The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing

[pharp]

Innovation is the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, inarticulated needs, or existing market needs.

By that definition, more DR or mp is not innovation, nor is dual pixel AF if you only put it into old style bodies. Real innovation is a tablet vs a desktop. Revolution vs evolution. I'm sure someone has a really innovative design available, but I'm not expecting it from Canon. Real innovation has nothing to do with catering to a particular consumer segment. The camera industry could use a Steve Jobs.

By all accounts, camera sales, in all segments are flat, or in decline. MILC are not really all that innovative per se, but it's a start in the right direction. The status quo is a recipe for extinction.

 

[ewg963]

Smartphones are a disruptive technology when it comes to photography. We haven't seen the end of the disruption, but there will always be a need for cameras to do things that smartphones can't.

+1

 

[mkabi]

Over at Photorumors, they just published some sales numbers for Japan. For those who dream of a full-frame anything, they are quite eye-opening. Full frame mirror-less constitutes just .5% (that's 1/2 of 1 percent) of the total sales in Japan and in DSLRs, full-frame is just 8.7% of the sales. In short, it is "a small, small world after all" despite the skewed perspective one gets on this and other forums.

+1.
If you're not good with math, for every 100 people thats not even a single person, more like half a person.
For every 1000 person, its 5 people...
For every 10,000 peeps, its 50... so on and so forth.

 

[sdsr]

Let's be real here. AF still blows (speed and consistency) on every mirrorless offering in the market relative to a DSLR. The only piece of tech in existence currently is Canon's dual pixel tech which can potentially be used to provide something that can bring mirrorless AF up to par (or perhaps beyond a DSLR).

Yes, there are great manual aids that various companies provide in their mirrorless offerings. But the average user is the one that companies need to pursuade as they are the largest percentage of consumers and most of them don't want to have to manually focus. Also, focus peaking isn't all that great when it comes to super fast lenses and getting consistent critical focus. Split prism and/or zoom PIP is okay, but still not very fast or usable for all situations.

The second issue would be energy consumption. Battery life sucks on mirrorless cameras. Yes, all of them. I try to use the OVF and just deal with parallax as much as possible on my x100s and it is still not getting great battery life. Although I can deal with it, I still don't like having extra batteries in my pockets when I'm running out the door with the family in a hurry. So unless there are some earth-shattering developments in battery tech in the near future, this will be a major issue for the average user with any mirrorless camera.

Then comes the lens issue for me. lol. That being said, if the two problems I mentioned above were somehow rectified by some miracle, I would have no qualms about dumping my glass and going all in on a mirrorless system.

I quite agree about battery life (though they're small and it's easy to get back-ups; besides, I suspect that those of us who frequently take more than 400 photos a day are a rather small minority...) and focus assist (in my experience, used by itself it's the opposite, though it can be somewhat helpful when used in conjunction with zooming through an EVF), but unless by focus speed you're referring to tracking action (something I don't do and thus can't comment) I don't agree about focus speed and accuracy, at least with M43 cameras (esp. those I know best, OM-Ds; with most of the lenses I own focus is as close to instantaneous as makes no difference, and I'm pretty sure the accuracy rate is higher than I get from my dslrs (though as they're Canons that's very high anyway). As for focus on fast moving things, there are plenty of demonstrations online of how that has changed with the newest OM-D; evidently it's not quite as good as the best Canons for that, but given how fast the technology seems to be developing it may catch up. (Fujis, on the other hand, seem to be both slow and shockingly inaccurate, unless the new xe-2, which allegedly has fixed the former, has fixed the latter as well.)

All that said, I wouldn't be surprised if none of that has anything to do with why hardly anyone in the US or Europe wants to buy mirrorless cameras. It may be more a matter of biases, prejudices, clueless salespeople, the vagaries of buying stuff online if you don't know anything much about the topic etc.

 

[pharp]

Over at Photorumors, they just published some sales numbers for Japan. For those who dream of a full-frame anything, they are quite eye-opening. Full frame mirror-less constitutes just .5% (that's 1/2 of 1 percent) of the total sales in Japan and in DSLRs, full-frame is just 8.7% of the sales. In short, it is "a small, small world after all" despite the skewed perspective one gets on this and other forums.

+1.
If you're not good with math, for every 100 people thats not even a single person, more like half a person.
For every 1000 person, its 5 people...
For every 10,000 peeps, its 50... so on and so forth.

