Thom Hogan: Seven Reasons Why I Shoot With (Nikon) DSLRs

[unfocused]

none here - myself included - is in denial of the fact, that DSLRs still sell in much higher numbers than mirrorless cameras, even though the sales statistics are quite "muddy". But the interesting question is: WHY is it that way?

#1 reason is because neither Canon nor Nikon have yet launched compelling mirrorless systems. Not with APS-C sensor. And none at all with FF sensor. I am convinced, once they do, [and if priced reasonably!], unit sales will rapidly turn in favor of MILCs over DSLRs.

There are no longer significant technical obstacles to build solid state cameras today with overall functionality clearly superior to any DSLR. Even better EVFs, somewhat better AF systems, higher capacity batteries, global shutter ... technically and economically all very doable in 2016.

While that sounds reasonable, do you ever ask yourself why it is that two highly competitive companies that together have accounted for the vast majority of enthusiast camera sales for decades, and have completely dominated the professional market for more than half a century, have not jumped into this market if it is as simple and as lucrative as you believe?

You are fond of calling Canon "stupid," but given that the sole purpose of any company is to turn a profit for their shareholders (And Canon has done that consistently for quite some time) do you ever wonder if maybe they have some financial reasons why they don't agree with you?

Let's put aside the conspiracy theories for once and try to deal with facts, please.

If your assumptions were correct, why wouldn't Canon and Nikon be jumping in with both feet? The only valid answer is that you do not have access to the same research and business information that they have and your assumptions are most likely wrong.

I don't think most people who disagree with you really care if Canon or Nikon were to move to a mirrorless form factor. I know I don't. It's just that assumptions, conjecture and whining do not constitute a business case.

I fully expect that cameras will evolve over the next decade. That evolution might (but might not) include moving from optical viewfinders to electronic view finders. As I've said many times before, when and if that happens, I don't expect the cameras to actually look that much different (Exhibit A: Fuji X-T2). I expect that most people won't notice much difference; and I expect that they will still take EF and EF-S lenses.

 

[j-nord]

Bottom line, lighting in most houses does flicker, but too fast for normal, direct perception.

Actually, there have been some studies that show that the 120 Hz flicker of fluorescent lights is very much perceptible, and is the source of migraines for many people (like my wife).

Fortunately, properly designed LED lamps do not flicker. Even the cheap ones flicker much less than fluorescents.

By 'normal, direct perception' I mean conscious perception and the concomitant ability to correctly report whether a light source is flickering or not. That differs from other ways the flicker could be perceived, either stroboscopically or subconsciously. Those are real...just not direct, and they occur far less frequently.

Not exactly the same thing but you can absolutely consistently and accurately report 60Hz monitors vs 120Hz monitors in side by side comparison and there is still precievable room to improve which is why gaming monitors are now 144Hz+.

 

[Don Haines]

I would love to see a 6D2 or 7D3 mirrorless camera come out with the same form factor as its predecessor...... We must not fall into the trap of thinking that mirrorless cameras must be small.....

7D3 is one of the last cameras that should be mirrorless... Action/sports/wildlife camera with EVF delay? LOL

Or 120FPS burst mode?

 

[j-nord]

I would love to see a 6D2 or 7D3 mirrorless camera come out with the same form factor as its predecessor...... We must not fall into the trap of thinking that mirrorless cameras must be small.....

7D3 is one of the last cameras that should be mirrorless... Action/sports/wildlife camera with EVF delay? LOL

Or 120FPS burst mode?

Irrelevant if you can't properly track the subject.

 

[Loswr]

Not exactly the same thing but you can absolutely consistently and accurately report 60Hz monitors vs 120Hz monitors in side by side comparison and there is still precievable room to improve which is why gaming monitors are now 144Hz+.

Certainly. As I stated above, 'typical' psychophysical measurements put flicker fusion at ~13 ms or 75 Hz. A 60 Hz flicker can be directly and reliably perceived. Remember the advice to increase monitor refresh rate from the default 60 Hz to 72 Hz (or higher, if available) to avoid eye strain?

