[Shupienis]

e only argument for a different system, to me, is whether you can derive more pleasure by using a different approach. For instance, a smaller camera means it's easier to carry, so when I'm hiking that's a bonus. But a camera as well designed as the K-1 is enjoyable to use, once it's been carried.

I think that is kind of what I was trying to say in point #1. It is true both for people who make a living by photographing ("Professionals") and those who enjoy photographing as its own reward (non-professionals). And there is a huge continuum in between, with plenty of room for Pros whose vocation is photography and for Amateurs whose avocation is photography. Both groups are made up of people with all levels of skill, craftsmanship, proficiency, creativity and vision. Professionals (hopefully) get paid for making quality photographs, while Amateurs pay for the privilege of making quality photographs.

My point being, both Professionals and Amateurs benefit from the availability of many types of cameras and photographic technologies, each being well-suited to some types of photography and less suited for others. The most satisfied photographers are those who select the right tool for the task they are undertaking. Pro or Amateur, they can define themselves by their photographs—the equipment is secondary, as long as it provides the photographer with the capability of recording their unique vision so others may share it.

Now let's please move on from arguing about gear, and get back to arguing about how many photons can dance on the head of a pixel!
//Joe

[bdery]

get back to arguing about how many photons can dance on the head of a pixel!

I thought the general consensus was that the answer is 42?

[TedH42]

I thought the general consensus was that the answer is 42?

It is indeed.

[que es tu]

For dudes like myself living on a modest retirement income, it is. It takes a lot of planning and saving.

My wife takes out my new lenses within days of arrival, and if she like them, they become her new lens.

As a blue collar worker and the only income for a family of 5, I understand how this is. I must save up for months to get new gear, so I am very careful, and do lots of research before buying anything because I don’t have extra $ to get something that I can’t use. After putting so much time and effort into selecting an item, it becomes more than just a tool. Also, considering my budget, it is nearly irreplaceable, so I had better get it right the first time and take care of it so it will last!

[normhead]

As a blue collar worker and the only income for a family of 5, I understand how this is. I must save up for months to get new gear, so I am very careful, and do lots of research before buying anything because I don’t have extra $ to get something that I can’t use. After putting so much time and effort into selecting an item, it becomes more than just a tool. Also, considering my budget, it is nearly irreplaceable, so I had better get it right the first time and take care of it so it will last!

Your attitude reflects a huge number of camera users. The ones strutting their stuff with all the latest , greatest, are the minority in real life, but dominate on the forum.

When I retired I owned 2 camera bodies and 5 lenses the total value of which was under $3000. The cost of one K-3iii with no lenses. That's after working at a decent job for almost 40 years. But, from a marketing standpoint, we aren't the camera users they want.

[Class A]

There's room for both DSLR and dMILC cameras, because each system is better suited for some types of photography than the other.

Such a simple truth, yet even the smartest person at DPReview does not get it.

[StiffLegged]

Such a simple truth, yet even the smartest person at DPReview does not get it.

Wait, they have smart people there? Who'da thunk it??

[gatorguy]

Fun Fact:
According to CIPA, DSLR sales in the US are UP a surprisingly robust 132% YOY, while mirrorless sales have declined 57% over the same time frame. DSLR's are not dead yet Jim.

[Serkevan]

Fun Fact:
According to CIPA, DSLR sales in the US are UP a surprisingly robust 132% YOY, while mirrorless sales have declined 57% over the same time frame. DSLR's are not dead yet Jim.

It is quite interesting, because the US is the only market where the average price per DSLR went up. However, despite a 40-60 split in unit sales, MILCs make up 80% of the ILC market revenue.

And I still won't move away from my OVF because I have more fun with it

[Lord Lucan]

MILCs make up 80% of the ILC market revenue.

MILCs are obviously cheaper to manufacture than DSLRs (no mirror mechanism, no precision made prism), but the saving is not being passed on to the buyers. The buyers are prepared to pay the premium because it is a "new" idea (even though it isn't) and the marketing people are doing a good job at persuading them that you can't take pictures with anything else now.

[Serkevan]

MILCs are obviously cheaper to manufacture than DSLRs (no mirror mechanism, no precision made prism), but the saving is not being passed on to the buyers. The buyers are prepared to pay the premium because it is a "new" idea (even though it isn't) and the marketing people are doing a good job at persuading them that you can't take pictures with anything else now.

Comparable cameras are cheaper to manufacture, for sure... that's why, for example, the Canon 90D is significantly more expensive than the identical-but-MILC M6 MKii. However, the spec sheet race is bearing fruit (it's easier to market ridiculous burst rates and fantasbulous flawless AF): MILC average price per unit is higher than it ever was for DSLRs. It's, in fact, more than twice the average price per DSLR (which keeps tanking).


