Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless to Have New Z Mount

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,094
382
Vancouver, BC
@3kramd5 - There is a point where it doesn't matter much. If I don't have to take more spare batteries and watch the blinking low battery indicator, that's what really matters. Sure it's nice to be able to go several days without a battery swap, but for me anyways, that wouldn't drive a decision between EVF and OVF.

The real benefit, on OVF, I guess, would be that you could have smaller batteries that lasted a full day.

@neuro & hflm - You can't make a trend line with a one year spike. 2017 could be an anomaly; if you took out 2016 and 2017, which, incidentally are the highest and lowest numbers, MILC trendline would not be looking good. Or 2018 could be a gigantic leap for MILC. Nobody will know until we are done the year (because there are seasonal factors).

I accept the explanation that in 2016, MILC shipments were a little down because many manufacturers couldn't get sensors, and that in 2017, there were more MILC shipments because of that. So most likely, 2017 and 2016 are both exaggerated, and in my opinion, the trend line is upwards, but not sharply so. By 2020, we should have a much clearer picture, absent some major event influencing sales, but of course, the doomsayers think that DSLR will be irrelevant by then anyways.

In any case, no reasonable statistician would extrapolate an exponential curve (one that rises sharply upwards) based on 2017 alone, especially since it's so flat until then.
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
That’s fair. I spent a few days backpacking with a buddy who brought an A7Riii with the battery grip, and he only changed batteries when we set up camp, same as me with a 1Dx. So maybe with that A9 battery the point has been reached.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,521
3,803
Talys said:
@neuro & hflm - You can't make a trend line with a one year spike.

Sure you can, just like you can claim the world is flat. But doing either leaves you looking rather foolish, to put it politely.

As I stated earlier...

neuroanatomist said:
Tugela said:
If those trends continue...

So, you believe that one year represents a trend? :eek:
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,094
382
Vancouver, BC
neuroanatomist said:
Talys said:
@neuro & hflm - You can't make a trend line with a one year spike.

Sure you can, just like you can claim the world is flat. But doing either leaves you looking rather foolish, to put it politely.

Heresy. Of course the world is flat! Why else would it need elephants to hold up the corners? ???

But yeah, I saw your post. It's just totally pointless to argue how that trend line is going to look after 2019, 2020, 2021. For all we know, MILCs will be on fire, or when Canon makes one it will revolutionize photography like the iPhone did to cell phones (I really doubt this, but what do I know). Or, the world will collectively yawn and the line will creep up, or it will plateau, or it will dribble downwards, or plummet downwards.

It's entirely possible that a lot of people are buying mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras not they think they're superior, but simply because they don't already own one. At some point, I might buy an MILC like an M5 or some Canon FF MILC, if it's affordable, even if I don't really need or will use it a whole ton, just... because. If I don't end up using a whole lot though, it could be years before I buy another one.

On the other hand, DSLRs have really matured. For a lot of purposes, 5D3 produces photos that are as good as the shooter needs. If you don't have GAS and don't need more DR or more megapixels or more FPS for your type of photography, and aren't wowed by a touchscreen... In other words, if you're a viewfinder shooter who is perfectly happy with their photos... all the new stuff that's come out is just great marketing, and is surely a bonus if you HAVE to buy a new unit (like you break something), but doesn't make a compelling case as an upgrade/replacement.

It's also entirely possible that since Sony so quickly multi-upgraded its way to A7R3 -- which, really doesn't have many sensor differences to A7R2 -- that they're getting close to the end of the line of what they can do given today's technology, and can only tinker around the edges and make the camera more usable ergonomically, better weather sealed, and that sort of thing. In some other post, someone was saying that Sony's APSC sensor is as good as we're get for a long time. If all that's the case, we could see that market for MILC drying up too, because the motivation for spending $1000 - $3000 for a MILC camera body may be low if you're happy with what you've got.
 

bwud

EOS RP
Sep 3, 2014
305
10
Talys said:
It's also entirely possible that since Sony so quickly multi-upgraded its way to A7R3 -- which, really doesn't have many sensor differences to A7R2 -- that they're getting close to the end of the line of what they can do given today's technology

Having owned both, I can not agree with that conclusion. Rather, A7Riii as compared with A7Rii demonstrates quite well that there is far more to a camera than its sensor, while A9 demonstrates that significant advances in sensor technology are available.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,094
382
Vancouver, BC
bwud said:
Talys said:
It's also entirely possible that since Sony so quickly multi-upgraded its way to A7R3 -- which, really doesn't have many sensor differences to A7R2 -- that they're getting close to the end of the line of what they can do given today's technology

Having owned both, I can not agree with that conclusion. Rather, A7Riii as compared with A7Rii demonstrates quite well that there is far more to a camera than its sensor, while A9 demonstrates that significant advances in sensor technology are available.

