what is the reality of mFT sales?

Started Nov 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
VisualFX
Contributing MemberPosts: 631
Like?
Re: Expected and should get worse ???
In reply to amalric, Nov 11, 2012

amalric wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

amalric wrote:

rhlpetrus wrote:

As Canon expands their system and Nikon enters the APS-C ML market (Thom predicts late 2013 or 2014), my bet is they will grab more than 50% of the ML market quickly. Oly and Sony will likely be 3rd and 4th, then Panny. Canon's figures with just one very poor model (AF is bad says DPR), no lenses is amazing. But it is APS-C. Nikon's system 1 will be reserved for the lower market, their enthusiast ML will be APS-C, likely.

Your bet.. based on WHAT? If anything mirrorless shows that you must master a host of new technologies, from AF to sensor matrixes in order to have efficient cameras.

Those who will buy Canon mirrorless will soon discover how miserable the AF is. The first three Fuji lenses are soon to be scrapped because they have no linear motors.

There is a big learning curve in ML as the clueless who go only by brand reconlition will soon discover.

Additionally as we saw in the comparison between the EM-5 and NEX5n at DxO there is nothing to be gained by going APS instead of m4/3.

Finally with a Western-centric bias you underestimate Olympus and Panasonic brand recognition in Asia. They were the first in mirrorless and they have huge crowds of fans there.

So your bet is plain old FUD.

Am.

PS cleverly O&P are moving to the upper tier of the ML segment, where technology and lenses will be even more difficult to imitate.

-- hide signature --

Sadly i think that brand power is a very strong factor regardless of the actual product. I am genuinely surprised the share of the market that the Canon EOS-M captured in what seems by all accounts to be a pretty flawed product. The Nikon 1 may have a small sensor but it performs very well in every other area especially AF where it outperforms mFT. From the various reviews including the DPreview one the Nikon j1/v1 seems to match the image quality of the older 12mp sensor which obviously is in a lot of mFT models out there.

The loss of market share by Panasonic in the last year has been pretty shocking , and while they are obviously a well known brand I am not sure it is for photographic gear. I am not sure that there has been any major developments in technology specific to mFT ., that is not easily repeated or bettered by others. When you look at the relative success of Nikon especially it looks like they have plenty time to get in on the mirrorless game. I think their 1 system was really just to stop the higher end P&S market drifting towards other mirrorless makers. And this was a stated aim. When they do decide to implement a high end mirrorless they will already have a lot of the technologies in place.

One , thing is certain predicting the future is at best tricky and at worst foolish as in truth other than the company engineers { and they are not telling} no one knows how things will evolve. There is movement from all direction , from the 1 inch sensors bringing very good quality to the pocket sized market to FF coming down in price point, interesting times ahead. One good thing I have decided that I am more than happy with my current gear and will not be upgrading anything for a while till I see where the wind blows.

Jim

Cherry picking is not a good way of arguing. I go by past *experience*. After the initial enthusiasm m4/3 users discovered that Pens were slow to focus, had cheap screens, etc. There is quite a learning curve for makers.

It might well be that Nikon has solved some hurdles, but it has limited itself, or been pushed to a small sensor.

Fuji and Canon have still a lot to learn, before they reach the technological level of m4/3, and by that time O&P will be producing high tier ML cameras.

Besides your strongest argument, brand recognition, might be flawed. In Asia, where it matters, ML might be a synonym of Olympus, and not Canon for instance.

Even Sony the strongest of competitors has not dented m4/3 mshare, but added its own to P&O.

I find these discussions boring in the end, it all has to do with the FEAR of a wrong investment.

At a rational level two systems make sense:m4/3 and FF. And they are complements.

I see quite a few, believing APS was better, coming back into them4/3 fold. It might enjoy a temporary resurgence, but many concur to say that APS will be crushed between m4/3 and cheap FF. If you have FUD, why don't you get yourself a FF?

Besides I don't think that any of the coming ML models will get such a high rating as the E-M5 - perhaps the X-E1. But I wouldn't have it as the only camera, and by Spring m4/3 might have an equivalent model.

Am.

-- hide signature --

You have obviously never seen photos from Fuji's X-Trans sensor in their X-Pro1 and X-E1 cameras. IMO, way better output then whatyou can get withany current m4/3 including the OMD. Tones, colors, white balance all better. I have an epl1 btw, but have a fuji on order. sorry oly/pana.

P.S. to Oly/pana: you need to make better solid bodies that have more manual control dials. Steel and not junk plastic. Go look at how some cameras were engineered years ago. Zeiss Ikon Contessa for example. Heavy but well built with nice dials and controls. most people are tired of the plastic junk crap in curent modern camera bodies and lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow