The Mirrorless Movement: Sony Boasts Record Growth in Expanding Mirrorless Digital Camera Market

[ahsanford]

Personally I feel like a mirrorless system with a crop size sensor might just be the sweet spot of compact size (travel kit) while still capable of good IQ, bokeh (when desired), low light performance (when needed).

If/when Canon wants to go full frame mirrorless, they don't have to abandon the EF mount. The latest Sony A7II isn't even all that small of a camera body, pushing DSLR size. Mount some good glass and the size advantage has essentially disappeared.

For now, I'd just like to see Canon embrace the EF-M system and compete with a nice compact, mirrorless kit for travel, casual use, out with the family, etc. I can bust out the 6D/70D when I want to feel like a pro.

All good points.

This is the quandary of mirrorless -- there's a crushing tradeoff w.r.t. sensor size.

Smaller sensors with native glass that is optimized for the smaller flange distance leads to a compact rig which is attractive to a larger market of users.

Larger sensors have stellar IQ, but once you climb out of (say) 50mm FL or longer, any thinner-than-SLR upside you get from mirrorless becomes hard to appreciate -- the lenses are still about the size of SLR FF glass. See picture for what I mean. Such products are clearly only for professionals and well-heeled enthusiasts.

So if a company believes the sole opportunity mirrorless offers is to take pictures as well as an SLR in a smaller package, they should probably not go larger than APS-C and aim to defeat the feature-equivalent consumer SLR they are up against (the T6i, the D5500, etc.).

But if a company wants to take over the SLR market, you kind of need to roll up your sleeves and start building an epic portfolio of lenses to start to rival the EF and FX glass that's out there. Because now you are up against Canon and Nikon's strongest turf and you can't swing pros with only a handful of lenses.

- A

 

[ritholtz]

Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.

Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.

Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.

I am not sure if it is a good idea to turn 6D into MILC. 6d is best selling Camera after Canon/Nikon rebels even in Japan market where lot of interest in MILC. If you look at this list, there are only 2 MILC cameras in japan top 10 list, which are cheaper even compared to rebels.

http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all

 

[sanj]

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.

Disagree, respectfully.

Once a mirrorless rig becomes 90-95% as good as an SLR, manufacturers* will push them over SLRs as they are cheaper to make (no mirror box, less material, etc.) and therefore represent higher profit margins.

* the whopping exception are Canon and Nikon, who strategically are holding off a robust entry into mirrorless not to protect DSLR sales so much as to avoid a billion dollar plus obsolescence of their staggering FF SLR lens portfolios.

Now the wild card above is "once mirrorless is almost as good as an SLR", which will happen at different times depending on how highly performing a specific SLR is today or how demanding its users are.

Consider: For your entry-level Rebel crowd, mirrorless is not far off from SLR performance. In that price point, the IQ is effectively the same, but the responsiveness, AF, battery life (and to a lesser degree) ergonomics are clearly a step behind. That gap between the two will get smaller with time. In a few years there really will be no incentive to keep selling entry level SLRs and some manufacturers (without huge stables of FF SLR lenses) might just give up mirrors altogether in that market segment.

...and when you consider the % of users in the entry level SLR market (i.e. most of the market!), it's not a major leap to see an A6000 Mk II or III leap frog a future Rebel T8i or T9i in sales someday. That time is not that far away.

So, no. I don't see mirrorless going away. Quite the opposite. In X years time (might be 10-15 years), I expect new SLR offerings to be limited to only products that just can't be matched performance-wise -- sports/wildlife/action rigs like the 1DX.

- A

Agree. Respectfully.

 

[ritholtz]

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.

Disagree, respectfully.

Once a mirrorless rig becomes 90-95% as good as an SLR, manufacturers* will push them over SLRs as they are cheaper to make (no mirror box, less material, etc.) and therefore represent higher profit margins.

