[illdefined]

Again, where are the data for this? According to sales figures entry level DSLR are on the increase whereas P&S are on the decrease. Theres no sign that mirrorless is stealing from entry level DSLR. Canon have recorded record sales, 7 million, of DSLR's. Over 75% is entry level.

Pal, your sales figures were recorded before the $1000+ advanced mirrorless segment was widely made available to the market by a variety of big manufacturers.

Do you really consider all these new advanced mirrorless models as purely 'companion' cameras and replacements for P&S?

---

Last edited by illdefined; 10-10-2012 at 03:20 PM.

[mecrox]

Pal, your sales figures were recorded before the $1000+ advanced mirrorless segment was widely made available to the market by a variety of big manufacturers.

Do you really consider all these new advanced mirrorless models as purely 'companion' cameras and replacements for P&S?

This article (one of two) is quite interesting on that point. This is his speculation concerning Pentax:

Pentax has a small but very loyal group of users who love their lenses. Pentax hasn’t been growing SLR market share for some time now. Perhaps Pentax is going to migrate their entire system to a mirrorless format. The top end cameras would have built in viewfinders and high-end phase detection AF on their sensors. They would only be slightly smaller than current SLRs but would cost significantly less to produce. Entry-level cameras would be smaller, have no viewfinder, and throw in a small built-in flash.

The entire lineup, in other words, would be mirrorless, with no SLRs left. Depending on their preferences they could price the cameras lower than competitors SLRs and draw users into that huge lens lineup. Or they could price them similar to competitors SLRs and be more profitable. -- [from Mirrorless, Mirrorless on the Wall: Part II - Imaging Resource]

[Pål Jensen]

Pal, your sales figures were recorded before the $1000+ advanced mirrorless segment was widely made available to the market by a variety of big manufacturers.

Do you really consider all these new advanced mirrorless models as purely 'companion' cameras and replacements for P&S?

Not purely but one must not forget that mirrorless isn't primarily bought because they have no mirror but due to the form factor that some find appealing. Hence, it might be different user group from DSLR users that buys them.
Furthermore, the idea that any new camera, whether it is mirrorless or FF, is about replacement is misguided. It is to a large extent about fragmentation of an increasing market. One may think that cell phones that do steal P&S buyers is putting pressure on the market but this is not what happens. These people are using cameras much more than in the film days. Due to the wide spread use of photography a certain percentage are going to make photography more of a hobby buying a serious camera in addition. Hence, the camera market is on an increase due to an increase in "serious" camera users.

[mecrox]

Not purely but one must not forget that mirrorless isn't primarily bought because they have no mirror but due to the form factor that some find appealing. Hence, it might be different user group from DSLR users that buys them.
Furthermore, the idea that any new camera, whether it is mirrorless or FF, is about replacement is misguided. It is to a large extent about fragmentation of an increasing market. One may think that cell phones that do steal P&S buyers is putting pressure on the market but this is not what happens. These people are using cameras much more than in the film days. Due to the wide spread use of photography a certain percentage are going to make photography more of a hobby buying a serious camera in addition. Hence, the camera market is on an increase due to an increase in "serious" camera users.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. It also depends on where you live in the world. See this article. If it is to be believed, it shows that the market for digital cameras in Great Britain has declined by one-third since 2006. It may be that decline in Western countries, perhaps due to economic slump and smart phones, is being offset by rising sales in newer markets - the Far East, for example. The Far East is also the area with by far the largest sales in percentage terms of MILCs. If camera makers changed their product lines to reflect that, because the Far East is their most lucrative market, then MILCs could end up being imposed on Western markets even if the data shows that they aren't doing well here. MILCs will then become popular in Western markets because consumers won't have anything else to buy, their traditional lines having been run down in favour of new lines which sell better in the Far East.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 10-10-2012 at 04:56 PM.

[Class A]

It is based on the law of equivalency which is totally bogus as no one buy a FF camera in order to make ut eqiuvalent to a APS camera.

The notion of "equivalence" is not bogus.

It is bogus, however, to compare lenses in different formats without making the required conversion. The result are observations like "FF lenses are much more expensive" which are incorrect unless you are comparing apples (f/4) with oranges (f/2.8).

[illdefined]

Not purely but one must not forget that mirrorless isn't primarily bought because they have no mirror but due to the form factor that some find appealing. Hence, it might be different user group from DSLR users that buys them.
Furthermore, the idea that any new camera, whether it is mirrorless or FF, is about replacement is misguided. It is to a large extent about fragmentation of an increasing market. One may think that cell phones that do steal P&S buyers is putting pressure on the market but this is not what happens. These people are using cameras much more than in the film days. Due to the wide spread use of photography a certain percentage are going to make photography more of a hobby buying a serious camera in addition. Hence, the camera market is on an increase due to an increase in "serious" camera users.

ok. well, this is a more believable hypothesis than your previous, more categorical statements. you argue that the general camera buying population is increasing and all sectors will grow. the question then becomes, will all sectors grow the same?

