[TwoUptons]

I think the switch to mirrorless by Nikon and Canon is an attempt to recover margin in a shrinking market.

Mirrorless cameras will be cheaper to make than DSLRs at some point, if they aren’t already, so switching gives them a cost savings in the long term.

Switching also (they hope) disrupts the existing DSLR pricing paradigm. Users have expectations for what things should cost. When those expectations are broken, there’s an opportunity...

Long term manufacturing cost savings and an ability to increase profit margin is a good way to survive a market contraction, if you can pull it off...

Doesn’t look good for Olympus, though...

-Eric

[Serkevan]

I don't think there's any reason why they shouldn't be already cheaper. A good EVF might be more expensive than a good pentaprism + focusing screen + mirror mechanism, but if you factor in the cost and difficulty of assembly and adjustment of several optical and mechanical components versus soldering a bus, then obviously the MILC will be cheaper.

[reh321]

I don't think there's any reason why they shouldn't be already cheaper. A good EVF might be more expensive than a good pentaprism + focusing screen + mirror mechanism, but if you factor in the cost and difficulty of assembly and adjustment of several optical and mechanical components versus soldering a bus, then obviously the MILC will be cheaper.

Focusing should be simpler for MILC, but they have much more experience with DSLR, so it may take time {and $$$} for Nikon and Canon to make their MILC products equal to their DSLR products, and their owners may or may not be willing to pay that cost.

[Zygonyx]

I don't think there's any reason why they shouldn't be already cheaper. A good EVF might be more expensive than a good pentaprism + focusing screen + mirror mechanism, but if you factor in the cost and difficulty of assembly and adjustment of several optical and mechanical components versus soldering a bus, then obviously the MILC will be cheaper.

I would temperate in adding : depends of the quality of your electronic components.
And the cheaper it will be, the most likely there will appear early technical or programmed obsolescence...

[Serkevan]

Focusing should be simpler for MILC, but they have much more experience with DSLR, so it may take time {and $$$} for Nikon and Canon to make their MILC products equal to their DSLR products, and their owners may or may not be willing to pay that cost.

I would argue that since Canon introduced the EOS-M mirrorless range and their Dual Pixel on-sensor implementation they got "enough" experience for most users. It seems that the R and RP with new firmware focus very fast and work great for tracking. It might also be that most EF L lenses are USM motors and I'm not sure if those are designed primarily to work better with PDAF.

---------- Post added 11-14-19 at 09:54 AM ----------

I would temperate in adding : depends of the quality of your electronic components.
And the cheaper it will be, the most likely there will appear early technical or programmed obsolescence...

Isn't the EVF the only component "added" to a MILC? Every other circuit, processor etc. can, in principle, be shared. Electronics-related failure is not a MILC exclusive (and I would argue that DSLRs are almost as "electronic" as their EVF counterparts).
I meant, of course, that assuming everything else equal, a mirrorless camera will most likely be substantially cheaper and easier to manufacture

[reh321]

I would argue that since Canon introduced the EOS-M mirrorless range and their Dual Pixel on-sensor implementation they got "enough" experience for most users. It seems that the R and RP with new firmware focus very fast and work great for tracking. It might also be that most EF L lenses are USM motors and I'm not sure if those are designed primarily to work better with PDAF.

Honestly, I was thinking more of Nikon, but Canon also seems to be having troubles for whatever reasons - building MILC is not as simple as it seems.

[mlt]

Honestly, I was thinking more of Nikon, but Canon also seems to be having troubles for whatever reasons - building MILC is not as simple as it seems.

True, it’s not that simple. PDAF banding, particularly at high iso needs to be overcome without compromising image quality, along with evf lag or smear when tracking fast moving objects.

[Dan Rentea]

Focusing should be simpler for MILC, but they have much more experience with DSLR, so it may take time {and $$$} for Nikon and Canon to make their MILC products equal to their DSLR products, and their owners may or may not be willing to pay that cost.

Well, EOS R has a better overall focus than 5D Mark IV and it's 1000$ cheaper also. 5D Mark IV is a little better for wildlife mostly because EOS R has a lag in viewfinder when comes to tracking unpredictable subjects.

So, as far as I'm concerned, neither one of your statement are quite true. I have both, the EOS R and 5D Mark IV and I have 3 years of experience shooting with 5D Mark IV and 3-4 months shooting with EOS R. After the last firmware update for EOS R, the af is better than the one from 5D Mark IV. I've run lots of tests with native and adapted lenses on EOS R and at wide apertures (f1.4 to f2.8) it tracks better than 5D Mark IV.

[reh321]

Well, EOS R has a better overall focus than 5D Mark IV and it's 1000$ cheaper also. 5D Mark IV is a little better for wildlife mostly because EOS R has a lag in viewfinder when comes to tracking unpredictable subjects.

