Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering

Started May 17, 2013 | Discussions
John1940
Contributing MemberPosts: 930Gear list
Like?
Re: That is what you get when you do not do yoru research
In reply to rattymouse, May 19, 2013

rattymouse wrote:

Ed B wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

In their reports I also noted a clear remark that their mirrorless line has been profitable over the last year.

Good work.

Looks like there's some lies, damn lies and statistics going on here.

This thread was started by rattymouse.

He constantly posts threads condemning mirrorless cameras.

Sometimes it's hard to believe he hasn't been cautioned about it.

You have a problem discussing the state of the camera industry?  Perhaps you should move to a gardening forum then.

FYI, I shoot mirrorless primarily.

By your own observation in other posts, the hammering of mirrorless cameras is happening because the manufacturers are not innovative enough (along with the likes of Adobe and many other vendors  in various fields). You also believe in competition unless the company gains too much market share. You do not like "greedy" companies, and you lash out at any rational person who thinks that increasing prices, for example, is wrong since, while it is legal, it is morally wrong--as if morality always trumps profitability in the business world (a naive belief since you are using your definition of morality, and that may be different between people).

So, by using mirrorless cameras, are you not supporting what you are often complaining about in a very sensational and often rude manner? Are you also a secret user of Adobe's Lightroom?

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

Could you please explain what happened here in some detail? Diid the fanboys drum you out?

John1940

 John1940's gear list:John1940's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sk8trguy
Regular MemberPosts: 293
Like?
Re: oookay, back to reality
In reply to zxaar, May 19, 2013

zxaar wrote:

Sk8trguy wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

Sk8trguy wrote:

iirc, dslrs held 100% of the market and mirrorless had 0% a few years back.  now it is 80:20.

Absolutely meaningless statistic.

20% of the interchangeable lens market gets taken up in a few short years, and you call it meaningless.

In the same period of time, the camera used in smartphones have grown to much larger numbers than mirrorless cams.

obviously.  p&s sales are awful because of that. but since smartphones don't have zoom lenses or native lenses you can't change, they have nothing to so with what I said.

that is like saying if hybrids and electric cars take over 20% of the auto market, it's meaningless if other sales remain constant.   in the real world it means that is 20% more sales you could have had but gave way.  which is why everyone now is jumping on the band wagon and putting most of their r&d money into it.

Prove that dslrs are now sold 20% less in numbers

no one said that.  only you because you can't understand what I said.  dslr sales increased slightly over the past few years, but the market increased by well over 20%.   this is why the smart guys at nikon and canon jumped on the mirrorless band wagon and are spending much to develop those new systems.  they know where the market it heading.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leon Wittwer
Forum ProPosts: 12,774
Like?
Re: EVERYONE doubling down on Mirrorless
In reply to Just Having Fun, May 19, 2013

Just Having Fun wrote:

Every camera maker said they are going to focus MORE on mirrorless.  Olympus is dropping P&S to put more into mirrorless.  Sony is getting rid of the mirror even in FF.  Nikon and Canon said they are going to spend more on it too.

Perhaps the companies other than Nikon and Canon are getting desperate to get as much of the mirrorless market as they can as they see it as their only hope to make much of a profit.  Canon and Nikon are still tentative players in case the mirrorless segment amounts to something.  Sony may do ok by being more like Nikon and Canon than by the others.

Everyone seems to know the future is cameras without mirrors, except a handfull of people here.

I don't know that.  Time will tell.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Eamon Hickey
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,104
Like?
found: mirrorless was not profitable
In reply to Jorginho, May 19, 2013

Jorginho wrote:

No I cannot I started noting times as soon as it wax clear they would return to the same subject over and over again. It takes 2 h or so I think, so I am not willing to do that. I heard it, if you listened to the whole article and you sure you did not hear it I am happy to admit I made a mistake.

Well, I wish I had could say I had something better to do in life, but I did listen to the whole presentation.

In fact, Olympus says that their mirrorless ILC camera business was break-even at best last year (i.e. Fiscal Year 2013, which ended March 31, 2013), but maybe (likely) a "little bit" loss-making (I say likely because of the wording of the answer, which is below.)

The statement occurs in the Q&A section of the audio presentation; it's in response to about the fourth or fifth question asked. The questioner directly asks: what was the profitability of mirrorless?

It's unclear whether the answer comes from Sasa (Olympus President) or Ogawa (Olympus Head of Imaging) because the translator doesn't identify the person who gives the answer. But his exact words (as translated into English by Olympus's translator are):

"From a total perspective, it was almost break-even, maybe a little bit of shortfall."

