[Clavius]

As for heavy tendancies, I see small and lighterweight camera to be an heavier trend than FF camera that finally fail to have small optics even with mirorless. Sony A7 is perfect example: the associated FE lenses are already quite big while behing somewhat slow.

But we all know FF lenses can be both fast and small. (FA.......) What's the difference? Optical stabilisation in the FE lenses was the difference. It adds a lot of bulk. With the A7II, and all future models getting IBIS, that will be fixed as well. I'm anxious to see what lenses they will be releasing.

Although I don't understand why you're complaining about the total size of the A7 system. Even compared with APS-C it's tiny. I can carry the A7r with 35mm in my jacket pocket. When I try to the same with something "equivalent" on APS-C: K-5 with DA* 55 F1.4, the size and weight explode. Imagine if that 55 needed the same equivalent speed as the FE 35mm?

---

Last edited by Clavius; 11-28-2014 at 02:03 AM.

[Rondec]

Pentax made K5 and K30 and now K3 & K50 a big success. They sold lot of them. They also sold lot of 645Z recently, factories could not even keep up with the demand.

We are in a modern world and many sell directly through the internet now, some of them only through the Internet. This is an heavy trend.

Pentax is well place on such medium because they have very interresting and well priced DSLR like K30/K50/K3 with good reviews.

This is true. Camera companies that have a large presence in stores tend to over produce cameras and then either have to take back unsold camera bodies are severely discount them. Ricoh has clearly not done this. There is very little unsold product at the end of each camera body's life cycle.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Hmm.

Your credibility is on the line here, Sliver-Surfer.

What proof do you have of your assertion?

there are more professional photographers then 10,20,30 years ago.

[clackers]

there are more professional photographers then 10,20,30 years ago.

More assertions - plus a weird time frame, to boot!

What is your proof that there are more pros today than one, five or ten years ago?

Let us be realistic and ignore the film age as irrelevant to the changing conditions of today's market.

[Sliver-Surfer]

More assertions - plus a weird time frame, to boot!

What is your proof that there are more pros today than one, five or ten years ago?

Let us be realistic and ignore the film age as irrelevant to the changing conditions of today's market.

So your telling everyone here that began their career in Film photography including me, that they have no impact on todays digital market. I did not say one or five..but in the us there was a .6% growth in US from 09-14 according to IBSIS world market research and .8% in canada

[eddie1960]

But we all know FF lenses can be both fast and small. (FA.......) What's the difference? Optical stabilisation in the FE lenses was the difference. It adds a lot of bulk. With the A7II, and all future models getting IBIS, that will be fixed as well. I'm anxious to see what lenses they will be releasing.

Although I don't understand why you're complaining about the total size of the A7 system. Even compared with APS-C it's tiny. I can carry the A7r with 35mm in my jacket pocket. When I try to the same with something "equivalent" on APS-C: K-5 with DA* 55 F1.4, the size and weight explode. Imagine if that 55 needed the same equivalent speed as the FE 35mm?

how is the k5 with 55 1.4 and equivalent? in 35mm/ff terms the 55 is and 82.5 equivalent. try slapping an 85 1.8 on the Sony and put it in your pocket.
the equivalent lens would be a 23. so compare say the 21 on the k5 which I think people find possible to pocket. I do agree the sony is a nice alternative though (I considered it before going for the fuji. lenses are what swayed me, FF would be nice but it's not needed for me

---------- Post added 28th Nov 2014 at 08:37 ----------

More assertions - plus a weird time frame, to boot!

What is your proof that there are more pros today than one, five or ten years ago?

Let us be realistic and ignore the film age as irrelevant to the changing conditions of today's market.

Growing population worldwide would almost certainly mean more pro photographers world wide.....but they are likely working in different areas than 20-30 years back with the huge decline of print media for one (there are still a lot of areas to work though you just need to market yourself)

And the market is not changing the way you think Talent is Talent and whether it is nat geo or a blog or a product shot what is paid for is talent, it's always been that way. Weddings haven't changed but the way the images are delivered has (and they are a bread and butter item for many). In any case it has squat to do with film or digital. you can still shoot large format film in the studio for clients, therte are still people shooting film for weddings (in addition to digital) Film is not irrelevant, but it may be to you

[Clavius]

how is the k5 with 55 1.4 and equivalent? in 35mm/ff terms the 55 is and 82.5 equivalent. try slapping an 85 1.8 on the Sony and put it in your pocket.
the equivalent lens would be a 23. so compare say the 21 on the k5 which I think people find possible to pocket. I do agree the sony is a nice alternative though (I considered it before going for the fuji. lenses are what swayed me, FF would be nice but it's not needed for me

Aaarrggghh... I'll never learn to deal equivalency right in one go.

