[StiffLegged]

.The hype is deafening. The actual numbers make a mockery of the hype.

Yes, actual numbers of ILCs in use dwarfs the numbers being sold today, but that doesn’t mean DSLRs still outsell MLCs: that time has now passed. I spent a very happy day at an airshow some years ago and saw Canikons by the shedload, but just one Sony. Will that kind of ratio continue forevermore? I don’t think so, but you cannot deny what is actually available to buy nowadays and what the big manufacturers have already indicated they’ll do.

Ah well, I still haven’t mastered my K7 and have much to practice yet unless it dies. It’s still fun to make images with!

[normhead]

IMO - marketing, partnership and commission fees are keys for success. The quality of the product is second. Only people who know their demands and take time and try and study the products by themself will discover what products will fit their needs mostly, considering the individual acceptable compromises.

Since most people don’t want to dive that deep, marketing will lead the majority of people. Less good products will win market share and the best may die. Maybe in Video Beta 2000 vs. VHS is such an example. The sales winner was the VHS system if I remember right.

Like Microsoft tried to do with Apple, the big companies have supported a long standing anti-Pentax marketing campaign that is repeated in almost every review of Pentax gear. Pentax is currently looking t their options in bypassing. There's no sense in fighting it. They have to find a work around. I'm glad they are giving customer involvement a shot. I doubt it will work out. For every Apple type company that beat the negative marketing of much larger competitor, the road is littered with companies bought out and killed, or just unable to find a way around the negative marketing of a competitor. One of the reasons I won't buy Microsoft product, I won't buy product from any company that spends good money trashing a competitor, as opposed to advertising on the strength of their own product.

If you buy their product, you pay for the nonsense.

[BigMackCam]

I get your point, my answer would be yes and no. What happens with innovation in general is that prototype products are created and based on the likelyhood of business success investment to try penetrate the market is granted. If all goes well, early adopters who like novelty get the innovative product, and if the investment venture manage to get enough earlier adopters to build momentum and get the ball rolling, further customers buy the new product based on the social proof from early adopters. In the vast majority of business cases, unless the product respond to an existing and painful need, the early adoption is made up by the force loss making marketing and sales expenditures. The early mirrorless apsc and full frame camera from Fuji and Sony were a disaster performance wise compared to DSLR of the time. But, Fuji and Sony created the early market via what they call "evangelisation", they paid professional photographers to organize photography workshops and use the workshops to introduce the products to customs. The workshops were heavily subsidized, up to the point of making the most part in income for the professionals. You even had a Fuji magazine , Fuji lovegrove, where basically the pro photographer was financed by Fuji almost entirely. Once Sony and Fuji had build the costly initial user base, they used it to convince retailer to sell Fuji and Sony , again with a lot of financial help to the retailers. The local shop here told me that Fuji gave them a lot of benefits that Pentax didn't offer, and eventually they decided to remove the Pentax shelf and use that space for Fuji, simply because Fuji finance them. At no point in the text above, customers pushed to get a mirrorless camera, the push was always from Fuji and Sony.

Much as I prefer DSLRs, there can be significant advantages to mirrorless cameras depending on your use cases and priorities. WYSIWYG (sort of, and getting better all the time) in the EVF... optional amplification in the EVF allowing for easier low-light composing... on-sensor PDAF that rarely (if ever) requires AF fine adjustment... much easier and more accurate manual focusing with magnfication in the EVF... faster continous shooting rate... and though the size argument doesn't really hold water when talking about longer lenses, some wide-angle lenses can be smaller than their SLR counterparts (presumably because they don't need to be retrofocal designs, due to the short flange focal distance). When coupled with smaller MILCs, you can indeed end up with a smaller, lighter package overall.

So... it's not as if the mirrorless digital camera was thought up as some cynical money-making ploy to sell folks a product they wouldn't benefit from...

[normhead]

but that doesn’t mean DSLRs still outsell MLCs: that time has now passed.

Given the number of actual camera sales today, that may be a meaningless stat for years to come. By how much are mirrorless outselling DSLRs? If DSLRs are still selling at a decent clip, then there's little chance of complete extinction. I'm wondering why no where are actual comparative numbers posted. How do you guys even know Mirrorless are currently out selling DSLRs. I can't find an online stat. The last time I saw a graph MILCs were ahead of DSLRs by a very small margin. It would appear that the marketing powers that be are trying to overstate the difference.