I note that "little bit" is open to some interpretation -- the Olympus executives participating in this presentation are all on the defensive about the Imaging Division. It's clear that there is significant shareholder (and probably some faction within the board of directors) pressure to close the whole division down.

The audio presentation can be listened to in whole or by section. Anybody who wants to check this can save themselves some time by listening to only the Question-and-Answer Session, which is clickable in the "Index" section on this page:

http://www.c-hotline.net/Viewer/Default/OLYM5d87987a66e557d8fa7f5e41719af874

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Eamon Hickey
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,104
Like?
no, Olympus says mirrorless was not profitable
In reply to peevee1, May 19, 2013

peevee1 wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

As seen at sansmirror.com, the final numbers are in for mirrorless last year and the results are NOT pretty.  The main mirrorless players are either losing enormous money (Panasonic and Olympus),

Olympus was profitable in 2012. Both as a whole and its mirrorless line.

Actually, Olympus says that in fiscal year 2013 (the period ending March 31, 2013, so the most recent annual result) their mirrorless line was break-even at best, but maybe a "little bit" loss-making. See my other post in this thread for details and exact sourcing information:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51492659

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MichaelKJ
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,070Gear list
Like?
Re: Better Chart ..
In reply to Abrak, May 19, 2013

Abrak wrote:

Jeff wrote

I've slightly reformatted my chart from earlier in this tread to better show shipments of mirrorless cameras as a portion of the the shipment of all interchangeable lens cameras.  This is data from CIPA for worldwide shipments of interchangeable lens cameras by month since Jan, 2011.

To me, this doesn't look like a hammering for mirrorless cameras.  There does appear to be a problem with channel stuffing prior to Christmas, 2012, which may be the reason you kind find such good deals right now.

And, ss I said before, there may too many camera makers to survive in this narrow niche. Getting squeezed from below by the smartphone tidal wave, and from above by Nikon and Canon is a bad place to be.

To my mind, the strategy flaw is not in the developing this market per se, but in not more directly targeting the 100's of millions of users of those smartphones to higher levels of visual expression. They are not going to be impressed by f-stops and shutter speeds. They need to have a path to better pictures.  Sort of like what Steve Jobs brought to the computer industry.

Jeff

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/

I do think that there is at least a degree of truth to your 'channel stuffing' theory. Afterall CIPA records  show 'shipments' and not 'sales'. Also as CIPA has only stripped out mirrorless from interchangeable lens cameras for a little over a year it is a bit difficult to tell. Still, as we know, DSLRs have taken a fairly similar path, rising some what less and falling somewhat more.

So if we take the data for 'all' 'ilcs' and look at the last 8 quarters...

1Q 2011 3489

2Q 2011 3257

3q 2011 5503

4q 2011 3442

1Q 2012 4129 (+18% YOY)

2Q 2012 5147 (+58% YOY)

3Q 2012 5433 (-3% YOY)

4Q 2012 5446 (+58% YOY)

1Q 2013 3204 (-22% YOY)

...we can see the underlying trends....

1Q 2013 was a sharp fall on 1Q 2012 (-22%) it was an even sharper fall on 4Q 2012 (-41%). In fact 1Q 2013 was lower than 1Q 2011 - 2011, a year when the industry shipped less than 16m ILCs compared to 20m last year.

However, it does look to be a reaction to the very heavy shipping in 4Q 2012 which was up 58% YOY. In all likelihood, that means that the camera manufacturers heavily 'stuffed' the channels and that sales simply didnt come through.

Still we cant get away from at least 2 facts (1) this is the lowest quarterly figure for at least 2 years and (2) 1Q is not down on a particularly low quarter last year - in fact it is down on the lowest reported quarterly figure for last year.

Shipments would have to 'double' in the second quarter (to a record) in order for camera to get back to the first half of 2012 and to make anywhere near half the sales of last year.

All the signs are that after a pretty good couple of years, demand for ILCs in general has gone very soft.

Shipments aren't sales. 28% more ILCs were shipped in 2012 than were shipped in 2011. Camera makers obviously overestimated sales for last year, especially 4th quarter.  This oversupply can explain much of the slowdown in 1st quarter shipments and also suggests that they provide little insight into 1st quarter sales. While the camera business is clearly in a slump, I think you are greatly overstating the magnitude of the downturn.

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,838
Like?
Re: That is what you get when you do not do yoru research
In reply to rattymouse, May 19, 2013

rattymouse wrote:

You have a problem discussing the state of the camera industry?  Perhaps you should move to a gardening forum then.