This tells me that the market is split in two very differentiated sectors:

-Entry level DSLRs
-Enthusiast and High-end MILCs

Why? Simple, really. Most people who are serious about photography want a "current" system, and almost all of those are MILCs. Meanwhile, most people who want to get into photography want a cheap camera, and the entry level MILC segment is basically nonexistant. This, I guess, also helps create a "DSLR cheap, MILC expensive (and thus good)" mindset in customers.


In defense of MILCs, it is true that their spec sheets are often markedly better than those in DSLRs of comparable price. And that's what the customer cares about in the end. Nevermind that OEM lenses for mirrorless are often more expensive, but once you have a foot or both through the door... .

[Rondec]

It is quite interesting, because the US is the only market where the average price per DSLR went up. However, despite a 40-60 split in unit sales, MILCs make up 80% of the ILC market revenue.

And I still won't move away from my OVF because I have more fun with it

How many new SLRs were released in the last couple of years? It has to be a pretty small number. With most camera brands signaling that they aren't continuing to support legacy mounts long term, it is shocking that there are that many SLR sales.

To me it says that most people actually don't care that much about the viewfinder. They are more interested in the value proposition and they find that buying an APS-C SLR two lens kit is more reasonably priced than whatever cheap end MILC is available from the same manufacturer. Whether MILCs are cheaper to manufacture, they are more expensive at the stores than entry-level SLRs ever were and furthermore, other than a few kit lenses, their glass is very expensive.

The majority of photographers use their phones for most photographs and only break out their ILCs for special occasions (low light, telephoto, kids sporting events, etc) and thus do not need or want to spend a huge amount on a stand alone camera that they use 10 times a year.

[Shupienis]

Popular buzz-words like Adam Smith's Free Market are oft quoted but commonly misunderstood and misused. Photographic equipment at the performance and luxury levels is marketed to a very different clientele and market segment than are cellphones and bubble-pack point'n'shoots.

If the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" were to decide that oval-track car races were the most profitable spectator sport, would that mean the end of NFL Football, MLB Baseball, NHL Hockey, Professional tennis, the Olympics and local youth soccer?

The relevant freedom we should focus on is the freedom for manufacturers to produce products they believe they can sell at a sufficient profit for them and for their customers.

Should everybody but Ricoh/Pentax decide to discontinue DSLRs that would leave one remaining DSLR brand: Pentax. That means a monopoly, and as we all know those can be extremely profitable!

[Rondec]

Popular buzz-words like Adam Smith's Free Market are oft quoted but commonly misunderstood and misused. Photographic equipment at the performance and luxury levels is marketed to a very different clientele and market segment than are cellphones and bubble-pack point'n'shoots.

If the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" were to decide that oval-track car races were the most profitable spectator sport, would that mean the end of NFL Football, MLB Baseball, NHL Hockey, Professional tennis, the Olympics and local youth soccer?

The relevant freedom we should focus on is the freedom for manufacturers to produce products they believe they can sell at a sufficient profit for them and for their customers.

Should everybody but Ricoh/Pentax decide to discontinue DSLRs that would leave one remaining DSLR brand: Pentax. That means a monopoly, and as we all know those can be extremely profitable!

We can see what happened with Leica and rangefinders. Clearly if you are a small company it is better to maximize a niche than to challenge the biggest companies on their own turf.

I don't think Pentax is going fully Leica's direction, but clearly, at least in Japan, they are trying to create the idea of custom made, well built cameras that are valuable for more reasons than simply their ability to take photos. Whether they succeed remains to be seen, but some of their kickstarter items look interesting.

[Shupienis]

MILCs are obviously cheaper to manufacture than DSLRs (no mirror mechanism, no precision made prism), but the saving is not being passed on to the buyers. The buyers are prepared to pay the premium because it is a "new" idea (even though it isn't) and the marketing people are doing a good job at persuading them that you can't take pictures with anything else now.

Ever wonder why SUVs are so popular? Not for the utility! When I count, the vast majority of SUVs driving past me are carrying exactly ONE person. Not the kids' soccer team. Not the week's groceries. Just. One. Person.

Well, back in the early 2000s, the auto manufacturers found that SUVs did not have to meet the much stricter (and vastly more expensive) emissions and safety requirements as did "passenger cars".

SUVs of the day were (much) cheaper to make than sedans, and if you could hype them up and charge more for them, they were SIGNIFICANTLY more profitable!

Now let's look at digital MILCs. (I say "digital" or "dMILC" because mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have been around for over 100 years!)

• They are cheaper to produce
• They are sold for a higher price
• They are highly promoted and marketed as "better"
• They require the purchase of costly proprietary lenses and accessories

Sounds like a recipe for success in business.

To quote a 19th century proverb, sometimes attributed to P. T. Barnum, "There's one born every minute."

Below is a portrait of Mr. Barnum, taken with a MILC by Matthew Brady, circa 1860, courtesy of the Library of Congress.