There would seem to be a projection going on here amongst almost all of you that the drop in DSLR sales won't bottom out at some point and possibly even start to rebound. As previously stated, there is no scenario carved in stone.

The whole goal of marketing is create self fulfilling prophecies...but really, only the simple minded fall for them. Most intelligent people from most brands understand the value of evolution over revolution and buy what's best for themselves, be it MILC or DSLR. But the 60%-70% largely influenced by marketing is what keeps most brands alive. Pentax being the exception.

For me,
Same mount for 40 years.
IBIS for older lenses.
Pixel shift, for more resolution from smaller file sizes and truer colour.
4th fastest AF confirmation in then industry last time I checked.
And now the new bigger OVF in Katie.

Pentax gets along on superior performance. Not on generic camera industry hype.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-21-2022 at 09:35 AM.

[Lord Lucan]

If you look at the number of DSLRs sold, and the numbers of mirrorless sold, and current user bases, how long will it take mirrorless to catch up with DLSr usage. That the kind of investigation that would be meaningful. Are we looking 5 years? 10 years?

Sales take time to filter through to usage. I guess the number of years will be about the same as the typical number of years that people keep the same camera, whatever that is, plus some to allow for the fact that DSLRs are still being sold for now by Canikon and (a drop in the ocean) Pentax.

As for sales, a big factor will be when MILC prices dip below DSLR prices. At the moment MILC still have a "Wow! New tech!" premium in the price (many people are impressed by that alone), despite the fact that they must be significantly cheaper to manufacture. Current prices at Wex (UK dealer) for example show a Nikon D850 at £2500, versus a Z7ii at £3000. That balance will change when the "wow" factor wears off and DSLR's start to attract a premium price as a niche.

[normhead]

So... it's not as if the mirrorless digital camera was thought up as some cynical money-making ploy to sell folks a product they wouldn't benefit from...

Unfortunately both things can be simultaneously true.
I seriously need to see some numbers to detail the advantages, and what it means to me as photographer. A bunch of people saying these things without testing is seriously hard to evaluate.

Just shooting with those Canon R5 guys the others, apart from shutter speed which has been addressed in the K-3iii I seriously couldn't find any observable advantage, beyond they din't have something as convenient as the DA 55-300 PLM which was huge advantage for me in both ease of panning and portability.

I actually asked what was better about the R5 than the 1Dx's they owned before and got a bunch of humming an hawing. Someone help me out here.

[ehrwien]

As for sales, a big factor will be when MILC prices dip below DSLR prices.

My best guess: never*

*or when the prices for some popular DSLRs are made unrealistically high because they're the last units to be had?

[BigMackCam]

Unfortunately both things can be simultaneously true.
I seriously need to see some numbers to detail the advantages, and what it means to me as photographer. A bunch of people saying these things without testing is seriously hard to evaluate.

Just shooting with those Canon R5 guys the others, apart from shutter speed which has been addressed in the K-3iii I seriously couldn't find any observable advantage, beyond they din't have something as convenient as the DA 55-300 PLM which was huge advantage for me in both ease of panning and portability.

I actually asked what was better about the R5 than the 1Dx's they owned before and got a bunch of humming an hawing. Someone help me out here.

OK... so to begin with, let me just state that since I use both Sony A7II mirrorless and Hasselblad HV "SLT" cameras in addition to my Pentax gear, the points I mentioned about WYSIWIG, easier low-light shooting due to amplified EVF, on-sensor PDAF accuracy without the need for AF fine adjustment, and easier manual focusing through the viewfinder aren't quotes I've taken from reviews - they're based on my own experience.

Re the numbers... I'm not up-to-date on the performance of every camera, but we're seeing higher-end MILC models shooting at 20fps using fully electronic shutter. Does anyone really need that? Arguably not, but folks are making use of it. As for size, see this link to compare the Sony A9 MkII with the K-1 MkII - look at the different views front and side, the dimensions, and the weight (you need to scroll down for that). Lens-wise, you've got me - not because I'm doubtful of my previous claim, but because I'd have to trawl through all the lenses for various models to find relevant comparisons.

I'll say again, as I do many times in these forums, I'm a Pentax DSLR guy at heart, and a happy, satisfied one at that. I'm not looking to fabricate reasons why mirrorless is better. I'm just saying that in my opinion (that's all it is - an opinion... YMMV), there are potential advantages to mirrorless cameras depending on the individual's use cases, preferences and priorities - and they're pretty compelling advantages if they happen to match your shooting requirements. DSLRs have different advantages... and they suit me for most - but not all - of my own requirements. For a couple, I find mirrorless cameras invaluable.

