[Mistral75]

Your link shows that DSLR's outsold MILC 4:1 last year:

This reminds me of Fox News. If you repeat a lie often enough, does it become true?

CIPA statistics, January-July 2015:

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201507_e.pdf

Worldwide shipments:

- DSLR: 5,629,887 units (75.6%)
- mirrorless cameras: 1,819,117 units (24.4%)

Shipments to Japan:

- DSLR: 607,407 units (61.1%)
- mirrorless cameras: 386,492 units (38.9%)

[Rondec]

While I don't necessarily disagree that Fuji exaggerated the benefits of their X-trans sensor (Fuji really ought to make a version of the XT-1 with a standard Bayer array sensor), I'm skeptical that Fuji's success has anything to do with lies about sensor performance. Fuji's success has more to do with their innovations in the interface, the quality of their glass, and the sheer physical beauty of their cameras. What Fuji has done is taken some of the latest digital technology and wrapped it in a beautifully elegant, analog interface. The fact is, not all photographers were thrilled about the move from film to digital. Photographers who learned initially on old manual focus cameras were alienated by the complicated digital interfaces of DSLRs and intimidated and annoyed with the need for post-processing. Several of these photographers have complained to me that digital took the fun (for them) out of photography. The complexity of the digital interfaces got in the way of the experience of taking pictures. The the Fuji analog interface was designed to cater to this audience (as was the interface of the Nikon DF, a very misunderstood camera). To their analog interface, Fuji added a best in class jpeg engine, reducing the need for PP. Suddenly you have a camera perfectly designed for that contigent of photographers who's wants and needs were ignored and even derided by the digital revolution.

Sensor performance, and technical performance in general, is neither a guarantee of success nor a surety of failure. The fact is, the differences in performance among different brands is not that great, and most photographers don't know and/or don't care. A handful of gearheads and technophiles were intrigued by the performance specs of the Samsung NX1. The vast majority were entirely indifferent. And if sensor performance is so important in the market, why does Canon still sell more ILC's than anyone else, despite the inferior performance of their sensors at base ISO?

I think Fuji's success is over stated as well. They have some very vocal (paid) supporters (Zack Arias?). To me, they are in the same situation as Pentax. That is to say, they don't need 50 percent of the market in order to turn a profit. They have a small line up cameras with a very nice, but small line up of fast lenses. They do have a really good jpeg engine.

The whole MILC versus SLR thing is a little unclear to me as well. I do think Sony has done really well in the MILC market, while Olympus and Panasonic seem to be struggling more. Large sensor size with relatively small cameras seems to be a big selling point here. That said, to non-photographers, all of these cameras seem expensive and large and they are just as likely to get a D3200 or D5200 as a mirrorless camera. On the other hand, these sorts of cameras do not get replaced very often and so, if you have an SLR that was purchased two or three years ago, you'll probably try to make it last.

Mirrorless seems to be more in the stage where each new body brings real advancement in usability and performance and so folks are more likely to upgrade with each cycle.

[mecrox]

CIPA statistics, January-July 2015:

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201507_e.pdf

Worldwide shipments:

- DSLR: 5,629,887 units (75.6%)
- mirrorless cameras: 1,819,117 units (24.4%)

Shipments to Japan:

- DSLR: 607,407 units (61.1%)
- mirrorless cameras: 386,492 units (38.9%)

The CIPA figures are quite hard to draw conclusions from, imho, because so much is missing. The real kicker would be till receipts, i.e. stuff actually sold, and then matching those to units produced and shipped and to margins. In addition, CIPA's definition of mirrorless cameras might cover everything from a Pentax Q to the latest FF whereas the DSLR can really only cover two formats unless CIPA count medium format in there as well. I'm not sure exactly what CIPA do and don't count in their definitions. Maybe they spell it out somewhere.

Another interesting figure would be the percentage of people who bought a DSLR over a mirrorless quite deliberately, having considered both options. And vice versa. I'm sure the camera companies must research that bit very, very carefully especially with regard to first-time buyers vs old hands changing platforms/formats.