The 'room for improvement' above 120 Hz that you mention isn't really about flicker, but rather about avoiding motion artifacts. My TV has a 240 Hz refresh rate, and there are still sometimes motion artifacts.

 

[unfocused]

...Well, except in dilbertland, because the laws of physics don't apply there, apparently.

It's a wonderful place. CFast cards work flawlessly in Nikon cameras there.

 

[Dylan777]

...Well, except in dilbertland, because the laws of physics don't apply there, apparently.

It's a wonderful place. CFast cards work flawlessly in Nikon cameras there.

I don't own nikon, but a friend does. His gear is very up to date. I don't recall nikon uses Cfast. I can be wrong of course

 

[j-nord]

Not exactly the same thing but you can absolutely consistently and accurately report 60Hz monitors vs 120Hz monitors in side by side comparison and there is still precievable room to improve which is why gaming monitors are now 144Hz+.

Certainly. As I stated above, 'typical' psychophysical measurements put flicker fusion at ~13 ms or 75 Hz. A 60 Hz flicker can be directly and reliably perceived. Remember the advice to increase monitor refresh rate from the default 60 Hz to 72 Hz (or higher, if available) to avoid eye strain?

The 'room for improvement' above 120 Hz that you mention isn't really about flicker, but rather about avoiding motion artifacts. My TV has a 240 Hz refresh rate, and there are still sometimes motion artifacts.

A gaming monitor + gpu is far superior to any tv Tvs are loaded with awful onboard processing effects, the worst of which are the motion smoothing/enhancing ones.

 

[retroreflection]

When AvTvM's perfect mirrorless camera does get built, what happens next?
Do the brownshirts have a night of fun destroying all of the heretical mirrorslappers?
Do the preordered rise to heaven in a rapture, leaving behind the sinners with mirrors?
Does ktulu rise from the deep to destroy any who reflect his horrors directly (our hero looks at the gorgon through an EVF and then can cut off her head, but he was in the wrong story so he's dead)?
Does the great photographer of the universe recognize the utter perfection and take the (stunning photo timed just right)? The universe is then wiped clean as the sensor read plays out. Analyze the data, man. The big bang was a CMOS read.

Or is it possible that the destiny of all does not lead to an arbitrary design decision?

 

[old-pr-pix]

The only part of Thom's concerns I have trouble accepting is his lament over the current best-in-class 1/250 second lag of the viewfinder image in a mirrorless body.

As I note in the article, lags are cummulative. There is my own response lag, shutter lag, and on mirrorless cameras, EVF lag. Well, the correct order on a mirrorless camera is EVF lag, response lag, shutter lag. On a DSLR there is only response lag, shutter lag.

Totally agree that all the lags are cumulative. Also agree the time sequence is as you state above. My concern was the relative magnitudes. When a decisive moment occurs, a photographer using a dSLR with OVF will have a viewfinder image of it instantly (ignore the speed of light and the path it follows for this discussion) while a mirrorless shooter with a best in class EVF won't get that image until 4 msec later. Agreed? Now, assuming both photographers have equal reaction time, both will process the viewfinder image and decide to take a photo. A great reaction time might be 100 msec. so the dSLR shooter is now 100 msec after the decisive moment and the EVF shooter is 104 msec late. Having hit the shutter button we are now into the shutter lag which can vary extensively. Given best case, manual focus with lens pre-focused on the right spot - the actual image capture occurs 40 - 50 msec later. [adding in AF can add an additional 50-100 msec in 'good' light] So our dSLR shooter has missed the moment by 140-150 msec while the EVF shooter is 144-154 msec off. The variability in camera reaction time between models [and maybe even with the same body in different modes - Av, Tv, P, M?] is greater than the lag introduced by the EVF. Your D5 and D500 differ from each other by 10 msec according to Nikon specs. Do you notice that difference and compensate mentally for it?

