[Kunzite]

The MILC makers had to recover the expenses associated with introduction of their new systems, expenses made under certain assumptions of expected success; it doesn't always work - see Samsung, they don't feel well these days

I agree with Phil, neither DSLRs nor MILCs are going away anytime soon. IMO even the 1:1 ratio will be hard to reach, and it makes no sense to talk about DSLRs disappearing until well after that, while it's obviously not a requirement for MILCs surviving.

[IchabodCrane]

The MILC makers had to recover the expenses associated with introduction of their new systems, expenses made under certain assumptions of expected success; it doesn't always work - see Samsung, they don't feel well these days

I agree with Phil, neither DSLRs nor MILCs are going away anytime soon. IMO even the 1:1 ratio will be hard to reach, and it makes no sense to talk about DSLRs disappearing until well after that, while it's obviously not a requirement for MILCs surviving.

That's probably a fair analysis. One of the interesting developments is Olympus actually reported a scant profit in cameras so they've shown improvement despite a falling market. My wild guess is the DSLR:MiILC ratio (which is meaningless in the grand scheme of things) might move from the current 3:1 to maybe 2.5:1 or so.

What will change the whole industry dynamics is if either Canon or Nikon decide to get into large sensor (APS-C or above) MILCs in a meaningful way. So far, Nikon has avoided the segment and Canon has only put their toes in the water. Both have the name recognition, retail presence, and marketing power to truly shape the industry. If they decide to get serious in MILCs, the sales ratio could even change to something like 1:1 but that's getting too speculative as they don't even produce those products.

[reh321]

That's probably a fair analysis. One of the interesting developments is Olympus actually reported a scant profit in cameras so they've shown improvement despite a falling market. My wild guess is the DSLR:MiILC ratio (which is meaningless in the grand scheme of things) might move from the current 3:1 to maybe 2.5:1 or so.

What will change the whole industry dynamics is if either Canon or Nikon decide to get into large sensor (APS-C or above) MILCs in a meaningful way. So far, Nikon has avoided the segment and Canon has only put their toes in the water. Both have the name recognition, retail presence, and marketing power to truly shape the industry. If they decide to get serious in MILCs, the sales ratio could even change to something like 1:1 but that's getting too speculative as they don't even produce those products.

How do you classify the Canon EOS-M3?
(I thought it is an APS-C MILC)

[IchabodCrane]

How do you classify the Canon EOS-M3?
(I thought it is an APS-C MILC)

The Canon EOS-M3 belongs to my comment "only put their toes in the water". This camera is non-competitive with the better Oly, Panny, and Fujifim offerings.

[reh321]

The Canon EOS-M3 belongs to my comment "only put their toes in the water". This camera is non-competitive with the better Oly, Panny, and Fujifim offerings.

But your last words were "they don't even produce those products". I'm not sure what they would have to do to get your attention as being more than "only put their toes in the water". The M3 does have an EVF option - it costs real money, but it exists; IIUC, the its guts come from a recent Rebel DSLR. Whether or not it is "competitive" is entirely a subjective call right now, this early in its existence.

[IchabodCrane]

But your last words were "they don't even produce those products". I'm not sure what they would have to do to get your attention as being more than "only put their toes in the water". The M3 does have an EVF option - it costs real money, but it exists; IIUC, the its guts come from a recent Rebel DSLR. Whether or not it is "competitive" is entirely a subjective call right now, this early in its existence.

No that's not my last sentence. This is what I actually wrote (emphasis added):

"If they decide to get serious in MILCs, the sales ratio could even change to something like 1:1 but that's getting too speculative as they don't even produce those products." (i.e. they don't offer a serious product)

Canon and Nikon do not offer a "serious" MILC that is competitive with those others mentioned. If they choose to do so, it will change the landscape considerably, IMHO.

[reh321]

No that's not my last sentence. This is what I actually wrote (emphasis added):

"If they decide to get serious in MILCs, the sales ratio could even change to something like 1:1 but that's getting too speculative as they don't even produce those products." (i.e. they don't offer a serious product)

Canon and Nikon do not offer a "serious" MILC that is competitive with those others mentioned. If they choose to do so, it will change the landscape considerably, IMHO.

