[Winder]

Full frame mirrorless is the way to go. If you haven't tried a hi-res EVF, you are really missing something special.

I don't think EVF technology is there yet. I hear the Fuji X-T1 is as currently the best. At some point the color depth, DR, resolution, & refresh rates will exceed what the human eye can perceive. When that happens EVF's will be superior to OVFs, but I think we are a few years away from that.

[philbaum]

I don't think EVF technology is there yet. I hear the Fuji X-T1 is as currently the best. At some point the color depth, DR, resolution, & refresh rates will exceed what the human eye can perceive. When that happens EVF's will be superior to OVFs, but I think we are a few years away from that.

Even though EVF's are not yet superior to OVFs in all respects, they are still adequate enough to allow mirrorless to pick up 13% more ILC market share from dslrs, for Jan Feb March 2014 compared to the 2013 same period. In some respects, EVFs are already superior to OVFs, i.e. don't require a mirror box, allow lower building costs, allow a smaller form design, etc. Energy usage by EVFs will probably never equal OVFs :-) Orange and apples comparison. Which makes one wonder whether we'll have both types of VFs for some time to come.

[Kunzite]

Most of the MILCs sold don't have a viewfinder. It's marketing and price who's selling them, not the EVF. And hype on online forums

[mecrox]

Most of the MILCs sold don't have a viewfinder. It's marketing and price who's selling them, not the EVF. And hype on online forums

I've talked to two camera-owners over the weekend (Sony bridge cam and Panasonic MILC) and both loved the point-and-shoot automation and sheer all-in-one convenience especially with things like video, tilt/twist LCD and bright viewfinder (i.e. a big bright EVF) when needed. Neither mentioned the squishy plastic build quality as a drawback or the need to drill down through menus to change fairly simple exposure settings (probably they only shoot on auto). Neither would likely study the lens quality much unless the pics they posted online were consistently soft. As an aside, they might notice that pics from my Pentax MX-1 compact are more evenly sharp across the frame than images from my Pentax K5 and some of the Limited lenses, so spending many times more doesn't necessarily yield superior 5x7s to show to the family.

These folks are likely typical of the vast majority of camera buyers. A Pentax DSLR by comparison is old school, conservative, even in some respects rudimentary. Nothing wrong with that but mass market it ain't.

Of course marketing sells MILCs but imho that in turn is based on what millions of buyers want and how they use their camera, buyers who likely never go near an online forum. A Pentax DSLR is not really representative (nor is a Canonikon one either except perhaps the auto-everything lower-range ones). Isn't it pretty clear by now where the industry is heading? It has to meet to expectations of its customers which are now formed in a world of tablets, mobiles and apps.

Oh, nearly forgot: though both cams had an EVF both owners mostly used the rear LCD as their VF, mobile stylee. OVF vs EVF is probably in itself an argument over which niche one prefers. On a general basis, the EVF has already won by a country mile if you include the rear LCD in that.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 06-22-2014 at 03:49 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

I've talked to two camera-owners over the weekend (Sony bridge cam and Panasonic MILC) and both loved the point-and-shoot automation and sheer all-in-one convenience especially with things like video, tilt/twist LCD and bright viewfinder (i.e. a big bright EVF) when needed. Neither mentioned the squishy plastic build quality as a drawback or the need to drill down through menus to change fairly simple exposure settings (probably they only shoot on auto). Neither would likely study the lens quality much unless the pics they posted online were consistently soft. As an aside, they might notice that pics from my Pentax MX-1 compact are more evenly sharp across the frame than images from my Pentax K5 and some of the Limited lenses, so spending many times more doesn't necessarily yield superior 5x7s to show to the family.

These folks are likely typical of the vast majority of camera buyers. A Pentax DSLR by comparison is old school, conservative, even in some respects rudimentary. Nothing wrong with that but mass market it ain't.

Of course marketing sells MILCs but imho that in turn is based on what millions of buyers want and how they use their camera, buyers who likely never go near an online forum. A Pentax DSLR is not really representative (nor is a Canonikon one either except perhaps the auto-everything lower-range ones). Isn't it pretty clear by now where the industry is heading? It has to meet to expectations of its customers which are now formed in a world of tablets, mobiles and apps.

Oh, nearly forgot: though both cams had an EVF both owners mostly used the rear LCD as their VF, mobile stylee. OVF vs EVF is probably in itself an argument over which niche one prefers. On a general basis, the EVF has already won by a country mile if you include the rear LCD in that.

Don't DSLR's outsell MILC's by several times?

[mecrox]

Don't DSLR's outsell MILC's by several times?

Yes - for now. But if the sales curves continue, they will cross before too long - one up and one on the way down. In any case, I'll wager the situation changes particularly in some parts of the world if you include all the fixed-lens cameras as well which are the same size as MILCs (like bridge cameras, for example) rather than the smaller compacts as was. I'm thinking here particularly of the "superzoom" fixed-lens cameras. Why buy a MILC when you can get a lens which "does everything" on the camera anyway but which still isn't all that big? To many and perhaps most folks the compromises of a "superzoom" may not be all that apparent or even known, and so fairly unimportant. I mean, for casual photography how much does lens quality really matter now that so much is doctored corrected in-camera anyway, right up to the high-end Sony stuff, and the output is likely to be on a monitor?

I'm simply pointing out that the DSLR is rapidly losing its appeal, imho anyway. With high-quality alternatives now available including fixed-lens ones like the Sony RX10 at the top end, the DSLR simply isn't necessary anymore for the casual photographer who wants more than a compact-type P&S. It's only my view of course, but I wonder whether a forum like this with such a focus on premium gear and its minutiae isn't way way out on a limb, talking of niches within niches when the real action among the broad mass of camera buyers is somewhere else entirely.