The only way to hit a decisive moment within a millisecond is to anticipate it knowing the characteristics of your camera. Or, spray and pray at 14 FPS - which still can miss by as much as 70 msec.

Am I missing something? BTW: Thanks for tuning in to the discussion.

Now, replace the best in class EVF with my older OMD-EM5 and we can have a different discussion!

 

[eml58]

...Well, except in dilbertland, because the laws of physics don't apply there, apparently.

It's a wonderful place. CFast cards work flawlessly in Nikon cameras there.

I don't own nikon, but a friend does. His gear is very up to date. I don't recall nikon uses Cfast. I can be wrong of course

Hi Dylan, Friend of mine on my recent trip to Sth Africa & Botswana was shooting with the Nikon D5, the Nikon D5 uses the XQD & CF cards, or you can order the D5 from Nikon with 2 x XQD Cards, hopefully Canon will follow this sensible example at some point & offer the 1 Series with 2 x C Fast cards, that are compatible.

Interestingly when I got home & noted the issue with my 1Dx II and the C Fast card from SanDisc (supplied with both Bodies), he mentioned Nikon also had some issues with the D5 and the XQD Card system.

I think we are long past the stage of expecting any of these Companies to be able to release a Camera without Bugs, it's pretty well expected now, but huge disappointment with Canon over this C fast Card issue when they supplied the Cards in the Box.

 

[unfocused]

...Well, except in dilbertland, because the laws of physics don't apply there, apparently.

It's a wonderful place. CFast cards work flawlessly in Nikon cameras there.

I don't own nikon, but a friend does. His gear is very up to date. I don't recall nikon uses Cfast. I can be wrong of course

You are confusing the real world and Dilbertland.

 

[pj1974]

I have followed this thread. Will keep my contribution here relatively pointed.

Firstly, ‘back in the day’ (up to 20 years ago) I read everything I could find online from Thom about digital imagery. These days I continue to read widely, but spend more time taking photos, enjoying them and undertaking other pursuits in life. I’m glad Thom came online and contributed in this CR discussion, I found it helpful he used that opportunity to clarify and add some useful information.

Secondly, while there is, and has been – a lot of rather heated debates online here about sensor types and brands, mirrorless vs DSLRs, etc – particularly between certain members, I would encourage everyone to keep it civil and choose which battles to fight (or rather, choose which battles not to fight). Even if some contributors may not back up their statements with facts (or ignore evidence as presented by others, whether according to own perception or reality), please folks - ‘take the higher road’. Choose humility and let the heated discussions die down with a polite ‘ok, that’s all I’m going to say on [insert topic of dissention here]’.

Now to the point, my thoughts on camera format, and in particularly mirrorless in the future. I actually believe the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC) format will in some years’ time be the preferred format for most enthusiast photographers around the world. How long that timeframe will be, is still anyone’s guess (though some will be more accurate than others). I am middle aged, and I certainly hope mirrorless will happen long before I reach my 60’s! [As an aside, if I have the capability, I hope to continue pursuing photography as a hobby during my retirement, but certainly not being the sole thing I do].

I currently own a 7D and a good old trusty 350D. I used many other cameras, from 1DsIII to 700Ds and several Nikon DSLRs (including the D800).
I also have used some mirrorless cameras (Sony A6000, a few Fujis, an Olympus on the odd occasion too, etc). I shoot a mix of photography – mainly ‘nature’ (from landscapes, to wildlife to macro), but I also take thousands of photos a year in other genres, including ‘event’ (church, public events, ‘occasions’), a bit of outdoor sports, stock photo/still life, etc. I rarely take videos, and prefer photography as a hobby and in general to view, though there are still many amazing videos people take which I appreciate.