FYI, I shoot mirrorless primarily.

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

I don't have problems discussing anything but would much rather discuss corporate problems with a person who is well informed.

The financial problems at Olympus corp. has very little to do with the success or failure of their mirrorless cameras.

The company has been mismanaged and some very bad investments decisions have caused the company to fall on hard times.

Olympus manufactures and sells industrial scanners, flaw detectors, probes and transducers, thickness gauges, digital cameras, image analysis software, industrial video-scopes, fiber scope light sources, XRF and XRD analyzers, and high-speed video cameras.

All of these products are, in one way or another, part of their imaging division.

Like Canon and Nikon, their inexpensive point & shoot cameras are not selling well but I can find no indication that their mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are a money loosing proposition.

Mirrorless isn't going away. Currently, it may not be as popular as the conventional DSLR segment but it is gaining in popularity whether you want to admit it or not.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LincolnB
Senior MemberPosts: 3,662Gear list
Like?
Re: So, may be
In reply to zxaar, May 19, 2013

zxaar wrote:

So may be the best time to buy OMD would be 3 years from now.

It would be better if m43 companies also advised this to their buyers and also put a note: Best time to buy our camera is after 3 years of their release date. Don't buy the just released cameras , we priced them such that after 3 years they will be selling at their right prices.

That's essentially what camera companies are saying with their pricing. You can buy the latest and greatest Canon Rebel T5i for $750 or you can buy a T3 for $340. You can buy an Olympus E-P5 for $1,000 or if you're more budget-conscious you can buy an E-P1 for $290.  Do they really have to spell it out for folks in big, bold letters???

 LincolnB's gear list:LincolnB's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Fujifilm X-E1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH Mega OIS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vzlnc
Regular MemberPosts: 191
Like?
Re: That is what you get when you do not do yoru research
In reply to Ed B, May 19, 2013

Ed B wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

You have a problem discussing the state of the camera industry?  Perhaps you should move to a gardening forum then.

FYI, I shoot mirrorless primarily.

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

I don't have problems discussing anything but would much rather discuss corporate problems with a person who is well informed.

The financial problems at Olympus corp. has very little to do with the success or failure of their mirrorless cameras.

The company has been mismanaged and some very bad investments decisions have caused the company to fall on hard times.

Olympus manufactures and sells industrial scanners, flaw detectors, probes and transducers, thickness gauges, digital cameras, image analysis software, industrial video-scopes, fiber scope light sources, XRF and XRD analyzers, and high-speed video cameras.

All of these products are, in one way or another, part of their imaging division.

Like Canon and Nikon, their inexpensive point & shoot cameras are not selling well but I can find no indication that their mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are a money loosing proposition.

You need to read this thread again.

Mirrorless isn't going away. Currently, it may not be as popular as the conventional DSLR segment but it is gaining in popularity whether you want to admit it or not.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vzlnc
Regular MemberPosts: 191
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to Ulric, May 19, 2013

Ulric wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

Ulric wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

Mirrorless cams are way over priced for now and that will always keep them as a niche market.

I would say that E-PM2+kit lens is about the same price and same IQ as an entry-level DSLR (say, a D3200). That seems reasonable to me.

No viewfinder , no flash for same price as the D3200 which has a flash and viewfinder. m43 is more expensive as a system, but atleast if they keep the entry level cost cheaper, more people will try them out.

The D3200 lacks the killer feature of the E-PM2: small size. They complement each other, and as long as no reasonably sized DSLRs exist,

People worried about size have better alternatives than the overpriced junk. Killer features are like the 24MP sensor in the D3200 or the ergonomics of a well designed DSLR like the D7000 or 7D of the blazing fast PDAF. Pretty much most DSLRs are reasonably sized and priced as well. For people who want light, there are many reasonable priced and good quality compacts.

I don't see what would replace cameras such as the E-PM2.

Going by the sales charts, D3200 or any point and shoot if budget and size are a consideration.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,838
Like?
Re: That is what you get when you do not do yoru research
In reply to vzlnc, May 19, 2013

vzlnc wrote:

Ed B wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

You have a problem discussing the state of the camera industry?  Perhaps you should move to a gardening forum then.

FYI, I shoot mirrorless primarily.

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

I don't have problems discussing anything but would much rather discuss corporate problems with a person who is well informed.

The financial problems at Olympus corp. has very little to do with the success or failure of their mirrorless cameras.