So, as far as I'm concerned, neither one of your statement are quite true. I have both, the EOS R and 5D Mark IV and I have 3 years of experience shooting with 5D Mark IV and 3-4 months shooting with EOS R. After the last firmware update for EOS R, the af is better than the one from 5D Mark IV. I've run lots of tests with native and adapted lenses on EOS R and at wide apertures (f1.4 to f2.8) it tracks better than 5D Mark IV.

You will notice I said “may” .... I have noticed that among Americans, best selling MILCs seem to be Sony, then Nikon Z6.

[Dan Rentea]

You will notice I said “may” .... I have noticed that among Americans, best selling MILCs seem to be Sony, then Nikon Z6.

Yes, I notice the "may" which is why I gave the long explication. Sony needed 5 years to go from crappy af to very good af. Canon needed one year to make the af of EOS R quite on par to Sony. Nikon seems a little behind even after their latest firmware update.

Yes, Sony claimed also the second place in terms of overal sales in SUA surpassing Nikon. Nikon released afordable glass for their mirrorless and postponed the pro lenses. Canon did the opposite in terms of lenses. If EOS R is that good as their first full frame mirrorless, when the pro body will come Sony will start to feel the pressure even more... If you look at Youtube videos and also on some internet discussion, there are more and more people who kept Canon lenses when they switched to Sony that now go back to Canon. The reason is the latest firmware update on the EOS R that made tracking on par with A7 III.

Not to mention that Nikon is all in when comes to businees side of things and they are forced to innovate to keep the second place in terms of worldwide sales.

[mlt]

That still leaves the EOS-M system as an odd duck in Canon’s financial equation. With limited native lenses that cannot be used on a Canon R body, so no direct upgrade path, that system seems like an orphan in waiting. Particularly if an APSC R mount body is ever introduced.

[reh321]

That still leaves the EOS-M system as an odd duck in Canon’s financial equation. With limited native lenses that cannot be used on a Canon R body, so no direct upgrade path, that system seems like an orphan in waiting. Particularly if an APSC R mount body is ever introduced.

If I were an EOS-M user, which I might have become if the M50 had been available in 2015, I would have purchased EF lenses, since both Canon adapters - EF-to-M and EF-to-R - are full function: they allow the lens to act under adoption exactly as it acts in an original setting. That way, if I did change from EOS-M to EOS-R, all I would lose is the adapter. Also, you can purchase a third-party focal-reducer adapter .... a 50mm lens acts on it like a 50mm lens, not like an 80mm lens.

[photoptimist]

Isn't the EVF the only component "added" to a MILC? Every other circuit, processor etc. can, in principle, be shared. Electronics-related failure is not a MILC exclusive (and I would argue that DSLRs are almost as "electronic" as their EVF counterparts).
I meant, of course, that assuming everything else equal, a mirrorless camera will most likely be substantially cheaper and easier to manufacture

In principle, the EVF is the only added component but that doesn't mean a MILC is just a DSLR motherboard with a second display. Making a decent MILC requires a very high frame rate on the sensor, CPU, and graphics subsystems -- MILCs need more expensive chips than DSLRs to support a decent EVF experience.

As far as failure is concerned -- unlike a DSLR, using a MILC means running the sensor, CPU, and EVF full blast continuously. MILCs run much hotter than DSLRs and high temperatures are bad for electronics -- creating both component failures and connection failures from thermal stress cycling.

[biz-engineer]

As far as failure is concerned -- unlike a DSLR, using a MILC means running the sensor, CPU, and EVF full blast continuously. MILCs run much hotter than DSLRs and high temperatures are bad for electronics -- creating both component failures and connection failures from thermal stress cycling.

Longevity isn't a problem on MILC cameras because all models of 2018 will be obsolete by 2021. Sony understood that rapidely with their Sony A7 series, they moved to China for the manufacturing, since reliability isn't relevant when camera products are made obsolete every other year (even a $3500 camera). The trend with cameras is increasing prices of already expensive devices of consumer grade quality.

[SSGGeezer]

In principle, the EVF is the only added component but that doesn't mean a MILC is just a DSLR motherboard with a second display. Making a decent MILC requires a very high frame rate on the sensor, CPU, and graphics subsystems -- MILCs need more expensive chips than DSLRs to support a decent EVF experience.

As far as failure is concerned -- unlike a DSLR, using a MILC means running the sensor, CPU, and EVF full blast continuously. MILCs run much hotter than DSLRs and high temperatures are bad for electronics -- creating both component failures and connection failures from thermal stress cycling.

Especially with new solders that have little to no lead and are more sensitive to cracking. Think the first gen X-Box Red ring of Death from the solder joints in the video cards. Hot, fragile solder= no fun!