I certainly agree that A7R3 is a much better camera than A7R2. I don't own one, but I spent some time playing with one, and I could plainly see that it was a better camera. Are you saying that A7R3 has a much superior sensor to A7R2, though? I didn't think so, but I don't own one, and the sensor tests didn't seem to indicate that.

Certainly, I think if someone loves the A7R2, the A7R3 is going to be a big improvement (like you said, there's far more to a camera than just a sensor).

What I was getting at, is that once we get to the limits of what we can do with sensors, and then clean up all the ergonomics/usability, the number of people upgrading cameras will decline (not zero out -- just plateau or dribble down), much like with the PC industry. It's not that people don't use PCs anymore; it's just that they don't really need a new PC.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,521
3,803
bwud said:
Having owned both, I can not agree with that conclusion. Rather, A7Riii as compared with A7Rii demonstrates quite well that there is far more to a camera than its sensor...

I agree. But try telling that to the CR crowd who lambasted the 5DIII and 6DII. ;)
 

bwud

EOS RP
Sep 3, 2014
305
10
neuroanatomist said:
bwud said:
Having owned both, I can not agree with that conclusion. Rather, A7Riii as compared with A7Rii demonstrates quite well that there is far more to a camera than its sensor...

I agree. But try telling that to the CR crowd who lambasted the 5DIII and 6DII. ;)

hah, I owned a 5D2, I own a 5D3. Same story, although the improvement between the A7R's is far more noteworthy IMO.

Talys said:
bwud said:
Talys said:
It's also entirely possible that since Sony so quickly multi-upgraded its way to A7R3 -- which, really doesn't have many sensor differences to A7R2 -- that they're getting close to the end of the line of what they can do given today's technology

Having owned both, I can not agree with that conclusion. Rather, A7Riii as compared with A7Rii demonstrates quite well that there is far more to a camera than its sensor, while A9 demonstrates that significant advances in sensor technology are available.

I certainly agree that A7R3 is a much better camera than A7R2. I don't own one, but I spent some time playing with one, and I could plainly see that it was a better camera. Are you saying that A7R3 has a much superior sensor to A7R2, though? I didn't think so, but I don't own one, and the sensor tests didn't seem to indicate that.

Certainly, I think if someone loves the A7R2, the A7R3 is going to be a big improvement (like you said, there's far more to a camera than just a sensor).

What I was getting at, is that once we get to the limits of what we can do with sensors, and then clean up all the ergonomics/usability, the number of people upgrading cameras will decline (not zero out -- just plateau or dribble down), much like with the PC industry. It's not that people don't use PCs anymore; it's just that they don't really need a new PC.

I didn't get that from the post since I didn't isolate it from the larger context of an alleged MILC sales trend. It seemed like you might be saying mirrorless cameras can only get marginally better, but I don't think industry is at that point of maturation yet.

No, I don't claim the sensor is much superior, but rather that the camera as a whole is. It's as if A7R was alpha, A7Rii was beta, and A7Riii is finally ready for prime time as a complete, cohesive, usable camera. It's sensor is good, perhaps a little better than in the predecessor, but whether that comes down the the sensor or other electronics I haven't a guess.

That being said, A9 on the other hand has a sensor architecture which is remarkably better (similar IMO to the DPAF development at Canon).
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,341
544
bwud said:
It's as if A7R was alpha, A7Rii was beta, and A7Riii is finally ready for prime time as a complete, cohesive, usable camera. It's sensor is good, perhaps a little better than in the predecessor, but whether that comes down the the sensor or other electronics I haven't a guess.

That being said, A9 on the other hand has a sensor architecture which is remarkably better (similar IMO to the DPAF development at Canon).