* the whopping exception are Canon and Nikon, who strategically are holding off a robust entry into mirrorless not to protect DSLR sales so much as to avoid a billion dollar plus obsolescence of their staggering FF SLR lens portfolios.

Now the wild card above is "once mirrorless is almost as good as an SLR", which will happen at different times depending on how highly performing a specific SLR is today or how demanding its users are.

Consider: For your entry-level Rebel crowd, mirrorless is not far off from SLR performance. In that price point, the IQ is effectively the same, but the responsiveness, AF, battery life (and to a lesser degree) ergonomics are clearly a step behind. That gap between the two will get smaller with time. In a few years there really will be no incentive to keep selling entry level SLRs and some manufacturers (without huge stables of FF SLR lenses) might just give up mirrors altogether in that market segment.

...and when you consider the % of users in the entry level SLR market (i.e. most of the market!), it's not a major leap to see an A6000 Mk II or III leap frog a future Rebel T8i or T9i in sales someday. That time is not that far away.

So, no. I don't see mirrorless going away. Quite the opposite. In X years time (might be 10-15 years), I expect new SLR offerings to be limited to only products that just can't be matched performance-wise -- sports/wildlife/action rigs like the 1DX.

- A

Agree. Respectfully.

This following link tracks sales rankings in Japan. You can see how far down a6000 compared to others. There is no way it is going to replace rebels from Canon and Nikon anytime in foreseeable future.

http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all

 

[ahsanford]

This following link tracks sales rankings in Japan. You can see how far down a6000 compared to others. There is no way it is going to replace rebels from Canon and Nikon anytime in foreseeable future.

http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all

Agree 100% with the sales numbers. But that's because SLRs are clearly still better than mirrorless in critical areas: responsiveness, AF speed/reliability, and battery life.

But what happens when the A6000 Mk III or Mk IV (or EOS-M6) is only 3-5% less responsive and has similar AF performance to a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5XXX? It will be a smaller camera that does the same quality job for the same price. Most consumer electronics history has shown us that combination will win in the marketplace, especially for soccer moms and hockey dads that make up the bulk of the units in camera sales.

The question is: when is mirrorless going to catch up in those performance areas it trails SLRs? In APS-C, I could honestly see that happening in 1-2 product generations, so 2-4 years perhaps. The market will not flip to mirrorless then by any stretch, but by that time the only hold-ups someone will have to buy one will just be batteries. The market should start to shift then.

FF is another animal, as I said before. With APS-C and standard FLs, you sell mirrorless as a smaller but equal product. But in FF, Sony has so much more to do to convince a pro that:

• It won't slow you down.
• It won't let you down.
• Yes, we have that accessory / lens / feature that your FF SLR has.

The first two is a slow ramp of improving tech and earning trust. The last one is a buckler that will take them well over a decade to pull off.

- A

 

[Tugela]

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.

Disagree, respectfully.

Once a mirrorless rig becomes 90-95% as good as an SLR, manufacturers* will push them over SLRs as they are cheaper to make (no mirror box, less material, etc.) and therefore represent higher profit margins.

* the whopping exception are Canon and Nikon, who strategically are holding off a robust entry into mirrorless not to protect DSLR sales so much as to avoid a billion dollar plus obsolescence of their staggering FF SLR lens portfolios.

Now the wild card above is "once mirrorless is almost as good as an SLR", which will happen at different times depending on how highly performing a specific SLR is today or how demanding its users are.

Consider: For your entry-level Rebel crowd, mirrorless is not far off from SLR performance. In that price point, the IQ is effectively the same, but the responsiveness, AF, battery life (and to a lesser degree) ergonomics are clearly a step behind. That gap between the two will get smaller with time. In a few years there really will be no incentive to keep selling entry level SLRs and some manufacturers (without huge stables of FF SLR lenses) might just give up mirrors altogether in that market segment.

