I'm wrong, I fall off the limb I'm out on. No conflation here either.

Your misunderstand my point. When I said you were conflating two separate things, I referred to your belief that all future Canon mirrorless bodies must use any new mount that is designed for the first generation FF bodies.

Yes, predictions are that Canon will use a new mount for it's first entry into FF mirrorless. But, there is nothing to say that they will use that new mount for all future mirrorless body styles. Their first FF mirrorless cameras may place a premium on size and in order to keep the camera compact, they may introduce a handful of compact lenses. As Fullstop/AvTvM argues, they can keep the lens selection small and keep the lenses compact by limiting the apertures available. If they include in-body stabilization, they can keep the lenses even smaller.

But, my point is that when it comes time (if it ever comes time) to replace the mirror box in the 5D, 1D, 7D and possibly 80D series, those cameras can look essentially identical to today's DSLRs -- retain the ergonomics that long, heavy, fast and ultrawide lens users prefer and for most users function essentially the same as today's DLSRs. When they are ready to make that leap, they can (and I believe will) simply retain the EF lens mount as the native mount on those cameras.

Alternatively, it could be a simple and cost effective approach to offer these higher-end cameras in two different Canon mounts, allowing consumers to choose. Those who have invested heavily in EF mounts would choose the bodies with EF as the native mount. Those who bought into the Canon system with their mirrorless full frame cameras and have purchased several of the new mount lenses, might choose a body that keeps that new mount as the native mount. Far cheaper and less controversial for Canon to go that route than to completely replace their extensive EF mount lineup.

 

[YuengLinger]

Your misunderstand my point. When I said you were conflating two separate things, I referred to your belief that all future Canon mirrorless bodies must use any new mount that is designed for the first generation FF bodies.

Yes, predictions are that Canon will use a new mount for it's first entry into FF mirrorless. But, there is nothing to say that they will use that new mount for all future mirrorless body styles. Their first FF mirrorless cameras may place a premium on size and in order to keep the camera compact, they may introduce a handful of compact lenses. As Fullstop/AvTvM argues, they can keep the lens selection small and keep the lenses compact by limiting the apertures available. If they include in-body stabilization, they can keep the lenses even smaller.

But, my point is that when it comes time (if it ever comes time) to replace the mirror box in the 5D, 1D, 7D and possibly 80D series, those cameras can look essentially identical to today's DSLRs -- retain the ergonomics that long, heavy, fast and ultrawide lens users prefer and for most users function essentially the same as today's DLSRs. When they are ready to make that leap, they can (and I believe will) simply retain the EF lens mount as the native mount on those cameras.

Alternatively, it could be a simple and cost effective approach to offer these higher-end cameras in two different Canon mounts, allowing consumers to choose. Those who have invested heavily in EF mounts would choose the bodies with EF as the native mount. Those who bought into the Canon system with their mirrorless full frame cameras and have purchased several of the new mount lenses, might choose a body that keeps that new mount as the native mount. Far cheaper and less controversial for Canon to go that route than to completely replace their extensive EF mount lineup.

Interesting theories! (But please note I have not used absolutes such as "all" or "must.")

 

[ahsanford]

Your misunderstand my point. When I said you were conflating two separate things, I referred to your belief that all future Canon mirrorless bodies must use any new mount that is designed for the first generation FF bodies.

Yes, predictions are that Canon will use a new mount for it's first entry into FF mirrorless. But, there is nothing to say that they will use that new mount for all future mirrorless body styles.

Interesting theories!

Yep. There's a fair amount of wisdom in Canon following the market with thin mount mirrorless for meeting the 'mirrorless is all about being small' market expectation (whether you personally agree with that statement or not) and also offering a full EF mount mirrorless to keep things as comfortable/familiar/seamless as possible for folks who live in 'big glass all the time' territory.

Canon is big enough to offer both -- easily so -- provided they show some discipline and limit how much of EF they intend to re-design/offer new for a thin mount.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Canon is big enough to offer both -- easily so -- provided they show some discipline and limit how much of EF they intend to re-design/offer new for a thin mount.

And Unfocused and I are not alone here:

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ff-mirrorless-poll-what-mount-will-we-see.35293/

Just about half of us are not expecting just one mount from Canon on FF mirrorless. (I'm just saying that we are not completely out of left field with this.)