And as I see that is part of the problem in comparing brands. In general, Sony seems to release incremental improvements and people talk about their 'innovation' and 'development' based on little else than the rate at which they release new models. Canon tend to release models when there are significant improvements and people talk about 'slow development' and 'no innovation' but anyone who actually buy their cameras almost always talk about how how much better the new model is to use as a camera.
 

Hflm

Gear: 5div, A7riii, A9 ...
Jan 10, 2017
88
0
neuroanatomist said:
Hflm said:
neuroanatomist said:
What is true is that Thom would have gotten a very different trendline for MILCs if he'd included all of the available data (CIPA started separately tracking MILCs in 2012).

True?

Yes, what I stated is true. As a scientist and full professor, I would think you'd have looked at copious amounts of data over the years. Maybe you just haven't seen or analyzed much data, or you lack the ability to visualize. Personally, I have no trouble looking at a column or scatter plot and mentally visualizing the trendline. Looking at the data I posted:

index.php


...I can easily visualize that the trendline is going to be essentially flat. The trendline will only be ascending if you exclude the 2012 data point. What would be the justification for doing so? (Aside from the obvious one – selecting only those data that support your pre-determined conclusion, and ignoring the data that don't fit your hypothesis.) Personally, I don't ignore data...much less intentionally omit them (Grubbs' test notwithstanding).

In the case of the trendline, I am reminded of a remark made by a colleague (who was, admittedly, a bit cynical) after he sat in on one of my medical school lectures. After hearing their questions, he stated, "These kids don't want to just be spoon fed, they want to be fork-and-knife fed, too." But, I had a little time, so I decided to humor you. Below is the same graph as above, with the trendline for the full dataset shown in green, and the trendline for the dataset excluding 2012 shipments shown in purple. Hey - maybe I could omit the 2017 shipments, and then I could say that the MILC market is declining! No, I don't think I'll do that. ;)

Incidentally, Hogan's conclusions may be correct. The major driver for the intersection of the two trendlines is the decreasing shipments of dSLRs, not the MILC shipments, which are essentially flat (or mildly trending upward, if you ignore 2012, or more strongly trending upward, if you make some assumptions which the existing data do not support). So, if the ILC market continues to contract and dSLRs continue to drop, 2019-2020 may be correct. But it's also worth noting that, looking at 2016-2017, the formerly plummeting compact camera market appears to be bottoming out (and by unit numbers, compact cameras still outsell ILCs). What if dSLRs show a similar trend, and shipments of them start leveling off?

Hflm said:
Calling him a poor scientist is a cheap shot which is not backed up by you. But getting personal against others is something I often see in your contributions, here. Nothing new.

I didn't call him a poor scientist, please go back and read what I wrote before you put words in my mouth. He's not a scientist at all, actually (his academic background is in telecommunications, BA, MA and started but did not complete his doctorate, all in that field). As such, I would not necessarily expect him to be an expert on data analysis.

As for 'getting personal', well, the Internet is a dangerous place. If it bothers you, try picking up a good book or journal to read. They don't talk back.


The thing is, that using the existing data and calculating trend lines over this period is not what Thom Hogan did. He didn't estimate the 2020 data based on a trend of _only_ the old data.

Instead he first estimated, based on a simple reasonable assumption, the unit volume for 2018, 2019 and 2020, assuming that MILCs grow in Volume by 10% each year from now on, as well as DSLRs decline by 10% each year. Then he calculated trend lines from 2013 to 2020 based on the model to estimate a cross-over-point.
I find that a very reasonable model. One can certainly argue about it, but it is not something I would dismiss as unrealistic. The reasoning is as follows: From the point of view of DSLRs, sales in unit volume decrease now for quite some time. 10% decay is conservative. Although, as you rightly say, mirrorless growth using several past years can be seen as quite steady, depending on the period used (although 25% growth occurred over 2017 according to his data), Canon and Nikon are releasing several MILC models this and next year, some before Photokina, with more to follow. These will be APSC models as well as full frame models (not to count recent successes from Panasonic, Olympus and Sony. And don't forget Canon!). Sony will add an A7s3 and A73 and new APSC models within the next two years, an A9ii before the Olympics.
It is _very likely_, that this will lead to stronger mirrorless growth than over the previous years. In a shrinking market, it is very likely, too, that the growth will be at the cost of DSLR sales, don't you think? A 10% increase each year is reasonable.

Regarding the job, I do a lot of data analysis (big data, huge simulations (exascale), etc.), so I think you don't need to assume what I know or don't know. You didn't even bother to read about the assumptions of Hogans analysis and boast about others looking foolish etc.
 

Hflm

Gear: 5div, A7riii, A9 ...
Jan 10, 2017
88
0
Talys said:
bwud said:
Talys said:
It's also entirely possible that since Sony so quickly multi-upgraded its way to A7R3 -- which, really doesn't have many sensor differences to A7R2 -- that they're getting close to the end of the line of what they can do given today's technology

Having owned both, I can not agree with that conclusion. Rather, A7Riii as compared with A7Rii demonstrates quite well that there is far more to a camera than its sensor, while A9 demonstrates that significant advances in sensor technology are available.

I certainly agree that A7R3 is a much better camera than A7R2. I don't own one, but I spent some time playing with one, and I could plainly see that it was a better camera. Are you saying that A7R3 has a much superior sensor to A7R2, though? I didn't think so, but I don't own one, and the sensor tests didn't seem to indicate that.

Certainly, I think if someone loves the A7R2, the A7R3 is going to be a big improvement (like you said, there's far more to a camera than just a sensor).

What I was getting at, is that once we get to the limits of what we can do with sensors, and then clean up all the ergonomics/usability, the number of people upgrading cameras will decline (not zero out -- just plateau or dribble down), much like with the PC industry. It's not that people don't use PCs anymore; it's just that they don't really need a new PC.
Thom Hogan didn't do a trend based on one data point increase. Just read my reply to Neuro...

I wouldn't call the sensor update huge, but substantial. DR at low isos improved further. https://www.dpreview.com/news/4302149407/sony-a7r-iii-dynamic-range-improved-nearly-matches-chart-topping-nikon-d850
It almost matches D850 iso64 DR. Sensor readout is a bit faster, too, as is PD-AF, which improved drastically.
It is difficult to say how much is sensor dependent and how much is due to algorithmic improvements. Sensitivity increased by 1 stop, too. Noise grain is improved at high isos, but this is usually due to better software algorithms.
The shutter is excellently damped, making it one of the quietest cameras with mechanical shutter I used, IBIS is improved as well as customisability. I think it became a great camera, now.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,521
3,803
Hflm said:
Regarding the job, I do a lot of data analysis (big data, huge simulations (exascale), etc.), so I think you don't need to assume what I know or don't know. You didn't even bother to read about the assumptions of Hogans analysis and boast about others looking foolish etc.

Yes, I read Hogan's assumptions and his description of how he generated the plots. If you indeed read his blog post (and you certainly imply that you have done so), it's apparent that you cannot properly comprehend what you read. There's no need to assume what you don't know, when you demonstrate what you don't know right here in this thread and succeed in making yourself look foolish in the process.

Let's review:

Hflm said:
The thing is, that using the existing data and calculating trend lines over this period is not what Thom Hogan did. He didn't estimate the 2020 data based on a trend of _only_ the old data.

Instead he first estimated, based on a simple reasonable assumption, the unit volume for 2018, 2019 and 2020, assuming that MILCs grow in Volume by 10% each year from now on, as well as DSLRs decline by 10% each year. Then he calculated trend lines from 2013 to 2020 based on the model to estimate a cross-over-point.
I find that a very reasonable model.

[quote author=Thom Hogan]
The straight linear trend looks like this (hashed lines; the solid lines are actual through 2017, linear estimates through 2020).

Note that 2016 was a problem for mirrorless due to sensor shortages due to the earthquake.

bythom_ilc_trendline_med.jpeg


Implied in this graph is about a 10% drop in DSLR unit volume a year and a 10% gain in mirrorless unit volume (the 2017 gain for mirrorless was 25% [current trailing year numbers], but it was also a recovery year from sensor shortages).