Mirrorless technology has in recent years been improving rapidly. How mirrorless may benefit one’s photography does depend a lot on the type and style of an individual’s photography. I have used the Canon 80D in recent months, and the DPAF is really good. No doubt it can be improved, but it is already impressive. The speed, accuracy and reliability of DPAF is good (for both photograph and videography). I hope that Canon has a few tricks up its sleeves in obtaining even more benefits from DPAF. Sony has created some amazing on-sensor AF hardware and software algorithms also.

While I would often appreciate a lighter (& sometimes somewhat smaller) camera package, I have yet to find a mirrorless (MILC) camera that I really love to hold and view, in anywhere near the same range as (my) Canon DSLRs. Weight wise, a 400 gram camera body helps me with balance (lens dependent of course, with lenses… generally the smaller and lighter the better). My ideal camera size is part-way between the 80D and 7D. The smaller and often ‘slippery’ (i.e. poor / no substantial grip) feeling of most MILCs leaves me with a much less satisfied shooting experience ergonomically.

The potential mirrorless advantages of wider ranging shutter speeds (at both extremes), perfect ‘autofocus’ on sensor (no need for AFMA), (almost) perfectly quiet operation, etc are particularly attractive to me. While some cameras have achieved (some of) these criteria already, no doubt maturity and improvements can still be made. I look forward to technology continuing to advance – with us, the consumers being the end beneficiaries.

Earlier today I was contemplating whether my next camera body will be a DSLR, or a MILC. I currently own lenses from the Sigma 8-16mm to the Canon 70-300mm L. My ‘all purpose’ lens is Canon’s 15-85mm IS USM. I also have a 18-135mm IS STM. (Yes, Canon, I’m wanting a 15-135mm… lol). I own a few primes also. If Canon can come out with a ‘pro’ MILC with somewhat the features of a 80D to 5D still, I would be very tempted. While not a ‘requirement’ – if I could use my existing EF/EF-S lenses, that would be great – though I’d potentially be prepared to purchase lenses in a new lens format if required – i.e. if the system really ‘worked’ well.

Battery life does matter to me, though I am also prepared to take along up to 4 batteries if required. I regularly shoot around several hundred to over 2000 in one outing or occasion. Battery technology has also seen significant upgrades within the past 15 years or so, but I expect we’ll see more advances in battery technology too (electric car J-curve comes to mind).

I believe within a decade the ‘photography market’ will have two main segments, ‘main’, but not exclusive. Smart phones (which have already seen the large demise of point-and-shoot cameras) – and MILC. Smart phone images are good enough for many people for ‘snapshots / memory-moments’ and social-media sharing. Mobiles go everywhere with most smart-phone users, and are (usually) small enough to keep in a pocket / tuck into a (tiny) bag / satchel, etc. Mirrorless cameras may replace the ‘camera body of choice’ for many current DSLR owners, and photo enthusiasts within the upcoming millennial-generation who will have (more of their) own purchasing power soon. Mirrorless cameras with 1” ™ and larger sensors for those who require limited depth of field, improved low light capability and generally higher IQ, etc.

We live in exciting times. My Canon 350D was a highly useful bit of photography gear when I purchased it in 2005. My 7D has superseded it by a comfortable margin, and remains very capable for most of my needs. But I expect one day I will own a mirrorless camera that far eclipses anything my 7D can do now. EVFs will hopefully improve. I do use Live View regularly (e.g. for macro, night-time shooting in low light etc). Yes, I really find how the screen ‘gains’ light at night, and with my 10 stop ND filter is really helpful.

Best wishes and peace to all.

Paul 8)

 

[Ian_of_glos]

I have followed this thread. Will keep my contribution here relatively pointed.

Firstly, ‘back in the day’ (up to 20 years ago) I read everything I could find online from Thom about digital imagery. These days I continue to read widely, but spend more time taking photos, enjoying them and undertaking other pursuits in life. I’m glad Thom came online and contributed in this CR discussion, I found it helpful he used that opportunity to clarify and add some useful information.