Anyway, turning that around still means it's smaller. Here's the comparisson with K-5 and 31mm and the A7 with 55mm: Compact Camera Meter
Is that a lens hood on the 31? No fair. Another try with the 35 ltd:
Compact Camera Meter
Still the mirrorless is a tiny bit smaller. But considering that tiny package contains FF format... And considering that "big" lens contains a motor and stabilisation...

So, I don't really understand where the idea comes from that "mirrorless cameras may be smaller, but the lenses are larger."

[monochrome]

What's on shop shelves is largely a result of which companies spend large for shelf space.

In B&M camera-only stores, at least in the USA, given the way store inventory is financed by manufacturers (Dealer Credit), marketing is financed by Manufacturers (Brand Advertising and Dealer Co-Op ads) and sales training is financed by manufacturers (Rep Training Workshops), brand shelf space might just as well be leased by manufacturers, guaranteeing dealers a return and providing manufacturers a retail footprint. Ricoh won't do that.

Box-store marketing is just dock-to-dock pallet distribution, where the onus is on the manufacturer to guarantee delivery of pallet loads without fail. Since profit is measured per-cubic-foot, per-store, per-hour, failure by a manufacturer to deliver agreed volume of product results in a penalty payment by the manufacturer to the retailer! Ricoh can't do that!

[Edmunds]

I think the main problem is that most people, the average joe, doesn't really need a DSLR. All the people buying entry level DSLRs were mostly just disappointed with the quality of photos they get from their point&shoot. So they bought a DSLR, and this led to a gigantic increase in the size of this part of the camera market. But do they actually want to carry around a DSLR? Do they want to learn how to use it?

That quality monster has been slain. Nowadays you get acceptable pictures from your phone, and compacts, such as mirrorless from Olympus and Sony fill in the small camera/great quality niche. IMO, you can get really, really great pictures out of all of cameras with 4/3" sensors and larger.

That said, these cameras don't really fill the needs of professional photographers, who have large arrays of lenses, and need cameras that are fast operating and focus quickly. WE are not going to see mirrorless on the sidelines at the Olympics any time soon. Also, with large sensor sizes come large lenses and mirrorless has very little advantage there.

So I don't think DSLRs are dying. I think they will just go back to the same market share they had before all the people who didn't really need a DSLR started buying them.

[Rondec]

I think the main problem is that most people, the average joe, doesn't really need a DSLR. All the people buying entry level DSLRs were mostly just disappointed with the quality of photos they get from their point&shoot. So they bought a DSLR, and this led to a gigantic increase in the size of this part of the camera market. But do they actually want to carry around a DSLR? Do they want to learn how to use it?

That quality monster has been slain. Nowadays you get acceptable pictures from your phone, and compacts, such as mirrorless from Olympus and Sony fill in the small camera/great quality niche. IMO, you can get really, really great pictures out of all of cameras with 4/3" sensors and larger.

That said, these cameras don't really fill the needs of professional photographers, who have large arrays of lenses, and need cameras that are fast operating and focus quickly. WE are not going to see mirrorless on the sidelines at the Olympics any time soon. Also, with large sensor sizes come large lenses and mirrorless has very little advantage there.

So I don't think DSLRs are dying. I think they will just go back to the same market share they had before all the people who didn't really need a DSLR started buying them.

I think there are two separate issues -- what consumers need and what camera companies want to sell.

As long as Canon and Nikon decide that their main camera lines will be SLR based, then you are right, there won't be any dramatic shifts towards mirrorless.

On the other hand, if mirrorless cameras are cheaper to make and easier to produce -- if photographers really do prefer EVFs -- then, maybe the shift to mirrorless is inevitable and Nikon and Canon are doomed to be crushed if they don't eventually move in that direction.

[kadajawi]

I think the main problem is that most people, the average joe, doesn't really need a DSLR. All the people buying entry level DSLRs were mostly just disappointed with the quality of photos they get from their point&shoot. So they bought a DSLR, and this led to a gigantic increase in the size of this part of the camera market. But do they actually want to carry around a DSLR? Do they want to learn how to use it?

That quality monster has been slain. Nowadays you get acceptable pictures from your phone, and compacts, such as mirrorless from Olympus and Sony fill in the small camera/great quality niche. IMO, you can get really, really great pictures out of all of cameras with 4/3" sensors and larger.

That said, these cameras don't really fill the needs of professional photographers, who have large arrays of lenses, and need cameras that are fast operating and focus quickly. WE are not going to see mirrorless on the sidelines at the Olympics any time soon. Also, with large sensor sizes come large lenses and mirrorless has very little advantage there.

So I don't think DSLRs are dying. I think they will just go back to the same market share they had before all the people who didn't really need a DSLR started buying them.

