Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by MCAsan, Apr 28, 2015.
Interesting, ML virtually mirrors the ebb and flow of the DSLR sales.
Is there really that much difference between DSLRs and mirrorless? It reminds of the old debates between rangefinders and SLRs--proponents of each cited factors that when examined closely were much, much less significant than claimed or even didn't really exist at all.
I know it's not totally relatable to DSLR and ML sales but it's interesting that both formats look like they have declining holiday season sales year after year. Here's a chart for iPhone sales and you can see consistent growth especially in holiday season sales. Again, not totally relatable because iPhones also occupy different categories than DSLRs and MLs but mobile cameras have got to be eating into "pure camera" sales.
BTW, I'm totally rooting for DSLRs or some kind of large lens, 35mm or greater format digital image taking device. I hope, and think, their will always be a market for that no matter how many iPhones are sold or how good the camera part gets.
Not really. Look at how DSLR has declined from 2012 o 2015; volume is almost in half. Not so with mirrorless.
Yes in complexity of design, size, weight and cost. With mirrorless there is no mirror or pentaprism and you always in live view mode; there is an EVF, not an OVF.
The peaks and lulls are similar and that's what I was commenting on.
I think they also seem to track the release of significant new bodies i.e. D800, D600, 70D etc... in November 14, we didnt see anything earth shattering in terms of new bodies except the D750 - awesome camera of course - but as the 6D, 800, 810 etc was so recent, maybe this impacted the overall numbers???
You see what I mean. Of those factors, only the viewfinder is really different. Some mirrorless cameras are as expensive as pro DSLRs, and some DSLRs are cheap and relatively lightweight. The difference is not that much unless you are talking about the bigger pro models. Complexity of design? Again, that seems to vary a lot, with much overlap.
The key thing about the peaks and valleys is that they are normal, seasonal variations. Christmas is Christmas.
I agree that there will probably be a market for larger-sensor cameras for a long time, but I don't see the point to being married to 35mm as a benchmark. Results matter more than dimensions (how would Nikon's original FF sensor stack up against today's high end smartphones?). Bigger photo sites will always be better, all other things being equal, but there is a point of diminishing returns, too.
Let's compare 8x10 view cameras to 4x5. As film emulsions improved, 4x5 took over as the large format of choice. 35mm is no magic number when it comes to imaging sensors, it simply reflects the realities of the market when the SLR makers entered the digital arena. New-body-same-glass drove that.
The numbers we're seeing now in part reflect the change that comes when a new crop of photographers needs to buy both body and lens to get in the game. Arguably, there may be a positive effect from the rise of smartphone photography, as it's exposed far more people to the joys of photography as a hobby. For newcomers, if quality is sufficient (doesn't have to be "best" because 35mm isn't "best" either), then the size, weight, and cost of smaller lenses and bodies is going to take its toll (again, 4x5 vs. 8x10). If you're already used to EVF, then OVF is not a particularly persuasive selling point.
I have to agree with you here. There's obviously a lot of soap boxing that goes on online and ultimately the differences between the two camera types is small in the grand scheme of things.
To me mirrorless is exciting because it's the first time in digital cameras were seeing cameras systems designed with the modern enthusiasts in mind - smaller connected cameras that take good images that have access to a nice selection of fun lenses. When you look at DSLRs, it seems like CaNikon design the big pro bodies and lens systems and then shrink everything down to make the models most people actually buy - expecting enthusiasts to have the same needs and aspirations as pros. Also, the lens lineup is only designed with full frame in mind making the lenses much larger, slower and in some cases expensive than they need to be. For example, Canon's cheapest normal prime for APS-C (35mm) is 550$ with an f/2 aperture...
I guess the only reason I identified 35mm is that a very large historical and present portfolio of lenses are available to resolve that format (if I'm describing that correctly). It seems the 35mm or FF sensor seems to be a decent compromise at the moment in size, cost, and performance. It's certainly not the best of all possible sensor formats.
I think the perceived difference between formats is more up to the individual and their use case than pure spec comparison. At least at this point in history the best M43 sensor should be outperformed by the best crop sensor which should be beat by the best FF sensor which should be beat by the best MF sensor and so on. That doesn't necessarily mean which one the market wants the most of though.