But a linear trend is not necessarily what we'll see. In fact, it's highly unlikely that sales would progress linearly. As more mirrorless choices become available and it becomes clear that Canon and Nikon are endorsing such models, we're likely to see a higher mirrorless adaptation rate. Change the growth rate in mirrorless and the contraction rate in DSLRs by a factor of one point five to two and you get something like this:

bythom_ilc_trendline2_med.jpeg

[/quote]

He plotted actual data from 2013-2017, generated linear trendlines based on those data which yield a ~10% y/y decrease in dSLRs and a ~10% y/y increase in MILC shipments (actually, the latter closer to ~6% per year), which he then extrapolated to 2018-2020 based on those linear trendlines. In other words, using the existing data and calculating trend lines over this period is _exactly_ what Thom Hogan did (as he stated and I highlighted in red above). There is no 'assumption of a 10% decline/growth' prior to calculating the trendlines, as you erroneously suggest. The 10% decline/growth are based on the trendlines generated from the 2013-2017 actual data. In that scenario, the trendlines would cross in 2020.

He then made an assumption that the 10% growth/decline in MILCs/dSLRs (respectively) was an underestimate (based on new MILCs from Canon and Nikon), and modeled what would happen if those rates increased 1.5- to 2-fold, i.e. a 15-20% y/y growth/decline in MILCs/dSLRs (respectively). With that assumption, the steeper trendlines would cross in 2019.

But...my original point still stands. He based his straight linear trends on actual data from 2013-2017, and for MILCs over that period, the data show the trendline increasing ~10% y/y. That ~10% y/y change is the basis for his MILC projections. Yet, data on MILC shipments are available starting from 2012, and he ignored the 2012 data point – a data point which, had it been included, would have resulted in a flat trendline for MILCs from 2012-2017...and of course, a 15-20% increase to a flat trendline is...a flat trendline. (But as I also stated, that doesn't apply to the decrease in dSLR shipments from 2012-2017; based on that rate of decline and a logical assumption of MILC growth if Canon continues growing their MILC lines and Nikon enters the fray, a crossover point of 2019-2020 remains a reasonable possibility, even if Hogan arrived at that conclusion through flawed methods.)

If your failure to fully grasp and correctly describe Thom Hogan's analysis is representative of your overall scientific acumen, I feel sorry for your students and for anyone relying on your data analysis.
 

Hflm

Gear: 5div, A7riii, A9 ...
Jan 10, 2017
88
0
neuroanatomist said:
Hflm said:
Regarding the job, I do a lot of data analysis (big data, huge simulations (exascale), etc.), so I think you don't need to assume what I know or don't know. You didn't even bother to read about the assumptions of Hogans analysis and boast about others looking foolish etc.

Yes, I read Hogan's assumptions and his description of how he generated the plots. If you indeed read his blog post (and you certainly imply that you have done so), it's apparent that you cannot properly comprehend what you read. There's no need to assume what you don't know, when you demonstrate what you don't know right here in this thread and succeed in making yourself look foolish in the process.

Let's review:

Hflm said:
The thing is, that using the existing data and calculating trend lines over this period is not what Thom Hogan did. He didn't estimate the 2020 data based on a trend of _only_ the old data.

Instead he first estimated, based on a simple reasonable assumption, the unit volume for 2018, 2019 and 2020, assuming that MILCs grow in Volume by 10% each year from now on, as well as DSLRs decline by 10% each year. Then he calculated trend lines from 2013 to 2020 based on the model to estimate a cross-over-point.
I find that a very reasonable model.

[quote author=Thom Hogan]
The straight linear trend looks like this (hashed lines; the solid lines are actual through 2017, linear estimates through 2020).

Note that 2016 was a problem for mirrorless due to sensor shortages due to the earthquake.

bythom_ilc_trendline_med.jpeg


Implied in this graph is about a 10% drop in DSLR unit volume a year and a 10% gain in mirrorless unit volume (the 2017 gain for mirrorless was 25% [current trailing year numbers], but it was also a recovery year from sensor shortages).