...and when you consider the % of users in the entry level SLR market (i.e. most of the market!), it's not a major leap to see an A6000 Mk II or III leap frog a future Rebel T8i or T9i in sales someday. That time is not that far away.

So, no. I don't see mirrorless going away. Quite the opposite. In X years time (might be 10-15 years), I expect new SLR offerings to be limited to only products that just can't be matched performance-wise -- sports/wildlife/action rigs like the 1DX.

- A

Mirrorless is already better than the Rebel cameras. The only reason Canon/Nikon can keep selling cameras like that is because of brand name recognition and the fact that they have shelf space whereas most other brands do not. It isn't because of any technical superiority of some sort.

 

[Tugela]

Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.

Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.

Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.

As I mentioned before, the impediment is probably not because they don't want to or don't take it seriously, but rather that there are IP issues involved that prevent them from producing a truly competitive MILC.

 

[Tugela]

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.

Disagree, respectfully.

Once a mirrorless rig becomes 90-95% as good as an SLR, manufacturers* will push them over SLRs as they are cheaper to make (no mirror box, less material, etc.) and therefore represent higher profit margins.

* the whopping exception are Canon and Nikon, who strategically are holding off a robust entry into mirrorless not to protect DSLR sales so much as to avoid a billion dollar plus obsolescence of their staggering FF SLR lens portfolios.

Now the wild card above is "once mirrorless is almost as good as an SLR", which will happen at different times depending on how highly performing a specific SLR is today or how demanding its users are.

Consider: For your entry-level Rebel crowd, mirrorless is not far off from SLR performance. In that price point, the IQ is effectively the same, but the responsiveness, AF, battery life (and to a lesser degree) ergonomics are clearly a step behind. That gap between the two will get smaller with time. In a few years there really will be no incentive to keep selling entry level SLRs and some manufacturers (without huge stables of FF SLR lenses) might just give up mirrors altogether in that market segment.

...and when you consider the % of users in the entry level SLR market (i.e. most of the market!), it's not a major leap to see an A6000 Mk II or III leap frog a future Rebel T8i or T9i in sales someday. That time is not that far away.

So, no. I don't see mirrorless going away. Quite the opposite. In X years time (might be 10-15 years), I expect new SLR offerings to be limited to only products that just can't be matched performance-wise -- sports/wildlife/action rigs like the 1DX.

- A

Agree. Respectfully.

This following link tracks sales rankings in Japan. You can see how far down a6000 compared to others. There is no way it is going to replace rebels from Canon and Nikon anytime in foreseeable future.

http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all

Since some of those items are changing rank position by 100 places or more, I think it is fair to say that it is probably based off a small sample size and not particularly relevant.

 

[Tugela]

This following link tracks sales rankings in Japan. You can see how far down a6000 compared to others. There is no way it is going to replace rebels from Canon and Nikon anytime in foreseeable future.

http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all

Agree 100% with the sales numbers. But that's because SLRs are clearly still better than mirrorless in critical areas: responsiveness, AF speed/reliability, and battery life.

But what happens when the A6000 Mk III or Mk IV (or EOS-M6) is only 3-5% less responsive and has similar AF performance to a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5XXX? It will be a smaller camera that does the same quality job for the same price. Most consumer electronics history has shown us that combination will win in the marketplace, especially for soccer moms and hockey dads that make up the bulk of the units in camera sales.

The question is: when is mirrorless going to catch up in those performance areas it trails SLRs? In APS-C, I could honestly see that happening in 1-2 product generations, so 2-4 years perhaps. The market will not flip to mirrorless then by any stretch, but by that time the only hold-ups someone will have to buy one will just be batteries. The market should start to shift then.

FF is another animal, as I said before. With APS-C and standard FLs, you sell mirrorless as a smaller but equal product. But in FF, Sony has so much more to do to convince a pro that:

• It won't slow you down.
• It won't let you down.
• Yes, we have that accessory / lens / feature that your FF SLR has.