That's why I'd bet that it's just as likely the next major move from Ricoh may be into mirrorless cameras generally as into a classic niche within a niche like Pentax K-mount FF, good though that might be.

[ElJamoquio]

To me, it all comes down to EVF's and A/F. Right now the best DSLR's have viewfinders that are a bit better than the best EVF's. The A/F on the best DSLR's is better than on the best MILC's.

When those two things change then the DSLR market will tank... although, like film, DSLR's will likely be around for decades.

[Kunzite]

Assuming DSLRs will constantly decrease at a rate of 0.9x compared to the previous year, and assuming that MILCs will constantly grow at a rate of 1.16x compared to the previous year, it would take about 5 years in order to reach the same level of sales; plenty of time to react to such changes. But I don't trust assumptions.
A most reasonable explanation for the DSLR "decline" is market saturation, though I see MILCs becoming more popular. There just isn't much difference between consecutive models, people already have very capable cameras so why upgrade?
Anyway, Ricoh manages to grow in this "falling" market, and I remember them stating in an interview that they're expecting things to level out. We'll see.

[philbaum]

Yes - for now. But if the sales curves continue, they will cross before too long - one up and one on the way down. In any case, I'll wager the situation changes particularly in some parts of the world if you include all the fixed-lens cameras as well which are the same size as MILCs (like bridge cameras, for example) rather than the smaller compacts as was. I'm thinking here particularly of the "superzoom" fixed-lens cameras. Why buy a MILC when you can get a lens which "does everything" on the camera anyway but which still isn't all that big? To many and perhaps most folks the compromises of a "superzoom" may not be all that apparent or even known, and so fairly unimportant. I mean, for casual photography how much does lens quality really matter now that so much is doctored corrected in-camera anyway, right up to the high-end Sony stuff, and the output is likely to be on a monitor?

I'm simply pointing out that the DSLR is rapidly losing its appeal, imho anyway. With high-quality alternatives now available including fixed-lens ones like the Sony RX10 at the top end, the DSLR simply isn't necessary anymore for the casual photographer who wants more than a compact-type P&S. It's only my view of course, but I wonder whether a forum like this with such a focus on premium gear and its minutiae isn't way way out on a limb, talking of niches within niches when the real action among the broad mass of camera buyers is somewhere else entirely.

That's why I'd bet that it's just as likely the next major move from Ricoh may be into mirrorless cameras generally as into a classic niche within a niche like Pentax K-mount FF, good though that might be.

If i recall correctly, mirrorless ILC have 25% of the market, so DSLRs are 4 times the unit volume of mirrorless, presently :-)

@mecrox, i'm afraid you are correct. Pentax, Nikon and Canon would do well not to spend so much energy over competing wtih each other, rather they should focus on meeting the needs of the current consumers.

[aurele]

@mecrox, i'm afraid you are correct. Pentax, Nikon and Canon would do well not to spend so much energy over competing wtih each other, rather they should focus on meeting the needs of the current consumers.

the funny thing is that is they would try to meet the needs of customers, they would compete against each other too.

[Clavius]

the funny thing is that is they would try to meet the needs of customers, they would compete against each other too.

Really? Do Pentax, Canon, Nikon an (I'll add) Sony, all have the same type of customers? If these manufacturers actually find out what it is that makes their customers prefer them over the other, and expand on that, then I don't think they'll even see each other.

[clackers]

Yes - for now. But if the sales curves continue, they will cross before too long - one up and one on the way down.

Who knows exactly how this plays out.

The trend over the four quarters of last year was MILCs *losing* market share relative to DSLRs.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/06/cipa-2013-report-shows-first...lens-camera-sa

DSLR makers Canon and Nikon may be feeling the pinch financially, but AFAIK nothing compared to the problems of MILC makers Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.

IIRC, Moodys now rate Sony as junk status.

Anyone know how Fuji is travelling profitwise?

These companies all make fine cameras but the public are not buying them.

[mecrox]

Who knows.

The trend over the four quarters of last year was MILCs *losing* market share relative to DSLRs.

CIPA 2013 report shows first-time decline in interchangeable-lens camera sales

DSLR makers Canon and Nikon may be feeling the pinch financially, but AFAIK nothing compared to the problems of MILC makers Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.

IIRC, Moodys now rate Sony as junk status.

Who knows indeed. However, the cipa figures for this year so far appear to tell a different story with cumulative shipments of DSLRs down and of MILCs up.

I think one needs to disentangle the virtues or otherwise of MILCs versus DSLRs from the fortunes of particular companies since the profit/loss figures don't mean that one or the other form factor come technology is better or worse. Looking to the future, however, I wouldn't myself bet on the DSLR as the platform of choice for the broad mass of camera buyers. Some MILCs are really just DSLRs with the OVF/mirrorbox removed and consequently made somewhat smaller. For many people, perhaps, there is much to be welcomed in that, though clearly not for everyone.

[clackers]

Who knows indeed. However, the cipa figures for this year so far appear to tell a different story with cumulative shipments of DSLRs down and of MILCs up.

I must be blind, Mecrox ... where are you seeing a breakdown of mirrorless vs SLR ILCs?

[mecrox]

I must be blind, Mecrox ... where are you seeing a breakdown of mirrorless vs SLR ILCs?

If you go to one of the pdfs on the site - here for example - you'll see a section called Cameras with Interchangeable Lens. Within that there are two sections, Single Lens Reflex and Non Reflex. I am assuming that Non Reflex includes or is MILCS. Perhaps I'm wrong but IIRC it's meant to break out MILC sales which cipa didn't do until a year or two ago.