But a linear trend is not necessarily what we'll see. In fact, it's highly unlikely that sales would progress linearly. As more mirrorless choices become available and it becomes clear that Canon and Nikon are endorsing such models, we're likely to see a higher mirrorless adaptation rate. Change the growth rate in mirrorless and the contraction rate in DSLRs by a factor of one point five to two and you get something like this:

bythom_ilc_trendline2_med.jpeg

He plotted actual data from 2013-2017, generated linear trendlines based on those data which yield a ~10% y/y decrease in dSLRs and a ~10% y/y increase in MILC shipments (actually, the latter closer to ~6% per year), which he then extrapolated to 2018-2020 based on those linear trendlines. In other words, using the existing data and calculating trend lines over this period is _exactly_ what Thom Hogan did (as he stated and I highlighted in red above). There is no 'assumption of a 10% decline/growth' prior to calculating the trendlines, as you erroneously suggest. The 10% decline/growth are based on the trendlines generated from the 2013-2017 actual data. In that scenario, the trendlines would cross in 2020.

He then made an assumption that the 10% growth/decline in MILCs/dSLRs (respectively) was an underestimate (based on new MILCs from Canon and Nikon), and modeled what would happen if those rates increased 1.5- to 2-fold, i.e. a 15-20% y/y growth/decline in MILCs/dSLRs (respectively). With that assumption, the steeper trendlines would cross in 2019.

But...my original point still stands. He based his straight linear trends on actual data from 2013-2017, and for MILCs over that period, the data show the trendline increasing ~10% y/y. That ~10% y/y change is the basis for his MILC projections. Yet, data on MILC shipments are available starting from 2012, and he ignored the 2012 data point – a data point which, had it been included, would have resulted in a flat trendline for MILCs from 2012-2017...and of course, a 15-20% increase to a flat trendline is...a flat trendline. (But as I also stated, that doesn't apply to the decrease in dSLR shipments from 2012-2017; based on that rate of decline and a logical assumption of MILC growth if Canon continues growing their MILC lines and Nikon enters the fray, a crossover point of 2019-2020 remains a reasonable possibility, even if Hogan arrived at that conclusion through flawed methods.)

If your failure to fully grasp and correctly describe Thom Hogan's analysis is representative of your overall scientific acumen, I feel sorry for your students and for anyone relying on your data analysis.
[/quote]


You say "He plotted actual data from 2013-2017, generated linear trendlines based on those data which yield a ~10% y/y decrease in dSLRs and a ~10% y/y increase in MILC shipments (actually, the latter closer to ~6% per year), which he then extrapolated to 2018-2020 based on those linear trendlines. In other words, using the existing data and calculating trend lines over this period is _exactly_ what Thom Hogan did"

No.

It makes a difference whether it is 6% or 10%. The data is _not_ extrapolated to 2020 based on the trend line from the data from 2013 to 2017. The attached image reproduces the data and trend lines, based on your numbers given in a previous thread, just to get a quick dataset at hand.

As you can see, when calculating a trend for the data assuming a 10% increase per year for the subsequent 3 years (equivalent to a linear trend from 2017 to 2020, which is what he meant and highlighted in your red bold text), I can almost exactly reproduce Thom Hogan's trend line. So our datasets are very similar.

Given, too, is the trend line based on the 2013-2017 data alone. A clear difference in slope. The data values from 2018 to 2020 would have been much lower, had I estimated them given the 2013-2017 trend.

You can see that by comparing the slope of the trend line and data, that they are different for that region, too.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 00.01.17.png
    Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 00.01.17.png
    50.3 KB · Views: 118

3dit0r

EOS M50
Dec 4, 2017
47
10
As a long-time mirrorless user, having extensively used m4/3, APS-C and FF mirrorless as well as FF DSLRs, by far the biggest difference in the system size and weight is in the lenses for each format, because physics dictates larger sensors will need larger lenses. The depth of the camera being a few mm thicker when FF glass is going on the end of it anyway, is truly negligible overall.

Sony/Zeiss seem to have proved this fairly quickly with the various lenses for FE mount. For a given FL and aperture, the lens sizes/weights are pretty much identical to their FF DSLR counterparts (e.g. Sony FE 35mm f/1.4, 78.5x112.0mm, 630g ≈ Canon 35mm f/1.4 L II, 80.4x105.5, 760g. Sony FE 24-70 f/2.8 GM, 87.6x136 mm, 886g ≈ Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, 88.5 x 113mm, 805g). A few g here or there, but in a bag with a few lenses, probably it will equal out. That leaves the body. The couple hundred grams difference will probably be largely the mirror mech and OVF and OVF related AF, etc. Remove that, and Canon will probably be within 50g or so of Sony right off the bat (I'm guessing a little heavier as they are likely going slightly more robust and better weather sealed, etc., which will add weight).

