[ChristianRock]

My theory is that when DSLRs started to shoot high quality video, everybody had to have one to keep up with the Joneses. Even if they never use video, or just used it to post a youtube test.

Now that the video craze is over and who wants it now has it, the market levels went back down to what they were before.

But that's just my theory.

[monochrome]

You would have to go back to pre-digital days to find a "steady base". The figures climbed until 2012 and are now declining, but where is the base level? During the digital era, companies have taken on $$$ in infrastructure and overheads and are now faced with trying to shift their lines upmarket and reduce costs to maintain revenue even if they cannot maintain volume. There's not room for everyone to do that even if some companies manage to do it extremely well, I would argue. And some will likely do it well, too. And those overheads! Plenty of smoke there. I think a broad brush for all this is fine, TBH. My guess would be that retail receipts are a bucket of cold water in the circs. Nikon, for example, seem to be in a habit of issuing forecasts which they then have to revise down some months later.

I quite agree except for the 'where's the base' part (though I am no student of CIPA shipment numbers, I admit). I meant base established as a steady, manageable growth pre-2010 - parabolic growth periods never come to a good outcome.

I actually think Ricoh might be in pretty good shape coming out of this given their conservative capital allocation.

[mecrox]

I quite agree except for the 'where's the base' part (though I am no student of CIPA shipment numbers, I admit). I meant base established as a steady, manageable growth pre-2010 - parabolic growth periods never come to a good outcome.

I actually think Ricoh might be in pretty good shape coming out of this given their conservative capital allocation.

A guess might be that Rioch's aim is if they can keep the biz small and tight and paying the bills in Asia and Japan then Europe and North America are icing on the cake (though more cake than icing in the case of Europe where Pentax do have some support, quite a lot in some places - look at France). That way, they'll be running a fully ulitized biz without the huge overheads from international marketing and things the others have to contend with.

[monochrome]

A guess might be that Rioch's aim is if they can keep the biz small and tight and paying the bills in Asia and Japan then Europe and North America are icing on the cake (though more cake than icing in the case of Europe where Pentax do have some support, quite a lot in some places - look at France). That way, they'll be running a fully ulitized biz without the huge overheads from international marketing and things the others have to contend with.

When that intelligence sinks in there's gonna be some angry Americans around here.

[GlassJunkie]

I think you might be losing it. I understand what you're saying I think.... but separating resolving power by pitch irrespective of the size of the sensor is pretty much pointless.
You could also say 24 MP APS-C is almost the same as 24 MP FF in that they both resolve roughly the same number of line pairs, across the whole sensor... your statement is so dependant on context it's almost misleading.

THX for the comment... Your use of the term "resolve" is not the context in which it is usually used.

Resolution is directly relevant when described as the granularity over a given area (more,smaller pixels within a given area = higher resolution). In a vacuum of processors, coatings, cross box light, diffraction, etc... A 24mp APSc has better resolution than a 36mp FF within the area covered by the APSc sensor. Hence, if there is significantly good enough wide angle APSC glass, APSc wins....

Context, yes. Physics, no. The variable I guess I fail to include is who wants to lug around a larger, lower res (over given image circle), heavier (glass), ball and chain, out in the field , for the sake of a FF sensor? Can't buy it. All market hype IMHO...

[ElJamoquio]

THX for the comment... Your use of the term "resolve" is not the context in which it is usually used.

Resolution is directly relevant when described as the granularity over a given area (more,smaller pixels within a given area = higher resolution). In a vacuum of processors, coatings, cross box light, diffraction, etc... A 24mp APSc has better resolution than a 36mp FF within the area covered by the APSc sensor. Hence, if there is significantly good enough wide angle APSC glass, APSc wins....

Context, yes. Physics, no. The variable I guess I fail to include is who wants to lug around a larger, lower res (over given image circle), heavier (glass), ball and chain, out in the field , for the sake of a FF sensor? Can't buy it. All market hype IMHO...

Comparable FF lenses are generally smaller, lighter, and have higher resolving power than APS-C lenses that can take the same picture.

If you don't want the same picture then you can sometimes find lighter APS-C glass in the market. Depends on what you're trying to do.