With all these constant 'look at how good it's going' posts some might think that people are having purchase justification issues.
Only justification ussue i have is how i can justify a camera any better than a fisher price happy snap to match my lack of skills!
I think it is all a matter if taste and compromise. You want the best image quality bar nothing, then go DSLR. If you value portability over a trade off for quality then maybe mirrorless, tuen all points in between are for personal preference.
In the end, those who know what they need will research and buy wisely.
For me, i want a camera i will take with me so i chose to replace my DSLR setup with mirrorless. Others choose to stay DSLR for their own reasons.
There will always be cross over we all just have to know our needs and buy accordingly.
I dunno that a DSLR is the best quality, bar nothing, even taking lenses out the equation. Some DSLRs aren't as good as some M43s or even some fixed lens cameras with bigger sensors these days. So the trade off doesn't always exist. I think price might actually be a better guide, although maybe not even that. Eg, I have a Pentax K-50 and it's cheaper than a similar Oly E-M5 (both weatherproof and sort of midrange in their lineup). But close in specs and IQ, but the size/weight is pretty important.
I have a mirrorless as well, and when looking at the specs you'd think that the weight wouldn't matter that much, but it does. As you say, you want one you can take with you, and sometimes it's just way easier to pick up that smaller, lighter camera when you go out to walk the dog. And less intrusive when taking pictures too.
These days I tell friends who want an ILC to think mirrorless first, then go to regular old DSLRs if for some reason they can't get the mix of features and price.
And as for glass, I can use almost anything on my M43...including the K-50's lenses.
I agree with you on all points except i think on the whole, a top end DSLR in 35mm terms still gives better IQ than a mirrorless. Kind of.... except for Sonys..
I too steer people who want a better camera towards mirrorless first mainly when they think they want a proper camera and therefore think DSLR when in actual fact a good P&S is good enough for taking pictures of the dog
Don't be so sure.
I think the DSLR, mirroless and point and shoot cameras are all being slowly phased out in favour of camera phones. The truth is camera phones are good enough for most people. Generally we are not most people. We are more interested in IQ and taking a good photo rather than sharing snaps of our cat.
Sales will continue to decline whilst camera phones get better. But there will always be a small group of people like us who want a propper camera (whether that's DSLR or mirroless).
Pah! Gimmickry trickery....
Spot on... Of course that means over time our hobby (in my case) will become more and mire expensive.
The proof is in the raw file results. It would interesting to compare E-M5 high res mode to the Canon 50MP bodies.
The two types of camera are held and used complexly differently and the controls and way of composing the picture are different.
Has mirrorless eliminated the power-on and shutter lags yet?
Even if the sensors, image quality, technology and price were all identical, the difference in handling would keep the cameras worlds apart.
There's a place for a small D3300 with consumer-style controls and a much larger and heavier D810 with pro-style controls, and in the grand scheme of cameras out there now, there's very little difference between the two, but nobody will say Nikon should only sell one DSLR body.
Why would you think mirrorless and DSRL are so similar they can converge?
I'm glad you asked. Nikon's first FF sensor was in the D3. It is still so much better than anything in a smartphone that to compare the two is just a joke. If the D3 is your benchmark, smartphones with a $20 image sensor can't compete.
So the people who would buy a decent camera 15 years ago will buy a decent camera today. The people who wouldn't have bought a camera at all will use an iPhone to take pictures of their lunch for Facebook. There are many, many more people in that second category.
Camera phones are good enough for most people, but most people would have no interest in more than the cheapest basic camera they could find even if camera phones don't exist. There may be a lot of them, but them but they are irrelevant to the DSLR/mirrorless space.
Now, how do you get from that to real cameras being phased out in favour of camera phones?
Okay so maybe phased out is a poor choice of words. What I mean is becoming a niche market. You can still buy
Kettles you use on a hob
single glazed windows
Non smart phones
But they are all dwindling markets. The reality is Nikon's approach to DSLR's is to keep firing out new models every couple of months to grow sales. Cannon's approach has largely been to pull back on R & D and keep a stable line up for a few years. As to which is best strategy, I don't know. But just as some of us Digital photographers look to those clinging on to film (I mean you acearchie!) thinking them a little strange, so will the camera phone brigade thick us DSLR or Mirrorless guys as dinosaurs!