So the difference ends up being a few mm in the depth of the body, which overall doesn't matter because of grip depth - (on Canon DSLRs the grip depth is almost equal to the body depth, wheras in, e.g., the Sony A7Riii, the grip just sticks out more, and the EVF sticks out the back). Have a look here http://j.mp/2scJ4Oe and change the view to top or side view; the difference in body depth in real terms is around 2mm. Height is the real bulk difference, but again, remove the OVF and replace with EVF and you're nearly there.

Therefore in my mind, for FF mirrorless there is very, very little, to zero gain in Canon to abandoning a huge, and largely very fine, EF lens lineup just to change the mount. For sure, they could start designing new lenses to make the most of the benefits of mirrorless, but I doubt that will be about size, more likely to do with more silent, smoother lenses which are designed from the ground up with DPAF in mind, smoother motors for video, etc.

For EF-M with APS-C, well possibly slightly different, as Canon don't have a great APS-C lens lineup anyway, especially primes, etc., so that could be fleshed out for sure.
 

3dit0r

EOS M50
Dec 4, 2017
47
10
As an addendum to my previous post, I got playing with the Camera Size website on my coffee break. Even I hadn't quite realised just how ridiculous the FF DSLR/Mirrorless size/weight comparison was until I did so. A couple of examples, just to provide food for thought (this is cameras with lenses, so to see what I'm on about you have to click on the little 'body plus lens' icon next to the scale slider):

5D Mark IV + Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II vs Sony A7riii+Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM
http://j.mp/2yc91ej
Note that the overall size of the combination is near exactly the same, again, only the height of the mirror box makes the Canon taller. Weight is similar.


5D Mark IV + Canon 50mm f/1.2 L vs Sony A7riii+Sony 50mm f/1.4 ZA
http://j.mp/2sjiC5J
Here the Canon combo is smaller, despite being a stop faster. Weight is similar again.

There are other advantages to mirrorless other than size/weight, of course, but I'm now extremely unconvinced that the mount makes much difference at all in the overall equation.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,429
5,654
3dit0r said:
5D Mark IV + Canon 50mm f/1.2 L vs Sony A7riii+Sony 50mm f/1.4 ZA
http://j.mp/2sjiC5J
Here the Canon combo is smaller, despite being a stop faster. Weight is similar again.

F1.2 to f1.4 is 1/3rd of a stop.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,521
3,803
Hflm said:
You say "He plotted actual data from 2013-2017, generated linear trendlines based on those data which yield a ~10% y/y decrease in dSLRs and a ~10% y/y increase in MILC shipments (actually, the latter closer to ~6% per year), which he then extrapolated to 2018-2020 based on those linear trendlines. In other words, using the existing data and calculating trend lines over this period is _exactly_ what Thom Hogan did"

No.

It makes a difference whether it is 6% or 10%. The data is _not_ extrapolated to 2020 based on the trend line from the data from 2013 to 2017. The attached image reproduces the data and trend lines, based on your numbers given in a previous thread, just to get a quick dataset at hand.

As you can see, when calculating a trend for the data assuming a 10% increase per year for the subsequent 3 years (equivalent to a linear trend from 2017 to 2020, which is what he meant and highlighted in your red bold text), I can almost exactly reproduce Thom Hogan's trend line. So our datasets are very similar.

Given, too, is the trend line based on the 2013-2017 data alone. A clear difference in slope. The data values from 2018 to 2020 would have been much lower, had I estimated them given the 2013-2017 trend.

You can see that by comparing the slope of the trend line and data, that they are different for that region, too.

Interesting, thanks for the re-analysis and taking the high road. Partial mea culpa, I was paying attention to what he said, not what he did. What Hogan actually did with the MILC shipments is different from what he said he did. He said, "Straight line linear trend and linear estimates through 2020," and then, "Implied in the graph is a 10% drop in dSLR and a 10% gain in MILC," but based on your analysis he didn't imply it, he explicitly showed it...instead of the straight linear trend and linear estimates he claimed he was plotting. Or maybe I'm just over interpreting – I would take 'linear estimate' in the context of a graph to mean a linear extrapolation of the data...but I suppose he just means he plotted some actual data, then arbitratily made up some other data, and drew a straight line through the real and the fake data...thus, a 'linear estimate'.