The company has been mismanaged and some very bad investments decisions have caused the company to fall on hard times.

Olympus manufactures and sells industrial scanners, flaw detectors, probes and transducers, thickness gauges, digital cameras, image analysis software, industrial video-scopes, fiber scope light sources, XRF and XRD analyzers, and high-speed video cameras.

All of these products are, in one way or another, part of their imaging division.

Like Canon and Nikon, their inexpensive point & shoot cameras are not selling well but I can find no indication that their mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are a money loosing proposition.

You need to read this thread again.

Mirrorless isn't going away. Currently, it may not be as popular as the conventional DSLR segment but it is gaining in popularity whether you want to admit it or not.

Not sure what part I should read again but here is the truth:

logs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/16/olympus-to-drop-cheap-point-and-shoot-cameras/

Money that's being lost is mostly coming from the decreased sales/popularity of inexpensive point & shoot type cameras. Every manufacturer, including Canon and Nikon, is having similar problems.

The mirrorless camera market isn't the problem and the OP or the blogs he's reading are misleading.

Edit: I will say that Olympus and Panasonic are fighting an uphill battle, not because of their mirrorless design but, because of their four thirds format and because, until recently, they've had a problem with noise at higher ISOs.

Olympus seems to have solved many of the issues with their new processor (sensor?) and they've also made huge strides in the fast focus department.

If Olympus can get their corporate ducks in a row they're poised to be one of the biggest success stories in modern camera history.

Their newest camera has already been praised for being the best mirrorless made and a camera that competes well with any APS-C DSLR camera. (See dpreview's evaluation).

I don't own an Olympus but disagree with much of what rattymouse preaches.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ed2002
Regular MemberPosts: 254
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to vzlnc, May 19, 2013

The D3200 lacks the killer feature of the E-PM2: small size. They complement each other, and as long as no reasonably sized DSLRs exist,

People worried about size have better alternatives than the overpriced junk. Killer features are like the 24MP sensor in the D3200 or the ergonomics of a well designed DSLR like the D7000 or 7D of the blazing fast PDAF. Pretty much most DSLRs are reasonably sized and priced as well. For people who want light, there are many reasonable priced and good quality compacts.

I'm not so sure about that, and I am trying to make a decision between cameras like this now.  The kit lens on d3200 doesn't appear to be able to take any better pictures than the pm2 (or pl5 which is $100 more with flip lcd).  It also seemed to focus slower in my hand with the kit, then pm2 in the poor light of the store.  That means if I want to buy and get better performance than a pl5, I'm going to need better glass than the kit, raising the price, size, and weight of the nikon. Then the formus seem to say that I really need the d5200 instead, and that the nikon will require more post processing, etc.  Its a tough choice today, and I am trying to make it.  The m4/3 seems to do better on video too.

In 5 years, I expect that mirror less will drop in price lower than the dslrs, it just makes sense that they do.  Its hard to tell today which mirror-less system will win.

I don't see what would replace cameras such as the E-PM2.

Going by the sales charts, D3200 or any point and shoot if budget and size are a consideration.

I really would like the smaller camera.  I don't have sales charts, but I am guessing today D3200 should be selling much better.  Its in every store, as is the nikon 1. You need to want to see a olympus camera or a pentax to try them out.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ed2002
Regular MemberPosts: 254
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to rattymouse, May 19, 2013

rattymouse wrote:

Abrak wrote:

Ed B wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

As seen at sansmirror.com, the final numbers are in for mirrorless last year and the results are NOT pretty.  The main mirrorless players are either losing enormous money (Panasonic and Olympus),

Olympus was profitable in 2012. Both as a whole and its mirrorless line.

Absolute nonsense.  Olympus has never made a penny of profit from mirrorless.  They have been losing money for years.

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

Please post your source.

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/ir/data/brief/2013/

Thank you, that source did nicely.  From that link we see that Olympus (imaging division) lost  1.5 billion yen in the first quarter, 6.2 billion in the second, 8.7 billion in the third, and 6.6 billion in the forth quarter.

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

I don't get it we know olympus loses money in imaging because of P&S and that they want to shift to high margin m4/3, which will also cut down on unit volume, personelle, and expenses.

Does anybody have anything that says olympus loses money on m4/3.  They seem to be doing quite well from what I can see.  It appears they think that if they can cut expenses from p&s, m4/3 will make money.  If you allocate that high cost structure to m4/3, you lose money.  If you got rid of m4/3 you lose even more money.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,582Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to vzlnc, May 19, 2013

vzlnc wrote:

People worried about size have better alternatives than the overpriced junk.