Secondly, while there is, and has been – a lot of rather heated debates online here about sensor types and brands, mirrorless vs DSLRs, etc – particularly between certain members, I would encourage everyone to keep it civil and choose which battles to fight (or rather, choose which battles not to fight). Even if some contributors may not back up their statements with facts (or ignore evidence as presented by others, whether according to own perception or reality), please folks - ‘take the higher road’. Choose humility and let the heated discussions die down with a polite ‘ok, that’s all I’m going to say on [insert topic of dissention here]’.

Now to the point, my thoughts on camera format, and in particularly mirrorless in the future. I actually believe the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC) format will in some years’ time be the preferred format for most enthusiast photographers around the world. How long that timeframe will be, is still anyone’s guess (though some will be more accurate than others). I am middle aged, and I certainly hope mirrorless will happen long before I reach my 60’s! [As an aside, if I have the capability, I hope to continue pursuing photography as a hobby during my retirement, but certainly not being the sole thing I do].

I currently own a 7D and a good old trusty 350D. I used many other cameras, from 1DsIII to 700Ds and several Nikon DSLRs (including the D800).
I also have used some mirrorless cameras (Sony A6000, a few Fujis, an Olympus on the odd occasion too, etc). I shoot a mix of photography – mainly ‘nature’ (from landscapes, to wildlife to macro), but I also take thousands of photos a year in other genres, including ‘event’ (church, public events, ‘occasions’), a bit of outdoor sports, stock photo/still life, etc. I rarely take videos, and prefer photography as a hobby and in general to view, though there are still many amazing videos people take which I appreciate.

Mirrorless technology has in recent years been improving rapidly. How mirrorless may benefit one’s photography does depend a lot on the type and style of an individual’s photography. I have used the Canon 80D in recent months, and the DPAF is really good. No doubt it can be improved, but it is already impressive. The speed, accuracy and reliability of DPAF is good (for both photograph and videography). I hope that Canon has a few tricks up its sleeves in obtaining even more benefits from DPAF. Sony has created some amazing on-sensor AF hardware and software algorithms also.

While I would often appreciate a lighter (& sometimes somewhat smaller) camera package, I have yet to find a mirrorless (MILC) camera that I really love to hold and view, in anywhere near the same range as (my) Canon DSLRs. Weight wise, a 400 gram camera body helps me with balance (lens dependent of course, with lenses… generally the smaller and lighter the better). My ideal camera size is part-way between the 80D and 7D. The smaller and often ‘slippery’ (i.e. poor / no substantial grip) feeling of most MILCs leaves me with a much less satisfied shooting experience ergonomically.

The potential mirrorless advantages of wider ranging shutter speeds (at both extremes), perfect ‘autofocus’ on sensor (no need for AFMA), (almost) perfectly quiet operation, etc are particularly attractive to me. While some cameras have achieved (some of) these criteria already, no doubt maturity and improvements can still be made. I look forward to technology continuing to advance – with us, the consumers being the end beneficiaries.

Earlier today I was contemplating whether my next camera body will be a DSLR, or a MILC. I currently own lenses from the Sigma 8-16mm to the Canon 70-300mm L. My ‘all purpose’ lens is Canon’s 15-85mm IS USM. I also have a 18-135mm IS STM. (Yes, Canon, I’m wanting a 15-135mm… lol). I own a few primes also. If Canon can come out with a ‘pro’ MILC with somewhat the features of a 80D to 5D still, I would be very tempted. While not a ‘requirement’ – if I could use my existing EF/EF-S lenses, that would be great – though I’d potentially be prepared to purchase lenses in a new lens format if required – i.e. if the system really ‘worked’ well.

Battery life does matter to me, though I am also prepared to take along up to 4 batteries if required. I regularly shoot around several hundred to over 2000 in one outing or occasion. Battery technology has also seen significant upgrades within the past 15 years or so, but I expect we’ll see more advances in battery technology too (electric car J-curve comes to mind).