Dr. Camera: F/it.doesnt.matter

[northcoastgreg]

The CIPA stats for July are just out. So far as I can tell, they continue the story this year: overall sales well down; DSLR sales down, not so much in Japan and Asia but noticeably so in Europe and the Americas; MILC/non-reflex sales up again noticeably so in Europe and the Americas but NB they are from a very much lower base than DSLRs.

General statistics on cameras are misleading, particular when there's no distinction made between grade of camera being sold. Lenses give a better idea of what's going on, because sales of lenses indicate what camera systems photographers are investing in. One of the more interesting anomalies in all these discussions about mirrorless that is always conveniently ignored involves the presence of third party lens makers in the mirrorless market---as in, there hardly is any presence. Sigma has three primes. Tamron just came out with a superzoom for m43. But the vast majority of Sigma and Tamron lenses are designed for DSLRs. Why is this so? Kazuto Yamaki, CEO of Sigma, explains as follows:

According to industry data, camera to lens ratio [attachment rate] is still something like 1:1.3 in the case of mirrorless cameras, and 1:1.7 for DSLRs. So conventional DSLR users buy more lenses. Mirrorless camera users are more likely to purchase the camera with a kit lens and not many people purchase any additional lenses. Some high-end mirrorless users with Sony NEX-7 or Olympus OM-D buy more but the majority of mirrorless users are the entry-class users. Our main target is a bit higher.

Lenses are more important than cameras. Photographers who are willing to invest in a system and stick with it buy lenses. Entry-class users (along with the whole gearhead/neophile/upgrade junkie crowd) don't make the best customers, because they don't buy that much stuff (or they aren't loyal). Raw data about camera sales is misleading because it doesn't say who is buying these cameras? Which brands, which formats are attracting the best customers (i.e., those who buy lenses and other accessories and will remain loyal to the brand).

Over and above all this, the most important figures are always: who's making money and who's not. Canon and Nikon may be making less money now than they were a few years ago, but they are still in a better financial position than any of the mirrorless brands.

[jcdoss]

The Mirrorless Revolution

Thanks for posting this. I'm only 10 mins in, but I can't get over how much Kevin and Michael remind me of Ed McMahon and Johnny Carson, except this routine isn't funny at all.

[jsherman999]

Anyone want to know why CanNikon has no 50mp FF yet? My take (IMHO), their glass cant take it (out resolved)

We're far from "sensors out-resolving lenses", even at 54MP. Numerous threads on dpreview in which lens and sensor and optical-system designers weighed in, but to cut to the chase we're probably going to see added system-MTF benefit up to around 100MP even with today's lenses.

Canon/Nikon have no 50MP FF sensor yet because:

1) Sony hasn't made one yet
2) No-one else has made one yet
3) Canon can't make one yet, at least not a "good-enough" one using their existing stepping tech
4) In-camera processing needs to step up a bit to maintain acceptable FPS, etc. Fujitsi may not have affordable ASICS ready yet.
5) 24MP and 36MP models are still out there being sold

That said, Canon/Nikon/Pentax etc would be silly to pass up the opportunity to make 'new' lenses to replace old-existing and re-sell them to the faithful All part of the deal.

.

[GlassJunkie]

We're far from "sensors out-resolving lenses", even at 54MP. Numerous threads on dpreview in which lens and sensor and optical-system designers weighed in, but to cut to the chase we're probably going to see added system-MTF benefit up to around 100MP even with today's lenses.

Canon/Nikon have no 50MP FF sensor yet because:

1) Sony hasn't made one yet
2) No-one else has made one yet
3) Canon can't make one yet, at least not a "good-enough" one using their existing stepping tech
4) In-camera processing needs to step up a bit to maintain acceptable FPS, etc. Fujitsi may not have affordable ASICS ready yet.
5) 24MP and 36MP models are still out there being sold

.

I stand correected... No commercially available yet. Military has them... OMHO, just because they are still selling them, doesn't mean they aren't "old news"...

Agree with your note on in-camera processing. I think the pathways will be in architecture bit-width.... It will be instructive to see who/how they can move that much data that fast.

As an alternative view... There are benchmarks on 100mp, I have read others in the 50s a bit back. I think CA (resolving being a multiplier, not cause) and a few other aberrations will be a nuisance at higher pixelations... I can't figure as I read the literature of the relevance/magnitude of cross-talk. I could go either way...