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

And Unfocused and I are not alone here:

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ff-mirrorless-poll-what-mount-will-we-see.35293/

Just about half of us are not expecting just one mount from Canon on FF mirrorless. (I'm just saying that we are not completely out of left field with this.)

- A

I'm expecting a new FF mirrorless mount + an adapter for the vast forests of EF lenses in the hands of dSLR owners. Call it a mount and a half.
But if the FF mirrorless is successful as first released, I can't see marketing or production strategies that would make splintering the line along different mounts worthwhile.

But who knows? Camera companies are desperate to remain relevant; they might try anything. Even spinoffs!

All conjecture aside, I hope EF remains the standard on FF mirrorless. Then I can buy more EF lenses in peace and at my leisure!

 

[mirage]

Nikon will maintain F-mount for some time, then consolidate on Z-mount. 1 mount, 2 sets of lenses (FF, APS-C).
Sony has consolidated on E-mount. 1 mount, 2 sets of lenses (FE and E/APS-C)
Canon not likely to go with 4 mount/lens set versions. Expect transition from DSLR-era EF plus EF-S to mirrorfree era EF-X plus EF-M. No point to bring some mirrorfree FF cameras with EF mount, when EF-X can do anything EF can plus a lot more, like more compact lenses in mostly used focal length range.

 

[BillB]

Your misunderstand my point. When I said you were conflating two separate things, I referred to your belief that all future Canon mirrorless bodies must use any new mount that is designed for the first generation FF bodies.

Yes, predictions are that Canon will use a new mount for it's first entry into FF mirrorless. But, there is nothing to say that they will use that new mount for all future mirrorless body styles. Their first FF mirrorless cameras may place a premium on size and in order to keep the camera compact, they may introduce a handful of compact lenses. As Fullstop/AvTvM argues, they can keep the lens selection small and keep the lenses compact by limiting the apertures available. If they include in-body stabilization, they can keep the lenses even smaller.

But, my point is that when it comes time (if it ever comes time) to replace the mirror box in the 5D, 1D, 7D and possibly 80D series, those cameras can look essentially identical to today's DSLRs -- retain the ergonomics that long, heavy, fast and ultrawide lens users prefer and for most users function essentially the same as today's DLSRs. When they are ready to make that leap, they can (and I believe will) simply retain the EF lens mount as the native mount on those cameras.

Alternatively, it could be a simple and cost effective approach to offer these higher-end cameras in two different Canon mounts, allowing consumers to choose. Those who have invested heavily in EF mounts would choose the bodies with EF as the native mount. Those who bought into the Canon system with their mirrorless full frame cameras and have purchased several of the new mount lenses, might choose a body that keeps that new mount as the native mount. Far cheaper and less controversial for Canon to go that route than to completely replace their extensive EF mount lineup.

An unanswered question is how small an FF camera Canon could build based on the EF mount. Canon may not feel the need to bring out a new mount to go as small as it wants to with FF. The SLR2 is aps-c, but it uses the EF mount, and how much bigger would a FF mirrorless with an EF mount have to be?

 

[ahsanford]

I'm expecting a new FF mirrorless mount + an adapter for the vast forests of EF lenses in the hands of dSLR owners. Call it a mount and a half.
But if the FF mirrorless is successful as first released, I can't see marketing or production strategies that would make splintering the line along different mounts worthwhile.

Disagree. Canon could sell a boatload of thin mount FF bodies, offer a handful of lenses and simply point them to an adaptor for more glass. They only must climb up 'EF rebuild mountain' if they choose to.

I've heard riffs on this before: If it's a thin mount and it sells well, that's the end of EF. They will go all in on the new mount. Can someone explain that logic to me?

1) People may go in on the thin mount body for size reasons. Rebuilding a large percentage of the EF portfolio in a thin mount does not help that goal.

2) The market has numerous segments with wildly different priorities. Why should some one-time bolus of sales to pent-up enthusiasts cause Canon to build the entire business strategy around that slate of priorities? What about wedding shooters? What about portaiture folks? What about sports/wildlife folks? What about photojournos? Why do they all get hosed by the needs of some mirrorless fanatics?

I'll say something possibly backwards to some here. The above says Mirrorless has to demonstrate why it is worthy of more water and sunlight than EF is getting far more than the other way around. In absence of those reasons being a clear, sustainable and broadly useful to many types of photographers, all my chips are on EF.

- A