I believe within a decade the ‘photography market’ will have two main segments, ‘main’, but not exclusive. Smart phones (which have already seen the large demise of point-and-shoot cameras) – and MILC. Smart phone images are good enough for many people for ‘snapshots / memory-moments’ and social-media sharing. Mobiles go everywhere with most smart-phone users, and are (usually) small enough to keep in a pocket / tuck into a (tiny) bag / satchel, etc. Mirrorless cameras may replace the ‘camera body of choice’ for many current DSLR owners, and photo enthusiasts within the upcoming millennial-generation who will have (more of their) own purchasing power soon. Mirrorless cameras with 1” ™ and larger sensors for those who require limited depth of field, improved low light capability and generally higher IQ, etc.

We live in exciting times. My Canon 350D was a highly useful bit of photography gear when I purchased it in 2005. My 7D has superseded it by a comfortable margin, and remains very capable for most of my needs. But I expect one day I will own a mirrorless camera that far eclipses anything my 7D can do now. EVFs will hopefully improve. I do use Live View regularly (e.g. for macro, night-time shooting in low light etc). Yes, I really find how the screen ‘gains’ light at night, and with my 10 stop ND filter is really helpful.

Best wishes and peace to all.

Paul 8)

In my opinion this is an excellent and well balanced contribution to the discussion. For many of us it simply does not matter which technology the camera we used is based on. What is important is that the camera is comfortable, easy to use and that it is capable of producing good results. Of course we all have different tastes and preferences so what is right for one person will be wrong for another and there is not a single option that will suit everyone.
I have been on a couple of dates with mirrorless cameras, and the results were acceptable. However at the end of the day I was pleased and relieved to return home to my trusted 5D mk3. Maybe it is a bit old fashioned, and it could be smaller and lighter, but for me it is comfortable to use and the pictures it produces are better than anything I was able to create with the mirrorless options I tried. Maybe it is just that I am more familiar with the controls on the 5D mk3 and that over time I would have been able to do better with the mirrorless cameras. However, for me I find that the mirrorless cameras are small, the tiny little grip is uncomfortable and when you add a decent sized lens it feels unbalanced. I am in my 60s and I have never felt that my 5D mk3 is too big or heavy, and I really don't care whether it has a mirror inside or not. It is the right camera for me and it really does annoy me when someone who knows nothing about my photographic style or preferences comes up to me out of the blue and advises me it is time to swap my "dinosaur" for something smaller.

 

[martti]

There are nine pages of postings, I read the pages 1,2 and 9.
Japanese cars are not only smaller than the American sauriens, they are smarter. They have a higher information content per tonne which again means that they will run with less trouble and far longer. They have no down time.
That's the reason they have won and now the Coreans are coming with similar quality and better pricing and more imaginative designs. Like what Samsung was about to do but decided not to, for whatever reason.


Now to my question: Can anybody around here confidently tell from looking at a quality journal what camera/lens combination has been used to take a certain full-page shot? If this is not the case, what might be the point of this article and this discussion? My point after having recovered from the GAS (Gear Acquiring Syndrome) is htat much of the gear talk is time wasted and also it is a part of the world-wide Capitalist plot to keep people buying rather than seeing & learning.


I'd lilke to see Ken Rockwell's 8) take on the subject.

Edit to remove some HTML dirt.
Visited Ken's site and he had posted a video on the subject by the excellent tutor Phil Steele who basically says "whatever floats your boat". Why don't we.

 

[Otara]

Now to my question: Can anybody around here confidently tell from looking at a quality journal what camera/lens combination has been used to take a certain full-page shot? If this is not the case, what might be the point of this article and this discussion?

I think the point is I can fairly confidently say what kinds of shots _werent_ taken with a mirrorless at this stage of technology. I can also fairly confidently talk about what I prefer to use to take a given kind of picture - the process has some importance to me personally, even if it might not to the end viewer. For a start if one type of photographic setup might take hours of work to get the same shot as another might be able to do in one go, that has some relevance too.