However one cuts it, these figures do mark something of a stunning defeat for the whole camera industry. The middle classes in what used to be called the "developing world" (dread term!) have been and still are expanding by many tens of millions, but the camera industry isn't seeing much growth to match that. If the conclusion is that these new consumers are passing entirely by cameras and going straight to smartphones and tablets, then one can see why Samsung might be getting cold feet about cameras, if they are. Some of Samsung's market research might make very revealing reading.

[rawr]

If the conclusion is that these new consumers are passing entirely by cameras and going straight to smartphones and tablets, then one can see why Samsung might be getting cold feet about cameras,

The anecdotal evidence I have, from seeing foreign tourists in our larger cities, is that the middle classes in China and other emerging economies are going straight to full-frame DSLR's and expensive L glass, rather than direct to mobile phones, or even mirrorless. At least the men are.

[osv]

The CIPA figures are quite hard to draw conclusions from, imho, because so much is missing. The real kicker would be till receipts, i.e. stuff actually sold, and then matching those to units produced and shipped and to margins. In addition, CIPA's definition of mirrorless cameras might cover everything from a Pentax Q to the latest FF whereas the DSLR can really only cover two formats unless CIPA count medium format in there as well. I'm not sure exactly what CIPA do and don't count in their definitions. Maybe they spell it out somewhere.

some of it is defined at the bottom of the page:
Note:
1) Figures by CIPA member companies' only , including their overseas production.
...5) "Non-Reflex" includes cameras such as so-called mirrorless cameras, compact system cameras, rangefinder cameras with interchangeable lens and interchangeable unit system cameras, and similer cameras

samsung is not a member of cipa, so none of the mirrorless cameras that they did are included in the stats... if anything, the deck is stacked in favor of dslr numbers.

mf cameras that have mirrors would not be included in the "non-reflex" mirrorless category.

[mecrox]

The anecdotal evidence I have, from seeing foreign tourists in our larger cities, is that the middle classes in China and other emerging economies are going straight to full-frame DSLR's and expensive L glass, rather than direct to mobile phones, or even mirrorless. At least the men are.

What I'm seeing here among the hordes is Canon, overwhelmingly. Quite a few FFs with L glass as you say, but ... in any tour group there are only a few big DSLRs, everyone else seems to be using smartphones on selfie-sticks. One lot today were doubling them up as back-scratchers. OTOH, maybe you get a wealthier class of Far Eastern tourist over there. The best I've seen this year were two men from Japan, each with two very new-looking Leicas around their neck

[clackers]

Yeah the dude is only the inventor of the light sphere that has sold like wildfire around the world not to mention one of the most successful entreupreneurs of all time who made millions off his photo business.

(Sigh).


I know you flip-flop according to which blogger you read last.

If the inventor of the Gorillapod uses an Olympus m43 are you going to jump ship from Nikon too?

Im 2012 mirrorless outsold dslrs in japan

No, mirrorless cameras don't outsell DSLRs three to one, it's currently the other way round.

(Rolls eyes)

[UncleVanya]

Facts as I understand them from reading too many things dull and not taking enough pictures.
DSLR's sell more than mirrorless.
Mirrorless GROWTH rate is higher than DSLR's.
This trending could change over time but if it holds eventually MIRRORLESS will outsell DSLR's - no way to know if this is a sustainable trend - extrapolation is hard without a lot more variables understood.
Personally I predict the GROWTH rates to drop for the mirrorless crowd.

One more "factoid" I picked up. Mirrorless body churn is higher than DSLR's. The mirrorless crowd is buying a new body more often than the DSLR crowd. This could be due to innovation speed or due to the fact these are seen as a different level of investment? It also isn't clear what happens to the old bodies. The penetration may saturate sooner than expected if people are keeping old bodies and the buyers are the same people over and over.

[neostyles]

I know you flip-flop according to which blogger you read last.

If the inventor of the Gorillapod uses an Olympus m43 are you going to jump ship from Nikon too.

Whaaat?? Yeah, no i dont. I just like to look at all my options as im sure most people who are on a tight budget would. I dont have a treasure chest full of gold coins that allows me to just go with the first thing i come across. I dont read blogs either. Thats awfully presumptuous. Saying that "oh yeah sony and panasonic" might be next is like saying Do you really believe that? Sonys cameras have been all the rage this year. The a7rii is being called one of the best all around cameras, their a7s is one of the best low light cameras to date.