What overpriced junk? Cameras that cost and perform like a DSLR, but is lighter and smaller?

Going by the sales charts, D3200 or any point and shoot if budget and size are a consideration.

So your suggestion is that someone who doesn't want a D3200 because of its size or a P&S because of its obvious limitations should get a D3200 or a P&s. That's just brilliant.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vzlnc
Regular MemberPosts: 191
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to ed2002, May 19, 2013

ed2002 wrote:

The D3200 lacks the killer feature of the E-PM2: small size. They complement each other, and as long as no reasonably sized DSLRs exist,

People worried about size have better alternatives than the overpriced junk. Killer features are like the 24MP sensor in the D3200 or the ergonomics of a well designed DSLR like the D7000 or 7D of the blazing fast PDAF. Pretty much most DSLRs are reasonably sized and priced as well. For people who want light, there are many reasonable priced and good quality compacts.

I'm not so sure about that, and I am trying to make a decision between cameras like this now.  The kit lens on d3200 doesn't appear to be able to take any better pictures than the pm2 (or pl5 which is $100 more with flip lcd).  It also seemed to focus slower in my hand with the kit, then pm2 in the poor light of the store.  That means if I want to buy and get better performance than a pl5, I'm going to need better glass than the kit, raising the price, size, and weight of the nikon. Then the formus seem to say that I really need the d5200 instead, and that the nikon will require more post processing, etc.  Its a tough choice today, and I am trying to make it.  The m4/3 seems to do better on video too.

In 5 years, I expect that mirror less will drop in price lower than the dslrs, it just makes sense that they do.  Its hard to tell today which mirror-less system will win.

Yes, after a price drop, that will be a real contest. For DX slrs, upgrade lenses are not that expensive. A basic DSLR + 50mm 1.8 + 35mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8 + kit lens = less than 1500 and the quality will beat any m43 combination within the same price range by a mile. You are ignoring the flexibility and cost effectiveness which a mature system like F-mount or the EF-mount or EF-S mount allows you.

I don't see what would replace cameras such as the E-PM2.

Going by the sales charts, D3200 or any point and shoot if budget and size are a consideration.

I really would like the smaller camera.  I don't have sales charts, but I am guessing today D3200 should be selling much better.  Its in every store, as is the nikon 1. You need to want to see a olympus camera or a pentax to try them out.

There are many options when u want to go for a smaller camera. You will also need to think about future expenses when you are buying into a system. Do you have enough disposable income for the expensive accessories including some things as basic as lens hoods. Sounds like complete rip-off to me if they make you buy lens hoods separately after buying some incredibly over-expensive lenses. From a money POV, this just doesnt make sense.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vzlnc
Regular MemberPosts: 191
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to Ulric, May 19, 2013

Ulric wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

People worried about size have better alternatives than the overpriced junk.

What overpriced junk? Cameras that cost and perform like a DSLR, but is lighter and smaller?

A little correction there. Cameras that cost A LOT MORE and perform LESS than a DSLR.

Going by the sales charts, D3200 or any point and shoot if budget and size are a consideration.

So your suggestion is that someone who doesn't want a D3200 because of its size or a P&S because of its obvious limitations should get a D3200 or a P&s. That's just brilliant.

P&S have a lot of options with varying capabilities and price and size. After all any and every choice will have some compromise. If one can live with a little less performance or a little more weight and save significantly then P&S or a basic DSLR are apt choices. In any case the size and weight issue is over-hyper by the fanboys here and more serious issue of money is completely ignored.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,582Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to vzlnc, May 19, 2013

vzlnc wrote:

Yes, after a price drop, that will be a real contest. For DX slrs, upgrade lenses are not that expensive. A basic DSLR + 50mm 1.8 + 35mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8 + kit lens = less than 1500 and the quality will beat any m43 combination within the same price range by a mile.

Strange combination of focal lengths (no wide prime), but if I were to pick a similar setup it would be (prices from Amazon):

E-PM2 + kit lens $499

Olympus 45mm $400

Panasonic 20mm $368

Panasonic 14mm $250

Total $1517 and will not be beaten "by a mile" by any DSLR.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulric
Senior MemberPosts: 2,582Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to vzlnc, May 19, 2013

vzlnc wrote:

Ulric wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

People worried about size have better alternatives than the overpriced junk.

What overpriced junk? Cameras that cost and perform like a DSLR, but is lighter and smaller?