[wilton]

My theory is that when DSLRs started to shoot high quality video, everybody had to have one to keep up with the Joneses. Even if they never use video, or just used it to post a youtube test.

Now that the video craze is over and who wants it now has it, the market levels went back down to what they were before.

But that's just my theory.

Nothings, wrong with that theory in my mind. Marketing companies drives sales with some kind of hype, Higher mega pixels and now higher ISOs, and right in the middle of that the video craze. What has happened in the last three years is that the technology might be outpacing the credit cards. The move from 6MP to 24MP has been about 8 years, from no video to 720p, 1080p and now 4K even less. How long does the average camera last before it moves to the graveyard? I doubt that anyone will shoot an average of 50 photos every single day without fail (unless it's your job), that's 3 years for the least rated shutter life of 50K, 6 years if it is rated at 100K; we all know that shutters can keep going way beyond the rated life expectancy. I think people are getting to the point where they say, "hold on, why do I need 24MP if I have to re-size it so small for the web?". People are also realizing that a DSLR for youtube is not all that easy to work with and they can get great consistent results from a $100 camcorder. Check you tube for crappy videos and your local camera listings for people who bought a DSLR for video but don't need it anymore.

We might be getting to that plateau with sales but innovation is still good so to all those who buy to keep up with the Joneses, great! It helps me in the long run. The problem is that the spoils that could be derived from a company that has variety in its offerings is something that Ricoh is not concerned with. All major/successful (not always the same thing but..) companies knows the importance of providing for their clients every whim and fancy, providing a product at all levels that the competition provides. Samsung is the best possible example of this with their Android phones, even Apple had to make an I-pad mini to compete so why can't Ricoh learn? Forget about the need for a FF or personal satisfaction with the APSC, a FF provides options but also potential stability due to a larger ecosystem and integrated RnD.

[Jean Poitiers]

A guess might be that Rioch's aim is if they can keep the biz small and tight and paying the bills in Asia and Japan then Europe and North America are icing on the cake (though more cake than icing in the case of Europe where Pentax do have some support, quite a lot in some places - look at France). That way, they'll be running a fully ulitized biz without the huge overheads from international marketing and things the others have to contend with.

Bonjour and yep ... There's a good loyal base in my 60 million-populated-adopted-home-country. Two rather active dedicated Pentax Internet sites. I skim them. One of my co-workers (he's in IT dept.) is a Pentax guy and we talk shop often. He's super active on one site ... this probably why one sees so few French on PF; plus there's the language barrier and the French never like to show a "weakness" ... Salut, J

Edit:

http://www.pentaxkpark.com/forum

http://www.pentaxone.fr/

[jsherman999]

... A 24mp APSc has better resolution than a 36mp FF within the area covered by the APSc sensor..

Yes, but you're describing lp/mm, not lp/ph. Also, you're leaving out the fact that the aps-c lens has to be 1.5x sharper than the FF lens to match it in that case anyway.**

In other words, 24MP aps-v and 24MP FF, same scene/FOV/distance, the FF image will often appear better/sharper as long as the lenses are the same quality.

** this is why bridge cameras and things like the 'Q', although they can have very high lp/mm, are not going to match aps-c or FF in the pages of National Geographic.

[GlassJunkie]

Yes, but you're describing lp/mm, not lp/ph. Also, you're leaving out the fact that the aps-c lens has to be 1.5x sharper than the FF lens to match it in that case anyway.**

In other words, 24MP aps-v and 24MP FF, same scene/FOV/distance, the FF image will often appear better/sharper as long as the lenses are the same quality.

** this is why bridge cameras and things like the 'Q', although they can have very high lp/mm, are not going to match aps-c or FF in the pages of National Geographic.

I am not quite sure about 1.5x sharper, since transmission, aberrants, and coatings all effect the result. I think it is not a linear 1.5x, but I see your thought...In the area of appear sharper, I think some of that depends on the mag ratio to display media. Interesting point...
Agree that the 1:1.7Q is far weaker in the end, but I believe it is due to a higher mag ratio to end media and insufficient pixelation density to make up for the larger magnification needed to display/view it...

I guess what I am saying is 1.5:1 is sig less with the other variables than the Q 4.1:1

[ElJamoquio]

Just to be clear - you think the Q would be substantially better, with, say, 24MP or 36MP?