You didn't answer the important part of my post:
How would you define a "serious MILC"?
Your sentence above seems to equate seriousness with being competitive with the others.
If you look at how they designed it, as an offshoot of their very successful Rebel line, one could argue that it has good technology in it, and this time it does have a (pricey) EVF option.
As a former Canon user, I have already received several emails from Canon trying to get me to buy one, so this isn't a half-hearted effort by them
It is too new a product to evaluate its success in the marketplace.

[IchabodCrane]

You didn't answer the important part of my post:
How would you define a "serious MILC"?
Your sentence above seems to equate seriousness with being competitive with the others.
If you look at how they designed it, as an offshoot of their very successful Rebel line, one could argue that it has good technology in it, and this time it does have a (pricey) EVF option.
As a former Canon user, I have already received several emails from Canon trying to get me to buy one, so this isn't a half-hearted effort by them
It is too new a product to evaluate its success in the marketplace.

"Serious" would mean three or four times the current grand total of four native lenses. How about a model with a built-in EVF? On-sensor PDAF? There's nothing about Canon's effort in MILCs that competes with offerings like the Oly E-M1, Oly E-M5 II, Fuji X-T1, Panny GH4 and GX8.

[reh321]

"Serious" would mean three or four times the current grand total of four native lenses. How about a model with a built-in EVF? On-sensor PDAF? There's nothing about Canon's effort in MILCs that competes with offerings like the Oly E-M1, Oly E-M5 II, Fuji X-T1, Panny GH4 and GX8.

I wish that Pentax were as serious about the Q-family as Canon is about the EOS-M: an available EVF and an adapter that gives full functionality from existing lenses.

BTW - I wasn't paying much attention to them back then, but it seems to me that most camera companies started off MILC the same way - an add-on EVF and just a few lenses - but if a successful product is your definition of "successful", I'm OK with that; I just think we need to see where it goes from there.

[IchabodCrane]

I wish that Pentax were as serious about the Q-family as Canon is about the EOS-M: an available EVF and an adapter that gives full functionality from existing lenses.

BTW - I wasn't paying much attention to them back then, but it seems to me that most camera companies started off MILC the same way - an add-on EVF and just a few lenses - but if a successful product is your definition of "successful", I'm OK with that; I just think we need to see where it goes from there.

Agree, the whole MILC concept started, at least in a meaningful way, with the Oly PEN and for practical purposes that's what Canon has replicated (and all they've replicated). No question that Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Fuji have moved forward into 2nd and 3rd generation product concepts that look much less like an Olympus PEN and more like a DSLR. In some ways it validates the DSLR concept from an ergonomics standpoint as I'm sure MILCs would be far smaller in sales volume if they didn't evolve in that direction.

But regarding Canon, there's nothing to suggest they've gone "all in" with mirrorless. What we don't know is the hypothetical result should they and/or Nikon actually try to do that.

[clackers]

This failure of the MILC market to expand looks like it has already claimed a victim.

Samsung appears to be exiting the market.

[Nicolas06]

A 3 year old interview with Sigma CEO

AO: Mirrorless devices have become very popular lately, especially in Japan. What's Your opinion about that market segment?
KY: I think it is a very promising segment. Currently mirrorless cameras are attracting a great number of customers, especially in Japan, Korea or Taiwan. The sales volume of these products has been increasing also elsewhere. It is undoubtedly a result of small dimensions which are an important feature for most of customers. These cameras can offer a lot to professional photographers as well - you can mention here a very accurate focusing system or electronic viewfinders which give you an immediate control over the exposure parameters or white balance. I suppose this segment is very promising and it will increase on every market, even when it comes to more expensive cameras. From our point of view, however, the fact that the majority of customers buy cameras of that type only and solely with kit lenses is rather unfavourable.

To me the CEO of sigma explained it. They start with Olympus pen equivalent because the market for MILC is not (prmarily) about FF camera with f/2.8 lenses, ultimate AF speed for action/sports, people shooting the olympics with a 200-400 f/4. The biggest MILC segment is about a camera that should offer great picture quality but that should be as small as possible. So that Olympus Pen equivalent. There no EVF/OVF because people are already accustomed to that with their smartphone. Theses peoples are not that driven by photography, they are not that willing to spend thousand dollars on lenses, high end bodies, lighting systems, tripods and so on.

They just want something that is able to take great photo for a fair price. Back in time theses people were buying entry level reflex. Because it is what a serious camera is and it is supposed to bring great quality. Now the MILC it almost look like a reflex, you can change lenses and the quality is the same, at least sensor wise. The MILC buying are primarily people that want a small reflex.

Theses people don't want big, expensive lenses. They still think that the camera that does the job, not the lens. They don't want to spend lot of money, they don't want something heavy/big.

That why theses systems are not tailored for enthousiasts/pro and why enthousiasts/pro that are still interrested don't find what they want. There an offering for them, but it is not that big of an offering, it is quite expensive and the performance is no better than the classic DSLR. More on the opposite.

So it make sense for Canon to target that first and only invest more in the system if they can make a profit with that and build upon it.

Nobody as interrest to make MILC like entry level DSLR with great price and lot of competition with great lenses as a very good price. Because that mean they make no money. So with that aspects and the issue that most MILC target customers that will never buy another lens explain what we get. In a sense the possibility to change lens is not the priority for many, it is just something that say "I am a serious camera, like a reflex".

[philbaum]

A 3 year old interview with Sigma CEO


To me the CEO of sigma explained it. They start with Olympus pen equivalent because the market for MILC is not (prmarily) about FF camera with f/2.8 lenses, ultimate AF speed for action/sports, people shooting the olympics with a 200-400 f/4. The biggest MILC segment is about a camera that should offer great picture quality but that should be as small as possible. So that Olympus Pen equivalent. There no EVF/OVF because people are already accustomed to that with their smartphone. Theses peoples are not that driven by photography, they are not that willing to spend thousand dollars on lenses, high end bodies, lighting systems, tripods and so on.

.

Well, thats where MILC started out, but Sony has thankfully brought it to a higher level with FF and expensive lenses that people are buying. Sony is getting $3200 for the A7RII body while Nikon is getting less than that for popular D810 and D750 bodies. That has to be opening up eyes in Canikon. One has to go to the D4 before reaching a higher price than the A7RII. I really hope this inspires mfr to take another look at MILC, because i sure like mine.

[Nicolas06]

Well, thats where MILC started out, but Sony has thankfully brought it to a higher level with FF and expensive lenses that people are buying. Sony is getting $3200 for the A7RII body while Nikon is getting less than that for popular D810 and D750 bodies. That has to be opening up eyes in Canikon. One has to go to the D4 before reaching a higher price than the A7RII. I really hope this inspires mfr to take another look at MILC, because i sure like mine.

Yeah but this give us back to A7 issues. No fast f/2.8 zoom, no pro level AF, no proper handling for big lenses. And A7 is the only in town to be FF the other are not even trying.

Sony is not targeting pro with its A7 familly, it is targeting FF enthousiasts that are still driven by size/weight. By accident it also get the market of people that don't buy new lenses but buy used. But theses people don't earn you lot of money. And it share the same issues as other MILC in term of price. If you need a get price on a lens you need to invest into the adapter and then buy in alpha mount.

We summed up why in the end MILC isn't more present:
- No much money to make for manufacturers for most of the market (Olympus pen equiv.) so manufacturers need to keep somewhat high price when they are in and prefer to stay in DSLR market (Canikon, Pentax)
- Expensive for consumers (Direct consequence of the previous issue but also because theses system are new and small, Sigma/Tamron/Tokina and alike are not really yet here)
- Lack of pro level offering (no fast FF f/2.8 zoom, no pro contracts, lack of echosystem)
- Not same performance as DSLR (limited AF performance, battery performance, lack of proper handling due to form factor)

To solve all of this will not happen in 3 month, in particular in a shrinking market where it is difficult to not loose money.

Sony is getting $3200 for the A7RII body while Nikon is getting less than that

That is some very naive view on the world of consumer electronics pricing.

Sony is not "getting" certain prices (aside from a few diehard early adopters who will buy at any price), but all we know is they would like to get these prices.

Sony for years now has an old design $3000 (!) 70-200/2.8 lens which compete with 70% cheaper Sigma variants, because it is priced a lot higher than the much better market leading Canon variant, still they WANT that price.
Ever met any professional photographer using the rip-off Sony lens? Surprising, isn't it?

Hasselblad was getting market leading prices for their Lunar cameras, which obviously are much nicer than the new A7R II-cameras...

Sony is just quite reckless / ignorant with their pricing approach. It is open to debate what kind of consumer with which knowledge and skill level succumbs to this type of approach usually.