Im a bit flummoxed this needs explanation.

 

[LDS]

Ford & GM are the home grown "big car makers" in the USA that built "American cars" for many many years.
Which two companies now fill out the top three car sellers? Toyota & Honda, selling smaller cars.

Sorry, but classic US cars are much more alike 8"x10" view cameras. Same recent technology, small practical size, and cheap to operate

But people don't buy cars the same way they buy cameras - very different needs and prices. If you believe you can sell cameras the same way you sell cars, you'd be out of business in a short time.

Anyway Toyota at Le Mans was just like a mirrorless - no power when it truly needed it <G>

 

[Loswr]

...
While that sounds reasonable, do you ever ask yourself why it is that two highly competitive companies that together have accounted for the vast majority of enthusiast camera sales for decades, and have completely dominated the professional market for more than half a century, have not jumped into this market if it is as simple and as lucrative as you believe?
...

Ford & GM are the home grown "big car makers" in the USA that built "American cars" for many many years.

Which two companies now fill out the top three car sellers? Toyota & Honda, selling smaller cars.

Interesting analogy...typically flawed. The prominence of smaller cars in the auto market started because those cars were more energy efficient (remember the oil crises and gas station lines in the 70s?), and continued because those small cars were substantially cheaper than their 'American car' counterparts, thus had a perceived better value. That's still the biggest factor – the global top selling vehicles from both Asian and US automakers are the ones at the lower end of the cost spectrum. Neither of those is true for MILCs relative to dSLRs – the former are less power efficient and most importantly, not less expensive.

Also, the markets are quite different – it's not as if the entire auto market is being eroded by the rise of the bicycle as a ubiquitous replacement mode of transportation that's always with you and 'good enough'.

 

[Don Haines]

...
While that sounds reasonable, do you ever ask yourself why it is that two highly competitive companies that together have accounted for the vast majority of enthusiast camera sales for decades, and have completely dominated the professional market for more than half a century, have not jumped into this market if it is as simple and as lucrative as you believe?
...

Ford & GM are the home grown "big car makers" in the USA that built "American cars" for many many years.

Which two companies now fill out the top three car sellers? Toyota & Honda, selling smaller cars.

Interesting analogy...typically flawed. The prominence of smaller cars in the auto market started because those cars were more energy efficient (remember the oil crises and gas station lines in the 70s?), and continued because those small cars were substantially cheaper than their 'American car' counterparts, thus had a perceived better value. That's still the biggest factor – the global top selling vehicles from both Asian and US automakers are the ones at the lower end of the cost spectrum. Neither of those is true for MILCs relative to dSLRs – the former are less power efficient and most importantly, not less expensive.

Also, the markets are quite different – it's not as if the entire auto market is being eroded by the rise of the bicycle as a ubiquitous replacement mode of transportation that's always with you and 'good enough'.

Also flawed.....
I have two bicycles, yet only one car. This obviously means that globally bicycles are replacing cars due to their lower cost, smaller size, and greater DR.

That said, the global bicycle market is doomed because shoes are even more popular, have greater sales numbers, and come with laces!

 

[Loswr]

...
That said, the global bicycle market is doomed because shoes are even more popular, have greater sales numbers, and come with laces!

Not only that but in some cities around the world, some people are giving up car ownership completely for various reasons - environmentally friendly being one, uber being another. Roads and workplaces are being stressed with respect to how to support staff riding to work (showers, parking bikes, etc.)

Fixed that for you.

Although we know in AvTvM's house people are giving up dSLR buying completely in favor of purchasing only MILCs, his house is not representative of the global market, nor are the people or cities you mention representative of the global market. Last year there were over 88 million cars sold (~7 times as many as the number of ILCs sold), and unlike ILCs, global car sales have risen every year for the past five. In most of the developed world, more households own cars than own bicycles.