Oh and mirrorless is outselling dslrs.. in japan anyway
Mirrorless System Cameras Now Outselling DSLRs In Japan – The Phoblographer

DSLRs may become a niche. Not this year or next but sooner than we may think. Autofocus in low light has been the one selling point of dslrs over mirrorless but that could change soon
Sony new microlens design could dramatically improve phase detection autofocus performance. | sonyalpharumors

Point is mirrorless is moving forward at an incredible speed. With each new camera we see game changing things. dslrs just arent innovative anymore and they cant possibly offer what mirrorless can at a competetive price point. In order to get 12 fps on a dslr you need much more money than you need to get that on a mirroless camera.

[panoguy]

Samsung is not getting out of the camera business, they are getting out of the "point-n-shoot" business. Like I said earlier, seemed schizophrenic to me.

[D1N0]

Whaaat?? Yeah, no i dont. I just like to look at all my options as im sure most people who are on a tight budget would. I dont have a treasure chest full of gold coins that allows me to just go with the first thing i come across. I dont read blogs either. Thats awfully presumptuous. Saying that "oh yeah sony and panasonic" might be next is like saying Do you really believe that? Sonys cameras have been all the rage this year. The a7rii is being called one of the best all around cameras, their a7s is one of the best low light cameras to date.

Oh and mirrorless is outselling dslrs.. in japan anyway
Mirrorless System Cameras Now Outselling DSLRs In Japan – The Phoblographer

DSLRs may become a niche. Not this year or next but sooner than we may think. Autofocus in low light has been the one selling point of dslrs over mirrorless but that could change soon
Sony new microlens design could dramatically improve phase detection autofocus performance. | sonyalpharumors

Point is mirrorless is moving forward at an incredible speed. With each new camera we see game changing things. dslrs just arent innovative anymore and they cant possibly offer what mirrorless can at a competetive price point. In order to get 12 fps on a dslr you need much more money than you need to get that on a mirroless camera.

DSLR will outsell mirrorless for a while yet however much you preach your mirrorless litany.

---------- Post added 30-09-15 at 20:20 ----------

Samsung is not getting out of the camera business, they are getting out of the "point-n-shoot" business. Like I said earlier, seemed schizophrenic to me.

They didn't really explicitly say that.

[itshimitis]

Sorry, Neostlyes, but you don't help your argument by constantly flip-flopping between different cameras. First it was Nikon FF DSLR, then you were going to get a Samsung NX1 as that was awesome, then the A7 series was for you...etc..etc...

I mean no disrespect, but until you decide for yourself what your direction is going to be, and you need to grow a bit more as a photographer first in my view, I'm not sure how seriously your view is going to be taken as you have proved to be quite inconsistent in the past.

My view is that mirrorless will continue to grow steadily. Will it overtake DSLR? I don't know. It is massively unlikely unless Nikon and Canon get behind it in a big way. The fact that Canon have been so lukewarm regarding MILC suggests to me that this won't be happening any time in the next few years. With Canikon heavily entrenched in the DSLR game, it won't be niche at all.

[northcoastgreg]

DSLRs may become a niche. Not this year or next but sooner than we may think.

People have been saying this since at least 2010, and it hasn't really happened. And it won't happen any time soon because lenses are more important than cameras and most serious photographers (that is, the people who spend a lot of money on camera gear) have already invested in a particular system. They own several expensive Canon or Nikon lenses and many of them can't afford (or are uncomfortable selling) those lenses to move on to a mirrorless system.

Autofocus in low light has been the one selling point of dslrs over mirrorless but that could change soon

It's been a selling point among a niche of users. Most serious photographers buy DSLRs because they own SLR glass. (And many non-serious photographers are content with what they're getting from the cell phones.)

Incidentally, all these numbers of cameras sold are misleading because they don't actually tell you how many people are actually using DSLRs compared to mirrorless cameras. Anyone who has bought a DSLR in the last five years doesn't need to buy another one until their current DSLR gives out, because DSLRs are a mature technology that have seen little improvement since 2011. Mirrorless cameras constitute an immature technology which still needs improvement and therefore has room to grow. Furthermore, mirrorless appeals to people who are what social psychologists call neophiles. These are people who are emotionally predisposed to favor the new over the old, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Such people have a constant need for new stuff, and will often be seeking out new and exciting electronic gear to buy and play with. The majority of serious photographers are not neophiles. They don't suffer from an emotional compulsion to constantly have something new, or to disparage anything that's old (such as SLR technology). They're pragmatists, and they simply will chose whatever technology, old or new, that best fits their needs (including which technology works best with the lenses they've invested in).

dslrs just arent innovative anymore and they cant possibly offer what mirrorless can at a competetive price point.