The first two is a slow ramp of improving tech and earning trust. The last one is a buckler that will take them well over a decade to pull off.

- A

I was trying out the new lens firmware updates for my NX1 last night, and the camera was getting focus instantly in most cases under all light conditions, so IMO responsiveness is already here. It totally kicks the stuffing out of my old T3i in all departments, that camera has absolutely no advantages at all over the NX1.

 

[ahsanford]

I was trying out the new lens firmware updates for my NX1 last night, and the camera was getting focus instantly in most cases under all light conditions, so IMO responsiveness is already here. It totally kicks the stuffing out of my old T3i in all departments, that camera has absolutely no advantages at all over the NX1.

The NX1 is a formidable rig on the spec sheet. Resolution/burst/AF are all super high end for APS-C. I'm surprised more folks aren't talking about it. Perhaps Samsung isn't taken as seriously as Fuji and Sony in mirrorless.

But in fairness, the NX1's price point and specs put it up against the 7D2 and not a 4 year old Rebel. :

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

Mirrorless is already better than the Rebel cameras.

As judged by..... You? DxOMark? Bob? Yuki? DPReview? Sven? Mr. Ever Y. One? He's always right...but by the numbers, he hasn't chosen mirrorless.

 

[Tugela]

I was trying out the new lens firmware updates for my NX1 last night, and the camera was getting focus instantly in most cases under all light conditions, so IMO responsiveness is already here. It totally kicks the stuffing out of my old T3i in all departments, that camera has absolutely no advantages at all over the NX1.

The NX1 is a formidable rig on the spec sheet. Resolution/burst/AF are all super high end for APS-C. I'm surprised more folks aren't talking about it. Perhaps Samsung isn't taken as seriously as Fuji and Sony in mirrorless.

But in fairness, the NX1's price point and specs put it up against the 7D2 and not a 4 year old Rebel. :

- A

In all fairness a zero year old Rebel is not all that different from a four year old one, and since that is what is being discussed, I think it is reasonable. Having mirrors in Rebels does not make any sense since you will get a better camera with an EVF. It is not going to be long before Rebels in their current form are relegated to the bargain bins.

As far as Canons are concerned, I think the issue is not so much OVF/EVF, but more their lack of resources when it comes to development of the electronics. Now days the power of a camera is very dependent on the computer inside the camera, and that is where Canon (and many other traditional manufacturers) are hobbled. In the long run they are not going to be able to compete with the likes of Samsung and Sony, which can leverage processor/sensor development off of their cell phone businesses. To get a high performance camera Canon have to stuff at least three CPUs into their bodies, whereas Sony and Samsung only need one. This is a critical area where most of the future development is going to be happening at a high rate of progress and it is also an area where they are not equipped to compete.

I think Canon have a big problem and as time goes by it is going to become increasingly obvious, initially with their lower end products but later in the high end as well.

 

[ritholtz]

This following link tracks sales rankings in Japan. You can see how far down a6000 compared to others. There is no way it is going to replace rebels from Canon and Nikon anytime in foreseeable future.

http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all

Agree 100% with the sales numbers. But that's because SLRs are clearly still better than mirrorless in critical areas: responsiveness, AF speed/reliability, and battery life.

But what happens when the A6000 Mk III or Mk IV (or EOS-M6) is only 3-5% less responsive and has similar AF performance to a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5XXX? It will be a smaller camera that does the same quality job for the same price. Most consumer electronics history has shown us that combination will win in the marketplace, especially for soccer moms and hockey dads that make up the bulk of the units in camera sales.

The question is: when is mirrorless going to catch up in those performance areas it trails SLRs? In APS-C, I could honestly see that happening in 1-2 product generations, so 2-4 years perhaps. The market will not flip to mirrorless then by any stretch, but by that time the only hold-ups someone will have to buy one will just be batteries. The market should start to shift then.