In Japan, the Canon M was the 2nd best selling MILC camera! On the other hand FF systems are expensive at a time when there are fewer and fewer pros, many, who from what I've read get less and less of their income from actually selling photos (more from classes, lectures, tours, etc). Price matters, so I'd expect FF cameras to become a real niche market unless they do more to appeal to enthusiast - smaller, cheaper...

The Sony A7 came too late to make a difference in sales - still won't be HUGE, but even flat would be better than decline.

 

[mkabi]

Over at Photorumors, they just published some sales numbers for Japan. For those who dream of a full-frame anything, they are quite eye-opening. Full frame mirror-less constitutes just .5% (that's 1/2 of 1 percent) of the total sales in Japan and in DSLRs, full-frame is just 8.7% of the sales. In short, it is "a small, small world after all" despite the skewed perspective one gets on this and other forums.

+1.
If you're not good with math, for every 100 people thats not even a single person, more like half a person.
For every 1000 person, its 5 people...
For every 10,000 peeps, its 50... so on and so forth.

In Japan, the Canon M was the 2nd best selling MILC camera! On the other hand FF systems are expensive at a time when there are fewer and fewer pros, many, who from what I've read get less and less of their income from actually selling photos (more from classes, lectures, tours, etc). Price matters, so I'd expect FF cameras to become a real niche market unless they do more to appeal to enthusiast - smaller, cheaper...

The Sony A7 came too late to make a difference in sales - still won't be HUGE, but even flat would be better than decline.

What was the 1st best? And, what percentage of the DSLR market did it hold? Just asking out of curiosity, if you know...

 

[pharp]

What was the 1st best? And, what percentage of the DSLR market did it hold? Just asking out of curiosity, if you know...

http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-m-second-sold-mirrorless-camera-japan-2013/

also interesting

http://www.canonwatch.com/mirrorless-camera-sales-growing-asia-eu-usa/

 

[pharp]

http://www.globalspec.com/ImageRepository/LearnMore/20125/videoCamerae9aa991c73ce4859841f87f18e31c52f.png

I've wondered, with Canon's emphasis on video, that they haven't made an EF/EF-S mount MILC that looks something like the above. I suppose many sports/wildlife shooters might like a shoulder mount type camera.

 

[IMG_0001]

My view is that for the largest part of the camera market, changing lens is not desirable, may be even not acceptable. Therefore, mirroless cameras on offer right now appear, in my view at least, to at best target potential buyers of entry level dslrs. That segment probably is the largest potential market, but I don't see mirrorless camers as appealing to a broader consumer base but more as sharing the entry level market with dslrs.

However, I do believe that mirrorless may be more economical for mass production and more reliable since they eliminate mechanical and auxiliary systems. I then think that as stated before by another poster, they are going to become the norm. Not because they are better or allow for smaller cameras, but because they allow for less expensive manufacturing, more sharing of components between modelsand potentially fewer manufacturing problems and warranty claims. Higer profit margins will make mirrorless the norm.

As an additional side note, rangefinders like the Leica's only have short focal lengths available because their viewfinder is not seeing through the lens and would not have sufficient magnification for proper framing and focusing. This becomes irrelevent for evf mirrorless. Note that evf can also eliminate parallax problems for close focusing and macro work.

 

[Bennymiata]

There's one very important thing that you are all missing here.
The fact is that a "good" mirror less camera (omd, g7 etc) are far more expensive than a dslr with equivalent iq and the dslr probably focuses faster, and more importantly for some, the dslr looks more serious while mirror less cameras look like toys.
For a lot of people who are willing to spend $1,000 or more on a camera, they want people to know they are serious.
It's just snobbery, I know, but snobbery is an important marketing tool?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

While a vastly improved electronic viewfinder might make mirror-less more competitive, it would still have huge hurdles to overcome. The mirror-less form factor is great as a light weight street camera, but it offers no advantage for many other applications, such as studio and portrait work. It may even be a disadvantage when using telephotos beyond about 135mm (Notice Leica doesn't even produce any longish telephotos).

I think that full-frame will continue to dominate studio & portrait. However, mirrorless offers some nice advantages for photographers who are on their feet covering events all day. The Leica limitation of 135mm relates to the rangefinder mechanism and won't be a disadvantage for new mirrorless cameras like the OM-D. Panasonic offers a 35-100/2.8 (70-200 equiv.) and Olympus will soon offer a 40-150/2.8 (80-300 equiv.). These telephoto zooms are much more compact & lightweight than their full-frame alternatives, while still offering nice depth of field control. The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 in particular weighs a small fraction of what a typical 70-200 weighs (13 ounces vs. 3 pounds). Likewise the Olympus 75/1.8 weighs a fraction of a what full-frame equivalent would weigh. I think the reduced size & weight will be a selling point for photographers who are tired of carrying around big telephoto zooms, especially now that the OM-D has improved autofocus.

I agree. The real advantage of mirror-less comes in weight and size savings.

But that weight and size advantage is contingent upon a smaller sensor. It also requires a new set of lenses. There is still a lot of inertia to overcome before the market settles on an ideal compact-sized sensor.

In any case, none of that will satisfy those who insist that Canon absolutely must produce a full-frame mirror-less camera. Which really was my point -- to debunk the idea that we are going to see either Canon or Nikon rushing into the mirror-less market with a full-frame offering anytime in the near future.

i agree...but disagree, but then again agree...lol...i don't think mirrorless --mind you --- in its current form will prevail because ---weight and size advantage is not really an advantage when coupled with---whole new system/ new lenses or awkward adapters to EF lenses.

Is uncle bob going to buy a mirrorless camera or is he just going to go to the wedding and take pics with his ipad...not even the iphone, the ipad????

uncle bob wants to share those photos on facebook immediately! He will complain if the venue doesn't have wifi!!!!

LOL...that's extreme, but, there are a lot of uncle bobs out there. and weight and size only matter to uncle bob.

right now it's cell phones vs everything else. Like it or not, that's whats happening. Size and weight will only matter to those looking to just have it in their pocket, which mirrorless can't do unless it has a cell phone style fixed internal lens.

Can it fit in aunt janes purse along with her cell phone. Does aunt jane have a computer to process images? will she even take the images off the memory card?

That's why i think mirrorless has to ditch that market if it wants to be taken seriously. Screw size and weight. Unit the system. Make it EF compatible. Design it so it can happen. Then it's just a new body...level the playing field.

I know people say there is this and that advantage to mirrorless...but as it see it it's all theory. Mirror slapping degrade IQ????? Lets look on all the marvelous mirrorflapping photography from the last 50+ years.

To DESERVE a new system, new lenses, new components, etc... it must be truly revolutionary, and thats not only with the sensor its with the optics...the lenses. How do these new lenses DOMINATE current 35mm options? They don't. Why, because digital adopted film specs. And the past 2 decades have been spent developing optics for 35mm format.

Why waste time creating a new system? Why fight all that inertia? If it can be done via adapters it can be done in the camera body...the A7 proves that. If it's any good...put it up against the current dslr offerings on the same playing field and see what happens.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

There's one very important thing that you are all missing here.
The fact is that a "good" mirror less camera (omd, g7 etc) are far more expensive than a dslr with equivalent iq and the dslr probably focuses faster, and more importantly for some, the dslr looks more serious while mirror less cameras look like toys.
For a lot of people who are willing to spend $1,000 or more on a camera, they want people to know they are serious.
It's just snobbery, I know, but snobbery is an important marketing tool?

I fully agree. If I want to be recognized as a professional in the events where I'm shooting, it not makes sense to use a small camera and lenses. Mirrorless may have some advantages over Rebel Sl1, but the price is no advantage. So if the mirrorless cameras evolve in the future, I'll buy a model with DSLR size, which has full compatibility with EF and EF-S lenses without adapter. I will not want a camera that seems toy.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

I'm hoping Canon just makes a third mount type that takes both EF lenses and allows lenses that sink 10-20mm into the body. You could have a 20mm pancake that only sticks out of the body far enough to have a switch and a focus ring.

Excellent point ... and would be consistent with a "minimized equipment for maximized purpuses concept". The larger flange distance of the original EF mount would help for a better grip, a larger battery and a ring dialer (like Powershot S95 ...-models). It wouldn't be as compact as a EOS M with the 2.0 22mm but has it's advantages for really good wide angles (and standard lenses).
And if they use an "EF mount" with smaller flange distance and a 10mm extension tube as standard part ... we would be open to use the whole world of FF lenses via adaptors.

 

[IMG_0001]

The current mirrorless form factor is not aimed at professionals but as many suggested before, nothing precludes a pro mirrorless body. I would not be surprised if things were to go that way when focusing speed issues are solved.

As a response to Bennymiata, I am pretty sure that higher prices of current quality mirrorless do not result from higher cost for manufacturers but from higher margins in a niche market.

I still think that mirrorless are not opening new markets and that this is their main problem. They just split markets apart and end up competing with both compacts and dslrs while combining weaknesses from both worlds (edit- without improving on their strengths...).

 

[pharp]

I still think that mirrorless are not opening new markets and that this is their main problem. They just split markets apart and end up competing with both compacts and dslrs while combining weaknesses from both worlds (edit- without improving on their strengths...).

EXACTLY - thats why we need more choices, new configurations, ergonomics. We've gone as far as we can with the current DSLR - simply making it mirrorless isn't really a huge step forward - good start though, really good. Bottom line, get rid of the stone age mirror/prism (they don't improve IQ) makes it possible to have almost any shape or form and hence open up new markets - even for pros. Nobody knew they needed a tablet before it came out - now they're everywhere.

Having one camera shape for all photographers makes no sense. I could see a landscape body (6" retina display), a wildlife body (elongate shoulder mount), a general purpose body - all with the same EF/EF-S mount. The possibilties are endless. People need a good reason to upgrade - selling the same old stuff with incremental improvements isn't going to cut it anymore.

It appears that the US/EU share of the camera market is in decline and at the same time Asia is embracing mirrorless, so there is a chance we'll get different cameras that will catch on here.

while combining weaknesses from both worlds (edit- without improving on their strengths...).

simply not true - no mirror vibration is an improvement

 

[tcmatthews]

First the analyst who wrote the article is clearly an idiot. Or at least a person that does not have a very good understanding of the photo industry. So here is my arm chair analysis of the situation. I am not a pro-photographer or financial analyst. I would also like to apologies for the length of the post.

Mirror-less was never the last best hope for a Digital Camera Rebound. And any financial analyst who though it was is clearly an idiot. The truth is that the camera industry has always been a Niche market. It became a much larger market with the invention of mass market Digital P&S. Manly because this greatly reduced the price of development of the pictures.

With the rise of smart phones the vast majority of the P&S market is dead. Replaced by Smart phone. This has lead to a drastic fall in camera sales and challenges to the camera industry. But inversely there are more photographers than ever. (If you expand photographer to anyone taking a photo.)

There will always be a market for something better than a smart phone. But that market is much smaller that it was before the rise of good smart phones.

Where the analyst truly fails is in its understanding of the industry and where mirror less fits in. So where do mirror less fit? They are relatively small and compact. Work best with moderately fast prime lens less than 200mm. This is perfect for a travel camera, backup, or even pro use within its limitations. They are in fact a modern day replacement for a rangefinder camera but with the benefit of seeing what you are taking a picture of through a electronic view of the picture you're about to take. I do not see mirror less as a type of camera diapering any time soon. It is likely to expand to include DSLR shape cameras in the future.

So what is the future of the camera industry likely to look like. This is my estimation of the camera segments.

• Normal smart phone - vast majority of the public
• Camera oriented smart phone - aspiring photographers and people who want something better
• Advanced P&S - super zooms consumer oriented soccer moms and bird watchers
• Advanced P&S - high end fixed lens cameras niche
• Compact Mirror less Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC - Enthusiasts and some pros
• DSLR shaped ILC - majority of pros and some advanced amateurs
• Pro DSLR - Niche sports, wildlife photographers, and very wealthy enthusiasts they are likely to have hybrid OVF-Digital Viewfinders in they future.

Everything after the Super zoom P&S will be a Niche market but OVF is likely to disappear in normal DSLR eventually but EVF have a long way to go.

I actually think that the analyst is correct in one point there will be some casualties in the camera industry. But this is not because of the failure of the Mirror less to gain ground but do to the shock of a major segment of the current industry being replaced by phones.
So lets look at the camera manufactures.

• Canon - strongest in the SLR space and the Dual pixel tech means that it could perform well in a mirror less format. They will defiantly survive just on video and sports alone.
• Nikon - currently second in SLR space it is in the worst strategic position it will need restructuring and could actually fail. May end up being a niche player in the future camera industry. They for years outsourced they P&S so that should be easy to kill off.
• Sony - will survive manly because of its sensor development will likely be come dominate in the compact ICL market. They will make cameras as long as it makes strategic sense.
• Olympus - may be absorbed into Sony or be a subsidiary given their current agreements and Sony current investment.
• Fujifilm - niche player may stay a niche camera maker or become a pro compact ICL hard to say. But, they will not fail because of lack of innovation or technical reasons.
• Panasonic - may not survive as a company much less a camera maker. It has turned a corner but is not out of the woods yet.

All of the rest are already niche player in the camera market and are likely to say that way unless they fail to find a market. I do not expect all of them to survive. But which ones will fail is equally difficult. Leica proves that the camera industry is one that can support niche makers for a long time. But the real question is how much do conglomerate electronics companies choose to make cameras for a niche market. It could be that companies drop cameras to make there core business stronger.

Note I did not mention Samsung because I think they make cameras because they can. I do not know if profit is really there motive. I do not think they will stop just because they fail to make money. They are likely to keep making cameras for a market presence.

 

[Ruined]

Perhaps also it might be due to Americans liking the "go big or go home" approach.

Not meaning big in size, but we like things that truly excel in some category - and also bring a good value to the table.

Here is where mirrorless fails entirely, given the above statements:

- Is mirrorless the best in quality? Nope, DSLR is.
- Is mirrorless the most compact? Nope, a smartphone camera is.
- Is mirrorless the best standalone camera value? Nope, a point & shoot is.

So where does mirrorless fit in? Where does it truly excel above all? The problem is, it does not. It is through-and-through a compromise camera. It compromises quality for portability, but still is less portable and more expensive than many other options available. Hence the USA fail.

 

[tcmatthews]

Perhaps also it might be due to Americans liking the "go big or go home" approach.

Not meaning big in size, but we like things that truly excel in some category - and also bring a good value to the table.

Here is where mirrorless fails entirely, given the above statements:

- Is mirrorless the best in quality? Nope, DSLR is.
- Is mirrorless the most compact? Nope, a smartphone camera is.
- Is mirrorless the best standalone camera value? Nope, a point & shoot is.

So where does mirrorless fit in? Where does it truly excel above all? The problem is, it does not. It is through-and-through a compromise camera. It compromises quality for portability, but still is less portable and more expensive than many other options available. Hence the USA fail.

Yes it is a compromise but there is something to be said for smaller than a DSLR and better image quality than the rest in a more compact form factor. There is also something to be said for being able to pack an OMD with a complete set of lenses covering an equivalent 16-600mm 35mm focal length in the same space as a Canon 5D III, 24-70mm and a 70-200mm f 2.8 lens. (I have a manager that has done just that when camping.) Which can really add up if you are already carrying a good deal of non photo gear.

Basically proving horses for courses. Mirror less cameras are a tool that can make sense in many cases. That is why they will be around for a long time. I will not be getting rid of my DSLR any time soon. But I get much more use out of my Nex 6.

 

[Marsu42]

So where does mirrorless fit in? Where does it truly excel above all? The problem is, it does not. It is through-and-through a compromise camera. It compromises quality for portability, but still is less portable and more expensive than many other options available.

Ignoring any prejudice towards our informed friends across the pond, your statement is valid, and that's why the whole Canon mirrorless marketing squad deserves to get fired - they ignore every rule in the book about introducing a new technology and make people confuse apples and oranges.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a big market for a good compromise camera, but afaik this is not how you market something like this (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

 

[pharp]

So where does mirrorless fit in? Where does it truly excel above all? The problem is, it does not. It is through-and-through a compromise camera. It compromises quality for portability, but still is less portable and more expensive than many other options available.

Ignoring any prejudice towards our informed friends across the pond, your statement is valid, and that's why the whole Canon mirrorless marketing squad deserves to get fired - they ignore every rule in the book about introducing a new technology and make people confuse apples and oranges.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a big market for a good compromise camera, but afaik this is not how you market something like this (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

Mirrorless cameras DO NOT compromise quality for portability - mirrors don't improve IQ - period. The current OVF DSLR are also a compromise - only difference, we are used to those compromises, hence Mirror lock up ability. Metabones supposedly sells many, many NEX-EF adapters, so obviously, there is a market for a quality MILC that takes EF lenses.

I would love to see Canon take something like a 70D [keep the 70D] and make it mirrorless with state of the art EVF, all else the same, and see how it goes.