[StiffLegged]

I'm wondering why no where are actual comparative numbers posted. How do you guys even know Mirrorless are currently out selling DSLRs. I can't find an online stat.

The CIPA figures are published on their own website. These are shipments, not actual sales, but considering how many cameras are "awaiting stock" with retailers, they can't be that far off sales figures. They separate DSLR from MILC numbers and this year past, Jan-Nov '21, saw a substantially larger number of the latter over the former.

I think I've derailed this thread enough already.

[normhead]

OK... so to begin with, let me just state that since I use both Sony A7II mirrorless and Hasselblad HV "SLT" cameras in addition to my Pentax gear, the points I mentioned about WYSIWIG, easier low-light shooting due to amplified EVF, on-sensor PDAF accuracy without the need for AF fine adjustment, and easier manual focusing through the viewfinder aren't quotes I've taken from reviews - they're based on my own experience.

OK so say an average shoot, how much time am I saving? Am I going to put my Pentax down to use the Sony?

[BigMackCam]

OK so say an average shoot, how much time am I saving? Am I going to put my Pentax down to use the Sony?

I can't say how much time it would save you, Norm, or whether you'd put the Pentax down and use the Sony, because I'm not you and your use cases aren't mine. I can only tell you that for me, the Sony A7 MkII I own works better for some of my use cases and preferences, and not for others. My preference is to use my Pentax DSLRs when use cases favour them (in bold, in case I'm not making myself clear enough) - which, for me, is most of them, and most of the time. I'm not criticising Pentax or DSLRs or saying they're incapable in any way. This goes back to my response to a post from @biz-engineer that made it sound like the industry forced mirrorless cameras on us for no practical reason. The point I was trying to make in that response is, there are benefits to mirrorless for some folks depending on their use cases.

Why do I feel like I have to apologise and justify myself for saying this? C'mon, man - you know me well enough by now to take me at my word... surely?!

[normhead]

The point I was trying to make in that response is, there are benefits to mirrorless for some folks depending on their use cases.

Just trying to get a handle on things without actually going to a store and checking it out myself. Which would be unfair to the store because I'd be very unlikely to be buying. I wasn't disputing what you said, I always expect you have reasons for saying what you do. But in the video by the photographer recently posted, the guy explained when he used his Pentax (stuff that I do) and when he used his mirrorless (stuff that I don't do.) So, That's what I'm trying to get an handle on. I'm wondering if for a guy like me, mirrorless is even worth investigating.

[BigMackCam]

Just trying to get a handle on things without actually going to a store and checking it out myself. Which would be unfair to the store because I'd be very unlikely to be buying. I wasn't disputing what you said, I always expect you have reasons for saying what you do. But in the video by the photographer recently posted, the guy explained when he used his Pentax (stuff that I do) and when he used his mirrorless (stuff that I don't do.) So, That's what I'm trying to get an handle on. I'm wondering if for a guy like me, mirrorless is even worth investigating.

Given what I know of your use cases, Norm, the one thing I think you might find useful (and it's something I don't have on my older mirrorless A7 MkII) is fully-electronic, truly-silent shutter, which strikes me as a "gift" for wildlife photography... but I don't for one moment suggest that's enough to justify switching platforms Still, it's an interesting and potentially valuable tool that some folks would find compelling as part of a broader package that favours their use cases...

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I can only tell you that for me, the Sony A7 MkII I own works better for some of my use cases

Caveat I am not a ML user but I have been kicking around of the idea of going ML and the benefits of going so, For me would be the AF and setting up the EVF for raw shooting.

Setting up the camera EVF for shooting raw would be my main motivator for ML, This would reduce a lot of the guess work about ETTR, and with real time view of the modified histogram in the EVF and the EVF's modified view of the raw file would make things a lot quicker and easier

[normhead]

Given what I know of your use cases, Norm, the one thing I think you might find useful (and it's something I don't have on my older mirrorless A7 MkII) is fully-electronic, truly-silent shutter, which strikes me as a "gift" for wildlife photography... but I don't for one moment suggest that's enough to justify switching platforms Still, it's an interesting and potentially valuable tool that some folks would find compelling as part of a broader package that favours their use cases...

Sad but true, most of the wildlife I shoot in the park is so habituated they could care less about the shutter. They've've heard louder and faster. If I was shooting in wilder places, it could be different. I have been asked to turn off the focus confirmation beep, but no complaints about shutter noise.