A little correction there. Cameras that cost A LOT MORE and perform LESS than a DSLR.

You keep repeating that. Keep trying until you get it right.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ed2002
Regular MemberPosts: 254
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to vzlnc, May 19, 2013

vzlnc wrote:

ed2002 wrote:

The D3200 lacks the killer feature of the E-PM2: small size. They complement each other, and as long as no reasonably sized DSLRs exist,

People worried about size have better alternatives than the overpriced junk. Killer features are like the 24MP sensor in the D3200 or the ergonomics of a well designed DSLR like the D7000 or 7D of the blazing fast PDAF. Pretty much most DSLRs are reasonably sized and priced as well. For people who want light, there are many reasonable priced and good quality compacts.

I'm not so sure about that, and I am trying to make a decision between cameras like this now.  The kit lens on d3200 doesn't appear to be able to take any better pictures than the pm2 (or pl5 which is $100 more with flip lcd).  It also seemed to focus slower in my hand with the kit, then pm2 in the poor light of the store.  That means if I want to buy and get better performance than a pl5, I'm going to need better glass than the kit, raising the price, size, and weight of the nikon. Then the formus seem to say that I really need the d5200 instead, and that the nikon will require more post processing, etc.  Its a tough choice today, and I am trying to make it.  The m4/3 seems to do better on video too.

In 5 years, I expect that mirror less will drop in price lower than the dslrs, it just makes sense that they do.  Its hard to tell today which mirror-less system will win.

Yes, after a price drop, that will be a real contest. For DX slrs, upgrade lenses are not that expensive. A basic DSLR + 50mm 1.8 + 35mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8 + kit lens = less than 1500 and the quality will beat any m43 combination within the same price range by a mile. You are ignoring the flexibility and cost effectiveness which a mature system like F-mount or the EF-mount or EF-S mount allows you.

I think you don't really understand small and light.  I am thinking 2 or 3 lenses for travel.  I can get a Panasonic G5+14-42+45-150+20 all stabilized for less than $900, but the IQ of the olympus is a little better especially straight out of camera or at high iso (over 1600), and it is smaller and lighter.  I might spend more.

Now you want to totally ignore a light travel kit and price and saddle me with 3 primes I need to change, and once you add that telephoto that I want, will cost me twice as much as that panasonic m4/3.  And i should do it because it costs less?  Really I believe that the IQ will increase with that system, but it will be too much to travel around with, and it most definitely will not save me money.  i also have doubts that I will see the IQ difference on most photos when viewed at 1920x1080, which is where I look at most things, on a monitor, that don't get blown up big.  I'm sure that kit will also not be as good for video, or live view focussing.

I don't see what would replace cameras such as the E-PM2.

Going by the sales charts, D3200 or any point and shoot if budget and size are a consideration.

I really would like the smaller camera.  I don't have sales charts, but I am guessing today D3200 should be selling much better.  Its in every store, as is the nikon 1. You need to want to see a olympus camera or a pentax to try them out.

There are many options when u want to go for a smaller camera. You will also need to think about future expenses when you are buying into a system. Do you have enough disposable income for the expensive accessories including some things as basic as lens hoods. Sounds like complete rip-off to me if they make you buy lens hoods separately after buying some incredibly over-expensive lenses. From a money POV, this just doesnt make sense.

I think that is fine.  You want to shoot primes, and don't care about how big your system is. Many of us have different priorities.  I don't get what other acessories really are needed.  A lens hood for telephoto sure.  Most people that buy the base nikon kit never change the kit lens(es).  I don't think $350, current street price for a 20 mm f1.8 lens is really over priced.  Do you?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ed2002
Regular MemberPosts: 254
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
In reply to Ulric, May 19, 2013

Ulric wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

Yes, after a price drop, that will be a real contest. For DX slrs, upgrade lenses are not that expensive. A basic DSLR + 50mm 1.8 + 35mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8 + kit lens = less than 1500 and the quality will beat any m43 combination within the same price range by a mile.

Strange combination of focal lengths (no wide prime), but if I were to pick a similar setup it would be (prices from Amazon):

E-PM2 + kit lens $499

Olympus 45mm $400

Panasonic 20mm $368

Panasonic 14mm $250

Total $1517 and will not be beaten "by a mile" by any DSLR.

Absolutely, a silly kit for someone that wants to travel light, and similar prices.  I think you should add a $99 evf to the cost of the oly.  If I had gotten in on the mothers day sale on oly, I would definitely have gone the pm2 route.  The pm2 was $429, and the oly 45mm was $340

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads