[RonHendriks1966]

It may be a little early for OVF proponents to declare victory. What you're seeing is the data in column3 which is the data for that single month over the same month a year earlier. If you look at the Production or Shipment information for column 4 (which is the data for Jan - Sept - a 9 month period) one sees the usual relationship of a slight reduction in DSLRs compared with a slight increase in EVF production and shipments.

What will be the relationship numerically between EVFs and OVFs at the end of 2015? What will be the trends - i have no idea. It is an interesting change possibility in an industry thats been in a interative status quo mode for a duopoly for so many years.

But bottom line - the EVF/OVF issue has no real importance to the world at large. Its a curiosity - nothing more.

Some how most of you forget that a lot of milc don't have an EVF.

[Kunzite]

Who is claiming "victory"? Is there a war somewhere and I didn't notice?
Well, perhaps it is, and I might be "fighting" a "war" against FUD and propaganda. Not against MILCs, which have their place on the market, alongside DSLRs.

That document is more useful than that; it also contains the aggregated data from the beginning of the year. In other words, we don't have a single month - but 9 of them (with per-month data available in separate documents).
And did not happen in those 9 months? A sharp decline of over 25%, like in 2014. Instead, the figures are close to "100%" (within 5%, for production). So we could end the year with either a small decline, or a small increase over 2014 - either is possible.

Which means the DSLRs appears to be stabilizing. Which, as I said in the first post, is something Ricoh Imaging predicted.

As for EVFs, there's an implied yet very much incorrect assumption on your post - I'd guess that most "non-reflex" cameras from the CIPA documents don't have any kind of viewfinder - just the back LCD. The real OVF:EVF ratio is much, much larger.
Though that's irrelevant when choosing the viewfinder that works best for you; I agree that's at most a curiosity.

[RonHendriks1966]

Who is claiming "victory"? Is there a war somewhere and I didn't notice?
Well, perhaps it is, and I might be "fighting" a "war" against FUD and propaganda. Not against MILCs, which have their place on the market, alongside DSLRs.

That document is more useful than that; it also contains the aggregated data from the beginning of the year. In other words, we don't have a single month - but 9 of them (with per-month data available in separate documents).
And did not happen in those 9 months? A sharp decline of over 25%, like in 2014. Instead, the figures are close to "100%" (within 5%, for production). So we could end the year with either a small decline, or a small increase over 2014 - either is possible.

Which means the DSLRs appears to be stabilizing. Which, as I said in the first post, is something Ricoh Imaging predicted.

As for EVFs, there's an implied yet very much incorrect assumption on your post - I'd guess that most "non-reflex" cameras from the CIPA documents don't have any kind of viewfinder - just the back LCD. The real OVF:EVF ratio is much, much larger.
Though that's irrelevant when choosing the viewfinder that works best for you; I agree that's at most a curiosity.

Just a prediction from my site......

The last quarter of 2014 was a great sales period, or they just pushed the sales channels with al new camera's from Photokina. Wich I don't expect this year. So for the first months of 2015 the dslr sales are down 5,3 %...........But that number will go up. At the end of the year the dslr sales will be down by 10 % compared to 2014.

That at least wouldn't be labeled as stabilized!

[Digitalis]

one sees the usual relationship of a slight reduction in DSLRs compared with a slight increase in EVF production and shipments.

EVFs aren't only used in digital cameras you know, an increase in production doesn't automatically mean there is greater demand. There are just more products (other than still cameras) that use them eg, digital Night vision binoculars, electronic survey equipment

What will be the relationship numerically between EVFs and OVFs at the end of 2015?

I expect it will remain more or less the same as it is now.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 11-03-2015 at 03:13 AM.

[Kunzite]

Ron, I said stabilizing, not stabilized. And when talking about trends, you have to be careful with seasonal components (like a strong Photokina - but did we really had that?). A spike on production/shipments followed by a weaker 1st quarter of 2015 would mess up the total figures for 2015 (compared to 2014), but might not actually reflect a downward trend.

[gazonk]

Lens hoods backwards, flash popping out and all that included.

Just a few weeks ago I saw a guy with two Canon cameras around his neck, with really serious-looking lenses mounted, who tried to shoot a sunset with popup flash

(But after a couple of shots, at least he noticed and tried (without luck) to find out what was wrong with his camera settings)

[Rondec]

It may be a little early for OVF proponents to declare victory. What you're seeing is the data in column3 which is the data for that single month over the same month a year earlier. If you look at the Production or Shipment information for column 4 (which is the data for Jan - Sept - a 9 month period) one sees the usual relationship of a slight reduction in DSLRs compared with a slight increase in EVF production and shipments.

What will be the relationship numerically between EVFs and OVFs at the end of 2015? What will be the trends - i have no idea. It is an interesting change possibility in an industry thats been in a interative status quo mode for a duopoly for so many years.