But that's not the whole story. Below, I replotted the actual 2013 - 2017 datasets for both MILCs and dSLRs, added linear trendlines (orange for dSLRs, purple for MILCs) and superimposed (in Photoshop) that plot with Hogan's first plot (the one he called 'straight linear trend'). [Side note: the data points for 2016 do not exactly line up, Hogan's green point is lower than my orange one and his blue point is very slightly lower than my purple one – I suspect he accidentally used the CIPA number for production that year, instead of shipments like all the other years; 2016 dSLR production was ~175,000 units lower than shipments, and MILC production was ~21,000 units lower.]

So, it seems he arbitrarily assigned a 10% y/y drop in dSLRs (shallower than the data suggest) and a 10% increase in MILCs (steeper than the data suggest) and came up with an intersection in 2020. To me, that is not necessarily a reasonable model – an greater increase in MILCs makes sense based on introduction of new models, but does a slower decline in dSLRs make sense in that context? Put another way, he states that, "It's not hard to imagine that the factors are truly lined up this time for mirrorless growth at the expense of DSLR sales," but what he graphically assumes (in the top graph) is that dSLR sales are stronger than the trend would predict, consistent with a reduced rate of decline for the ILC market as a whole.

He then generated the bottom graph by arbitrarily setting the growth/decline to '15-20%' and came up with an intesection in 2019. Of course, if he'd just done what he said he'd do – use actual data and simple linear extrapolation – in the first place, he'd have seen the lines cross in 2019 without any 'implied' assumptions. So, why didn't he just do that? I suspect the answer is in the opening lines of his post:

[quote author=Thom Hogan]
It seems a post I made on an Internet forum last week rattled a few cages. Basically I predicted that mirrorless sales would equal DSLR sales in 2020.
[/quote]

He'd previously said 2020, he analyzed the data with a simple linear model and came up with 2019. So, he had to come up with a rather convoluted way of making the data fit a 2020 intersection to support his previous statement, then further modify that convoluted method with yet another (non-linear) convolution to arrive at a 2019 intersection.

I still think he may have reached a reasonable conclusion, but his way of getting there was even more wrong than I had initially thought.
 

Attachments

  • Convolutions.jpg
    Convolutions.jpg
    70 KB · Views: 459

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,429
5,654
What I find interesting, other than people being way more versed in analytics than me, is that the total sales are dropping so much. We all assumed the P&S collapse was due to the ubiquity and improvements in phone cameras, I suppose the best assumption for the drops in ILC's is the maturity of the DSLR form factor and the fact that relatively few people want to sell their DSLR's to replace them with MILC's.

Camera sales are still historically above average so the manufacturers shouldn't be hurting too much, but it is an interesting side show to see how it all develops.
 

bwud

EOS RP
Sep 3, 2014
305
10
privatebydesign said:
What I find interesting, other than people being way more versed in analytics than me, is that the total sales are dropping so much. We all assumed the P&S collapse was due to the ubiquity and improvements in phone cameras, I suppose the best assumption for the drops in ILC's is the maturity of the DSLR form factor and the fact that relatively few people want to sell their DSLR's to replace them with MILC's.

Camera sales are still historically above average so the manufacturers shouldn't be hurting too much, but it is an interesting side show to see how it all develops.

I agree product maturity has something to do with it, but sales should regardless be sustained by new customers entering the market even if cameras have peaked with current technology. Either photography is declining (clearly not true, more photos are being taken than ever before), new customers are opting to purchase used equipment (unlikely on a scale large enough to affect trends in a meaningful way), or there is an alternative product (such as smart device based cameras).

It would be interesting to see these trends overlaid with sales of camera phones (but not enough that I’m moved to do it myself ;)).
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,521
3,803
bwud said:
It would be interesting to see these trends overlaid with sales of camera phones (but not enough that I’m moved to do it myself ;)).

With apologies for the Y-axis, I trust this makes the point...

huge_chart.jpeg