As I've already pointed out, DSLRs are mature technology. They don't need to be innovative. And when it comes to core features (i.e., what you really need for most photography), DSLR's tend to offer more value. Try to find a mirrorless camera that offers as much as the Pentax K-50 at a $300 price point. There's nothing in the mirrorless world that comes close.

In order to get 12 fps on a dslr you need much more money than you need to get that on a mirrorless camera.

That's a niche feature, useful primarily to action photographers. On mirrorless cameras it's worse than a niche feature --- it's a "paper" feature, since it's largely useless on a mirrorless camera (because mirrorless systems are woefully lacking in the type of lenses needed for action photography).

In the end, only gearheads and neophiles are obsessed with cameras and camera specs. Photographers care more about glass.

[itshimitis]

People have been saying this since at least 2010, and it hasn't really happened. And it won't happen any time soon because lenses are more important than cameras and most serious photographers (that is, the people who spend a lot of money on camera gear) have already invested in a particular system. They own several expensive Canon or Nikon lenses and many of them can't afford (or are uncomfortable selling) those lenses to move on to a mirrorless system.



It's been a selling point among a niche of users. Most serious photographers buy DSLRs because they own SLR glass. (And many non-serious photographers are content with what they're getting from the cell phones.)

Incidentally, all these numbers of cameras sold are misleading because they don't actually tell you how many people are actually using DSLRs compared to mirrorless cameras. Anyone who has bought a DSLR in the last five years doesn't need to buy another one until their current DSLR gives out, because DSLRs are a mature technology that have seen little improvement since 2011. Mirrorless cameras constitute an immature technology which still needs improvement and therefore has room to grow. Furthermore, mirrorless appeals to people who are what social psychologists call neophiles. These are people who are emotionally predisposed to favor the new over the old, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Such people have a constant need for new stuff, and will often be seeking out new and exciting electronic gear to buy and play with. The majority of serious photographers are not neophiles. They don't suffer from an emotional compulsion to constantly have something new, or to disparage anything that's old (such as SLR technology). They're pragmatists, and they simply will chose whatever technology, old or new, that best fits their needs (including which technology works best with the lenses they've invested in).



As I've already pointed out, DSLRs are mature technology. They don't need to be innovative. And when it comes to core features (i.e., what you really need for most photography), DSLR's tend to offer more value. Try to find a mirrorless camera that offers as much as the Pentax K-50 at a $300 price point. There's nothing in the mirrorless world that comes close.



That's a niche feature, useful primarily to action photographers. On mirrorless cameras it's worse than a niche feature --- it's a "paper" feature, since it's largely useless on a mirrorless camera (because mirrorless systems are woefully lacking in the type of lenses needed for action photography).

In the end, only gearheads and neophiles are obsessed with cameras and camera specs. Photographers care more about glass.

Now I disagree with Neostyles, but you have made a whole set of assumptions and general statements that aren't necessarily accurate. In fact the bit I have put in bold is absolute tosh. You're telling me that no-one with a DSLR gets 'G.A.S.'? Really? Look on Canon forums and tell me that's the case. There will always be people that want new stuff rather than need it. You get that with DSLR users as well as MILC.

I have the A7RII, but I also have the 645Z and a Canon DSLR that is on permanent loan to my brother in law. I also have 3 film cameras. I'm not the gollum of the photographic world, so which camp do I sit in?

Yes mirrorless is relatively infantile, but that is not to say that it won't mature. I remember a similar discussion when digital first became mainstream... we know how that one transpired...film is still there but is a minority. I wouldn't call it a niche exactly.

[osv]

Now I disagree with Neostyles, but you have made a whole set of assumptions and general statements that aren't necessarily accurate. In fact the bit I have put in bold is absolute tosh.

that's your typical northcoastgreg "logic"

ask him if he's ever actually shot a ff digital camera before...