But bottom line - the EVF/OVF issue has no real importance to the world at large. Its a curiosity - nothing more.

I really don't think there is a victory or defeat to be had here. The reality is that even Nikon and Canon have to be studying the market to see if they need to bring serious, large sensored mirrorless to market down the road to counter Sony. The problem for them is that this throws away their advantage -- high quality glass that mounts without an adapter and focuses extremely fast. It is understandable if they aren't excited about the prospect of new mounts and redesign of their current glass to fit that mount.

And so they wait.

As others have mentioned, a large number of the cameras we are talking about here on the mirrorless side do not have EVFs. They only use the LCD on the rear of the camera. Some have add on EVFs available, but many don't. My understanding is that optional EVFs actually don't sell very well -- people who buy a camera without a viewfinder are often folks who don't particularly want one.

[normhead]

There has been and endless and unforgiving assumption on the part of some of us that EVF is inevitable and that they are some kind of vanguard of the future because they own one. An assumption they supported with EVF growth within that small segment of the DSLR market that was willing to go with them. When you start from zero, you can grow a long time before you encounter market saturation. The error was the assumption that the whole DSLR market was up for grabs, and that EVF would be the end of OVF. That assumption is the one that is in dispute. The trend suggests that EVF is a niche, OVF will remain 90% of the market at least for the time being. The Pentax execs said they were watching EVF and they felt it wasn't here yet. So, it's not like it hasn't been considered. So, what were doing is not declaring victory but clearing up some misconceptions championed by over zealous EVF adopters.

Most of us feel, there is a place for EVF... it's just not for us. More power to anyone who has one. Just don't get all religious about it.

By the way Pentax has said they don't think the EVF is technically where it needs to be. They haven't ruled out EVF. But the A7 series is apparently beneath the minimum performance standard they would release. Which is kind of a back handed way of saying EVF isn't where it needs to be in terms of Pentax performance standards. That's the kind of statement that will be true until it isn't. It could change any time. But I suspect that they won't come out with an EVF until Sony has enough market share to be worth raiding.

[WPRESTO]

Alas that means Pentax is playing watch-&-wait rather than innovate-&-lead, which means if they misjudge they'll be playing catch-up forever. There are several advantages to MILC's from MPOV. It would be nice to have viewfinder focus peaking, as I cannot consistently manage manual focus accuracy for macro as I did in the film era. Also, MILC's can have a shorter registry distance for lenses, so it's possible to build a FF sensor camera that with adapters can mount any lens from any era from any manufacturer. What would be perfect is if those adapters would operate all available lens functions (aperture info/operation & AF in particular, if the lens is capable). For modern lenses that use electronic connections, it should be possible with correct microchip and wiring in the adapter. Mechanical connection to operate the diaphragm is trickier, but I'll bet that an engineer with the assignment could design an adapter that would allow diaphragm operation of a Nikon, Pentax, or Canon lens when mounted on the same FF body.

[Kunzite]

The MILC market is well-established, we're not talking about new technology here. Pentax would definitely be playing catch-up if (when) they would go for the large sensor MILC market.
In the same time, it's very much possible to innovate on the DSLR market, too. For example, the innovative applications of the SR system; or perhaps some innovative modifications to the OVF/dedicated PDAF system (Ricoh Imaging has patents for both).

[bertwert]

Some how most of you forget that a lot of milc don't have an EVF.

That's one of the main problems!
No VF...

[philbaum]

With all the kerfuffle over EVF/OVF, one of the more interesting market trends is IBIS. Pentax was like the only company out there dedicated to IBIS for large sensors. Sony had discarded IBIS for Nex APS cameras, even for early A7, but then readopted it for A7II type reissues. This change of mind has been interesting to watch.

Looking at reviews of Sony mirrorless, reviewers are gushing over IBIS - its now "back in fashion". Something Pentax had all along. For low light, IBIS is really helpful, IMO. Part of the reviewer's enthusiasm probably is related to its use for video to be honest.

For IBIS and other reasons, Sony is demanding and getting higher prices for its FF and lenses, than Cannikon are getting for their mid-range FF. This has got to be a disappointment for Nikon in particular, who seemed to want the FF premium camera niche all to themselves. Will IBIS help pave the way for good sales of Pentax FF. Very possibly when combined with low cost advantages of Pentax refreshed lenses. Remember that Pentax and Sony need to get only a fraction of Canikon's market share to turn a profit, while for Canikon, any dent in their large marketshare is a loss.

[Zygonyx]

Yeah, and it wasn't difficult for Sony to migrate IBIS tech. from Olympus after taking their shares...

[RonHendriks1966]

Yeah, and it wasn't difficult for Sony to migrate IBIS tech. from Olympus after taking their shares...

Where are 645Z dxo numbers?

[clackers]

Where are 645Z dxo numbers?

Exactly. I'm sure they'll come up with some excuse.