FF is another animal, as I said before. With APS-C and standard FLs, you sell mirrorless as a smaller but equal product. But in FF, Sony has so much more to do to convince a pro that:

• It won't slow you down.
• It won't let you down.
• Yes, we have that accessory / lens / feature that your FF SLR has.

The first two is a slow ramp of improving tech and earning trust. The last one is a buckler that will take them well over a decade to pull off.

- A

I agree with the progress Sony is making with A6000 series. But you are not considering progress rebels are making. Latest rebels are almost similar to 70D in terms of features. They also have much improved on sensor AF which is closing the gap with mirrorless experience. In 2-3 generations, rebel is going to have 7d2 focusing system and it is going to be as good as live view experience like mirrorless. Canon and Nikon just needs to figure out way to show evf info on OVF. That will make rebels best of both the worlds.

I am also not sure even mirrorless competes with cell phones in terms of size and convenience. M4/3 which are even smaller than sony mirrorless and developed good set of lens are also struggling. Sony is already abandoned developing competitive lens for E mount. How they are going to overtake DSLR without developing lens and not even providing same kit lens quality for the starters.

 

[neuroanatomist]

To get a high performance camera Canon have to stuff at least three CPUs into their bodies, whereas Sony and Samsung only need one.

Does Samsung's high performance single CPU deliver the full bit depth with continuous shooting?

 

[ritholtz]

I was trying out the new lens firmware updates for my NX1 last night, and the camera was getting focus instantly in most cases under all light conditions, so IMO responsiveness is already here. It totally kicks the stuffing out of my old T3i in all departments, that camera has absolutely no advantages at all over the NX1.

The NX1 is a formidable rig on the spec sheet. Resolution/burst/AF are all super high end for APS-C. I'm surprised more folks aren't talking about it. Perhaps Samsung isn't taken as seriously as Fuji and Sony in mirrorless.

But in fairness, the NX1's price point and specs put it up against the 7D2 and not a 4 year old Rebel. :

- A

In all fairness a zero year old Rebel is not all that different from a four year old one, and since that is what is being discussed, I think it is reasonable. Having mirrors in Rebels does not make any sense since you will get a better camera with an EVF. It is not going to be long before Rebels in their current form are relegated to the bargain bins.

As far as Canons are concerned, I think the issue is not so much OVF/EVF, but more their lack of resources when it comes to development of the electronics. Now days the power of a camera is very dependent on the computer inside the camera, and that is where Canon (and many other traditional manufacturers) are hobbled. In the long run they are not going to be able to compete with the likes of Samsung and Sony, which can leverage processor/sensor development off of their cell phone businesses. To get a high performance camera Canon have to stuff at least three CPUs into their bodies, whereas Sony and Samsung only need one. This is a critical area where most of the future development is going to be happening at a high rate of progress and it is also an area where they are not equipped to compete.

I think Canon have a big problem and as time goes by it is going to become increasingly obvious, initially with their lower end products but later in the high end as well.

If you compare latest rebel with older rebels (t2i, t3i), they made lot of progress in terms of convention PDAF and on sensor AF. Latest rebels are almost close to 70D capabilities. Canon even developed STM lens to take advantage of progress they are making in rebels. Rebels do everything mirrorless can do using live view. May be their on sensor PDAF is not as fast as A6000.

If you look at m4/3, they are smaller than even Sony a6000 and they have better on sensor AF than Sony a6000. They are also struggling. How Sony is going to take over by not even releasing single E mount lens. When Canon and Nikon keep on upgrading their kit lens and improving it with each iteration.

 

[ahsanford]

Mirrorless is already better than the Rebel cameras.

As judged by..... You? DxOMark? Bob? Yuki? DPReview? Sven? Mr. Ever Y. One? He's always right...but by the numbers, he hasn't chosen mirrorless.

This is the part I struggle with.

I've said many times that mirrorless will eventually be the camera everyone uses save for really high-end rigs for sports and wildlife. That said, I'm no mirrorless fanboy. I love my OVF and the industry can take it from my cold, dead hands.