Are you sure? A Samsung NX1 is ridiculously fast. You can capture 15 fps including focusing in between shots IIRC. At 28 MP. Or 8 MP at 24 fps, for minutes. And without a mirror flopping up and down all the time, introducing camera shake. The EVF has a very short lag... can't wait to see how good or bad it is.

[eddie1960]

Are you sure? A Samsung NX1 is ridiculously fast. You can capture 15 fps including focusing in between shots IIRC. At 28 MP. Or 8 MP at 24 fps, for minutes. And without a mirror flopping up and down all the time, introducing camera shake. The EVF has a very short lag... can't wait to see how good or bad it is.

the NX 1 doesn't have the glass for sports, or the large sensor most of the media outlets will require. It also won't fit with the raw workflow of a pro sports desk. the photographer transmits raw files direct to the editors during the game and it's edited while they are still out shooting the rest of the game. no-one is going to want different files in the workflow. Add in the camera is too small and light and not built to take the abuse. there is a reason beyond speed these guys use d4's etc , when they get run over by a running back they can get up and shoot a lot of the time
may need a new lens though
Canon and Nikon buy their sports business to sell their proiduct in the rest of the line. Just look at the pro support rooms canon and nikon set up at the Olympics (or world cup for that matter). filled with hundreds of thousands in gear for the use of accredited pro's. Samsung can't come close to competing on that, there is a better chance of seeing a Pentax or Sony on the sidelines. in fact as it sits i think there is a better chance of seeing David Burnett shooting Large format Olympics again than seeing a Samsung mirrorless

London 2012 / Olympics: David Burnett | Photographer

[kadajawi]

the NX 1 doesn't have the glass for sports, or the large sensor most of the media outlets will require. It also won't fit with the raw workflow of a pro sports desk. the photographer transmits raw files direct to the editors during the game and it's edited while they are still out shooting the rest of the game. no-one is going to want different files in the workflow. Add in the camera is too small and light and not built to take the abuse. there is a reason beyond speed these guys use d4's etc , when they get run over by a running back they can get up and shoot a lot of the time
may need a new lens though
Canon and Nikon buy their sports business to sell their proiduct in the rest of the line. Just look at the pro support rooms canon and nikon set up at the Olympics (or world cup for that matter). filled with hundreds of thousands in gear for the use of accredited pro's. Samsung can't come close to competing on that, there is a better chance of seeing a Pentax or Sony on the sidelines. in fact as it sits i think there is a better chance of seeing David Burnett shooting Large format Olympics again than seeing a Samsung mirrorless

London 2012 / Olympics: David Burnett | Photographer

The Samsung has WiFi and runs on Tizen, a mobile phone OS, so it is rather flexible. They could probably expand it to send files to the editor while they are shooting. Automatically. NX1 raw files are already supported by Lightroom. Sensor too small? The 1Ds is not much bigger. You can also carry a couple of spares... financially and in terms of size and weight.

[Mikesul]

So we all agree - the SLR is not dying!?

[eddie1960]

The Samsung has WiFi and runs on Tizen, a mobile phone OS, so it is rather flexible. They could probably expand it to send files to the editor while they are shooting. Automatically. NX1 raw files are already supported by Lightroom. Sensor too small? The 1Ds is not much bigger. You can also carry a couple of spares... financially and in terms of size and weight.

lightroom support is nothing to do with it. all their workflow will be based upon the rendering of a canon raw file, add in Sports is a conservative small world full of testosterone filled guys who brag about their 10 grand big lenses
the samsung is an interesting consumer camera personally i hate the interface and wouldn't use it if I got it for free (I tried out a lot of cameras before my switch to Fuji for instance and with an 8 grand start up budget could pretty much go to any system in one way or another, the samsung didn't even make it by a couple of minutes I hated the interface more than I hate the canon one. For me it was down to Olympus(nice but the sensor was too small for me I almost went that way though) Pentax (ttried and true after most of my life with it and still have some) Nikon (FF in apsc i would have stayed Pentax) and Fuji, it was really down to less gear and a Nikon DF or 750 kit or the Fuji. The fuji i tried out for a week sold me for my needs as tempting as the Nikon was I didn't want the weight and size (I really like the DF with the 50 though - I know many think it ugly I don't)

Add in the samsung Lens selection is even more narrow than the Fuji and has far less pro grade glass. and no quality long glass. Maybe if they decide to get serious they can get there but to be honest Fuji is closer to being a sports camera than Samsung (so are Sony Olympus and Panasonic), Pentax also could get there quite a bit faster. it's a tiny market that loses money with almost every big expensive lens sale though - that's considered a marketing cost to sell all those shitty consumer 2 lens kits