Personally I prefer DSLR's 99% of the time because of IQ and I'm out to take photos.
But sometimes the IP6+ is just with me so it will get the use (like a night out at the pub for example).
For others who want to take photos whilst doing something else a camera phone will always be more convenient and cheaper!
Certainly DSLR/M43/P&S companies are probably concerned about smartphones. Someone who isn't a pro, prosumer, or hobbyist is less likely to buy a non-phone camera these days. But there are still big markets: consider GoPro for instance. You aren't gonna strap an iPhone 6 Plus to your helmet and go over the falls in a a kayak. Other big consumer, non-pro markets are wildlife photography (or anything needing a telephoto), sports (longer lens, faster shooting), anything requiring weatherproofing, and anything more specialized.
I am perplexed, however, that the camera makers haven't recognized that they should intrude on the smartphone's domain by adopting smarter features. The wifi camera implementations are pretty weak. And given every camera has a computer onboard, the functions can be absurdly lame. Why don't even the non-fi cameras have bluetooth for remotes? some don't even have intervalometer functions. And you could control tons of onboard controls with BT. Sony put out a headless camera to use with iPhones which doesn't seem to be doing well, but being able to run a modern camera headless through a tablet or phone should be standard.
And as to M43 vs DSLR, there are lots of people who want a big camera. Whether it's better or not. Not a smaller one. Just big. Like those amps that go to 11. For those here, they are probably just tools, not necklaces. But whaddaweknow.
Are you deliberately being silly?
DSLRs are unequivocally the best quality photographic capture devices available. As of now anyway. Professionals and anyone serious about quality uses them. The reasons for smartphones, mirrorless, p&s, whatever, are tradeoffs. Smaller size for performance, lower cost for performance. If you're not willing to make tradeoffs, there is no choice besides DSLR.
Everything else on your list is inferior to what is available now and they are a niche market because they are obsolete junk.
So you're comparing DSLRs to single pane glass and smartphones to triple pane? DSLR is the open fire kettle while smartphones are a modern electric kettle. Modern DSLRs are clunky old typewriters? Seriously?
At some point an argument just gets so stupid I have to shake my head and wonder how you let yourself type that crap. Just reading your own post again doesn't convince you how backwards your point of view is?
If they do, it will because camera phones take a better picture than anything else.
Those people have always existed and never been a factor in the camera market.
I can use my iPad to compose music and play hundreds of instruments. I guess all those poor suckers buying guitars just just dinosaurs who don't even know any better. In fact, since I have zero musical talent and wouldn't know what to do with a real guitar if I had one, I can make music better on the iPad than with a real instrument. So clearly musical instruments are dead. Long live the iPad.
And my school must have really sucked for making us study chemistry with actual stinky chemicals. There's a chemical reaction simulator app for iPad which is so much cheaper and cleaner than real chemicals and still shows the same result.
You can make that argument about anything. And it's wrong every time.
It was Steve Jobs who said the real key is knowing what features to leave off.
I want a device for capturing pictures in the best quality possible. As easily as possible with no silly crap getting in my way. For me a camera phone will be useless as long as I can't go from the phone in sleep mode to taking my first picture in 0.25 seconds. More silly "just because we can" social sharing crap just ruins the camera.
I shoot with everything in manual mode on my camera and yet the controls are so refined I can set up and capture a shot in under a second. Any serious photographer will say the same thing. The last thing I want is clunky garbage like wi-fi and bluetooth ruining the controls.
You want bluetooth for a remote? Why? Bluetooth is not a real-time protocol. I don't even use a wireless mouse for gaming because the lag drives me crazy. I guess if you want the picture taken at some point shortly after you press the button you can use bluetooth, but I want constant, repeatable, near-instant response.
What would bluetooth give you over any of the currently existing implementations besides another logo printed on the camera?
And what is your obsession with wi-fi? Few people spend $5000+ on a high-end SLR and glass with the intention of instant sharing. It is just not a feature that matters in these cameras. I bought a Nikon waterproof P&S to use on vacations, it has wi-fi built in, and I don't see why anyone would care.
Pretty sure the Nikon wireless dongles offer that functionality for people who want it. I don't think they're that popular though because people don't really care for wifi in their cameras.