But the worldview on mirrorless' progress is comically fragmented. There are people in this very forum who believe:

• Mirrorless is a fad that will go away.
• Mirrorless will never get off the ground because of cell phones.
• Mirrorless will never surpass same-priced SLRs for performance.
• Mirrorless has already surpassed same-priced SLRs for performance.
• Mirrorless isn't coming -- it's already here and the few remaining SLR believers are clinging to our mirror boxes like the people who used to hug their Amigas and snuggle with them in bed each night.
• Mirrorless will be steamrolled by Lightfield cameras before they take over the market.

...and a good number of them speak in absolute terms like it is so.

But few are backing up their arguments with data. Third parties offer charts like the attached and harp on year over year change in the mirrorless/SLR ratio. Mirrorless haters pick on what they don't like about mirrorless (battery life, poor AF, responsiveness, etc.) but that's changing the subject.

Does anyone really know how much mirrorless makes up of the overall ILC market?

- A

 

[sdsr]

Agree 100% with the sales numbers. But that's because SLRs are clearly still better than mirrorless in critical areas: responsiveness, AF speed/reliability, and battery life.

But what happens when the A6000 Mk III or Mk IV (or EOS-M6) is only 3-5% less responsive and has similar AF performance to a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5XXX? It will be a smaller camera that does the same quality job for the same price. Most consumer electronics history has shown us that combination will win in the marketplace, especially for soccer moms and hockey dads that make up the bulk of the units in camera sales.

The question is: when is mirrorless going to catch up in those performance areas it trails SLRs?

- A

That's a reasonable question, but do we know for sure that the three areas you list explain the huge disparity in sales between mirrorless and dslrs? Do they matter to the people who buy most exchangeable-lens-cameras? They do to many who participate in forums such as this, but the herons-catching-fish segment is rather disproportionately represented here, I suspect. (Besides, would a soccer parent notice an improvement in AF performance switching from a Sony a6000 or Olympus OM-D to a Canon Rebel?) The reasons may be quite unrelated so such considerations (I have no idea; I'm certainly not saying you're wrong).

This is unrelated to the who-should-do-what-to-boost/maintain-sales arguments, but in terms of catching up I feel tempted to note that regardless of when mirrorless can catch up with dslrs, there are areas where dslrs may never catch up with mirrorless, such as avoiding the need for AFMA, the advantages of EVFs (e.g. making it easier to get exposure correct and, thanks to magnification and focus peaking, vastly easier to focus manually), and the ability – for those willing to focus and expose manually (easy, thanks to EVFs) – to use just about any lens regardless of who made it, which makes photography more interesting and fun (and sometimes very cheap) if you’re so inclined. These are advantages that have nothing to do with size, of course.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...and a good number of them speak in absolute terms like it is so.

But few are backing up their arguments with data.

Well, it's foolish to back up your arguments with data if those data refute your arguments. :

 

[ahsanford]

...and a good number of them speak in absolute terms like it is so.

But few are backing up their arguments with data.

Well, it's foolish to back up your arguments with data if those data refute your arguments. :

I just want the following questions answered:

1) Industry-wide, what percentage of total ILC sales (units) are mirrorless in APS-C?
2) Industry wide, what percentage of total ILC sales (units) are mirrorless in FF?

And then we keep asking that question periodically to see how it's tracking.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

...and a good number of them speak in absolute terms like it is so.

But few are backing up their arguments with data.

Well, it's foolish to back up your arguments with data if those data refute your arguments. :

I just want the following questions answered:

1) Industry-wide, what percentage of total ILC sales (units) are mirrorless in APS-C?
2) Industry wide, what percentage of total ILC sales (units) are mirrorless in FF?

And then we keep asking that question periodically to see how it's tracking.

Unfortunately, CIPA doesn't break down their data by sensor size.