I believe this article best sums up what i see as the writing on the wall, and it was written way back in Feburary: CIPA starts to report growing mirrorless sales: Digital Photography Review

do consider that this is the generation of smartphones and ipads, where people grow up looking at high resolution LCDs and OLEDs everyday. to the chagrin of many here, gone are the days of the high school classes teaching photography on K1000 and Nikkormats...the early use of SLRs as learning tools or gifts from parents won't be as prevalent and the consumer "nostalgia factor" for SLRs will only recede (ironically, many of us who do fondly remember film era SLRs still yearn for the original FF OVF...). This of course will be in spite of Canon and Nikon's best consumer efforts, which is why they've already started hedging their bets there...

as has been said many times, EVF's will only get better and cheaper (and more compact). the same cannot be said for the prisms, motors and mirrors of OVFs. Professionals will still value the OVF and the ergonomics of SLRs (good for CaNikon, less so for Pentax), but mirrorless cameras are already starting to mimic their bodies just with smaller lenses and prices (the GH3 and OM-D w/grip are the best examples). once we get the inevitable "Retina Display" EVFs, what's left to justify the price, size and weight of SLR equipment? that answer can only be FF, as DSLRs will soon be almost exclusively known for.

sort of like you've said before, another format entirely.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Again, where are the data for this? According to sales figures entry level DSLR are on the increase whereas P&S are on the decrease. Theres no sign that mirrorless is stealing from entry level DSLR. Canon have recorded record sales, 7 million, of DSLR's. Over 75% is entry level.

There is plenty of data that you can find to correlate with the increase in the MILC market. You can look online at MILC and SLR users or you can look at local trends. For example, I follow a local forum where most users are Canon and Nikon DSLR users.

I found that migration to MILC happens mostly among experienced DSLR users that can appreciate the portability advantage and the equivalence of IQ. New users that look to buy their first ILC are still looking at Canon or Nikon DSLRs because they have little knowledge of cameras beyond brand names and thus they are only aware of DSLRs.

Not purely but one must not forget that mirrorless isn't primarily bought because they have no mirror but due to the form factor that some find appealing. Hence, it might be different user group from DSLR users that buys them.

But then you should not forget that many DSLR users only bought DSLRs because they had no alternative choice with a similarly large sensor (or they were not aware of it). Very few people would buy a DSLR because it is a DSLR. The only thing that DSLRs are still a bit better at is AF, and that advantage is disappearing fast. Once gone, the only advantage of a DSLR will be artificial - as in "the company could make a better MILC but they are committed to making DSLRs, so they won't" - that will not work as a long term strategy in a competitive market.

Furthermore, the idea that any new camera, whether it is mirrorless or FF, is about replacement is misguided. It is to a large extent about fragmentation of an increasing market.

Were DSLRs a fragmentation of the market compared to rangefinders?
Was digital a fragmentation of the market compared to film?

Companies that based their strategy on that either disappeared (Kodak) or stopped belonging to the mainstream market and catered to a niche one (Leica).

A new technology (digital cameras) that solves a problem (TTL composition and AF) previously solvable only through an old technology (DSLR) is going to replace the old technology once it solves that problem better and more efficiently. MILCs and DSLRs are not complementary technologies. There is an old solution and a new one and while people may whine about aspects of the old that are not (or they think they are not) present in the new one, they will eventually get over it, one way or the other. It is only a question of time.

These people are using cameras much more than in the film days. Due to the wide spread use of photography a certain percentage are going to make photography more of a hobby buying a serious camera in addition. Hence, the camera market is on an increase due to an increase in "serious" camera users.

Yes, but the point is that the category of "serious" cameras is no longer restricted to DSLRs artificially, by virtue of DSLRs being the only cameras sporting large sensors. Once you provide an alternative to DSLRs, there is no way that you can prevent that alternative from eating into the DSLR market - it will naturally do that. Why do you think Canon and Nikon are avoiding putting out compelling MILC products? If they could do that without affecting their DSLR market, they would do that. But they know very well that that is not the case.

You don't really need any data to figure this out. You just need to realize that MILCs can do all that DSLRs do and they can do it better, offering more features and less calibration issues. The result is that these technologies are not complementary, but you have an evolution from old to new with the old going away. Technological progress cannot be prevented. You can sell custom crafted bows as a business, but don't expect a big contract with the army of any country once they figure out where to order machine guns.

[gazonk]

Again, where are the data for this? According to sales figures entry level DSLR are on the increase whereas P&S are on the decrease. Theres no sign that mirrorless is stealing from entry level DSLR. Canon have recorded record sales, 7 million, of DSLR's. Over 75% is entry level.

It's just a few data points, but: My daughter won a photo contest and could buy her first serious camera. If it hadn't been for the NEX-7, she would probably have bought a K-5 (or maybe a K-r with a few extra lenses instead), but when she could get a MILC with a serious viewfinder, she knew what she wanted. My son was upgrading from one of the more serious p&s cameras (Panasonic TZ series) two years ago, and was seriously considering an entry-level DSLR, but ended up with the Olympus E-PL1. We're quite a few camera geeks at work, and one has both analog SLRs and the OM-D. He started with the E-PL1. I'm pretty sure he would have chosen a DSLR if it hadn't been for the MILCs. If you can bear with the EVF, the OM-D IMHO is a very serious alternative for anyone, even pros. Its IQ is more than adequate for most needs, and some of the lenses are in the Limited league.

[ElJamoquio]

Where is the data for this? Theres no FF migration. Nor is there any loss of sales to mirrorless. APS DSLR sales are increasing with no sign of dropping. Canon recently reported record sales, seven million I think, mainly due to the rebels and the 7D; both incidentally even smaller than APS technically.
The digital camera market continue to diversify but the future is particularly bright for smaller sensor cameras.

Never mind, you're right. Pentax shouldn't make a FF.

Ah, celebration time.

[Parallax]

Cel-e-bration time, c'mon!

You Tube

You Tube