Shmuel Goldberg: It must be clear that there is absolutely nothing in physics of a DSLR that makes it better than a mirrorless camera. Weight and size of DSLRs is not an advantage, it is a result of outdated technology. An idea that was excellent 75 years ago makes no sense today.
Don't tell me mirror vibration is not relevant, given all the trouble Canon went to on the 5DS to reduce mirror vibration.
As for the shutter shock, you seem to be making a general assertion based on specific cameras. One of them you quoted, with a lens mounted, is as heavy as many SLRs, so how does that prove your point?
OTOH I have experienced mirror or shutter shock issues at one time or another, on all my SLRs. It also seems to particularly affect cameras with IBIS or lens stabilisation - at very specific shutter speeds.
The issue has much more to do with managing resonant frequencies of the chassis and other system components, as well as the shutter design itself.
I don't see TV and video cameramen having problems tracking live sport or wildlife, do you?
Global shutter will make things easier, but at the moment, having to provide video and still frames takes up a lot of processor time. This is why processors are key to mirrorless performance.
Thing is, your eyes and brain don't react at the speed of light. Hence we cannot tell that a video at 50 fps is not continuous, so anything much faster is kind of redundant.
sderdiarian: Statements like "nasty small cameras", "acidic mirrorless camera" and "multiply their wares like bacteria in a dirty petri dish" as compared to bow and scrape language like "these two giants" set my teeth on edge from the get-go.
But they were nothing next to the author's apparent ignorance of CIPA data for 2014 showing 18% growth of mirrorless shipments in the North American market and 8% in Europe as compared to 25% and 37% declines in DSLR sales in these two critical markets respectively.
These "two giants" short sightedly elected to protect sales/reap profits from old technology; let them reap what they've sown, as GM did in cars before them. And let's commend those smaller companies/divisions that have invested in and moved mirrorless technology forward rather than paying them left-handed compliments.
Like to see a re-write by Richard Butler or Barney Britton, I'm sure it would have a different tone.
Trend? A trend requires data over a time period.
The installed base of DSLRs is huge. As for 'top lenses' they will be dominated by the most popular makes, so no big surprise. I suspect the 'top lens' is a Canon.
I don't know what you are trying to prove, but on a rough projection, even if CSC sales remain static and DSLRs continue to decline at the same rate, CSCs will be leading the sales charts in 4-5 years.
I suspect if Nikon or Canon made any serious CSC cameras, the trend would become a stampede.
Being less respectful, I think Mr Sderdiarian had an irony bypass
I think Damien hit the nail squarely on the head. Nikon and Canon should have produced CSC models that complimented their professional DSLRs. In other words, a professional CSC.
No professional I know owns a D800 or 5Dmk3 uses a D3XXX or a Rebel as their backup camera. Where is the alternative? Fuji in particular has benefited from this niche, but I suspect Oly has done well too.
And much as I like my Fuji, a Canon professional would probably choose the product that was compatible with the same workflow and accessories that he or she already had - flash, remote, software, etc. That is, if such a product existed.
Is it the EOS M3? Not without an EVF a decent prime lens lineup, no. But it proves they can do it.
All metal, premium quality, $1200 + price bracket, high quality lens range, lightweight full-function flash units.
Perfect companion to a 5DS.
@J A C S
Where did you study physics?
Focal plane shutters don't produce as much vibration or stress as a bouncing mirror, and a shorter registration distance reduces the stress on the chassis from the lens mount.
They simply don't need to be as heavy. Why make them heavier than they need to be?
At least mirrorless cameras have styling. Not something I would attribute to a DSLR, unless you think a bar of soap is a style icon.
Really not sure what external shape or styling has to do with the technology or usability of a camera. What it proves is simply that CSC technology allows for more flexibility in terms of packaging.
I'm surprised you find a 25% decline in US DSLR shipments and a 37% decline in European DSLR shipments is nothing to worry about. If I were Canon or Nikon I would be extremely worried.
Worldwide, CSC penetration is 30% of the ILC market, mostly from small players who previously had minimal market share. If Canon or Nikon made a competitive CSC, the % would change dramatically, purely because of brand recognition.
You can only rely on brand name for so long. It cuts less ice in developing markets who don't have the legacy baggage, and Asia is now the largest single market.
Damn Fuji - keeps designing lenses I actually want. I'm running out of stuff to trade in....
Actually looks pretty nice. Lens looks a little chunky but its a small camera.
Now if they had a made it slightly larger with a built in EVF it would be well balanced. Yes, I know you can attach one but that makes things more of a pain than need be and it uses the hotshoe.
I don't understand the marketing decisions at all though.
Simple man: It's unbelivable the hate being spewed towards Canons decision to produce this camera. Certainly people realize not all cameras perform equally in all aspects. If this camera is not for you; merely pass along. Canon has an entire line up of cameras to choose from. Find the one that closely matches your requirements. Select it as your next camera.
Canon. The camera people who like options choose to use.
I did choose. I bought a Nikon.
(Sorry, couldn't resist. You really should get paid by Canon with a line like that).
No EVF no deal. Sorry Samsung, without an EVF a 28MP camera is a waste of time!
jkoch2: If one compares the 2014 operating profits, relative to sales, of the imaging segments of Canon (14.5%), Nikon (4.8%), Sony (11.3%), Oly (-8.3), or Fuji (6.3%), Canon is still king of the shrinking hill. Canon can't make the world buy more cameras, but it will stay in business so long as it outperforms its competitors where it counts. If not the smartest camera company, then certainly the least dumb. Canon's edamame-counters are doing something right!
I don't think they had anything like the problems Nikon had at the Sendai plant.
And why would Canon's stock price dive if office equipment is doing so well. Overall as a company they are doing fine.
Since Canon have done little other than rehash old sensors and cameras for the last 5 years, it is little surprise their profits are higher. They were not hit by the Tsunami either. But they rely heavily on brand recognition and legacy to ensure people buy their products.
Also, Sony and Canon probably don't factor the cost of sensor fab into the imaging division. Nikon, who have no sensor fab, have to account for sensor costs since it is a supplied part. In Sony, it is a separate part of the business. Comparing profit can be very misleading.
Every company that relied on branding without making improvements has declined, sooner or later, relative to the competition. You can fool all the people some of the time....
57even: This is not altogether surprising - the market has matured after soaring increases in sales from the early 2000s. The market levelled out after the recession in 2008/9 and started declining.
Yes, phones have taken over from point and shoots, but they were mostly outsourced anyway. Most camera makers probably earn more selling camera modules to phone companies.
The decline in high-end sales is a reflection of the lack of real improvement in successive models. High replacement rates were previously driven by sensor improvements, but that strategy has now switched to packaging - trad SLR vs CSC, mod vs retro, fixed lens vs interchangeable, big vs small. stills vs. video.
Cameras are now like cars - all good enough that brand identity, features and styling matter more than actual physics or image quality. Most will swear blind that 'their' camera is better whatever testing reveals, and most folk are happy with an iPhone. Who cares about sensor quality? (OK I do, but most don't)
I didn't say people cared about DxO. I said the improvements were enormous - enough for every review to comment on them.
I did define 'much better'. Much less noise, 50% or more increase in megapixels, higher max ISO, higher tonal and dynamic range. DxO just demonstrates this.
If you think people are happy with 'good enough' when something better comes out, check sales of iPhone 6.
"How so? People bought the cameras they needed to do the things they need to do. By your logic, everyone should be pony'ing up for a PhaseOne."
People stay in the price bracket they can afford, whether its a D3000 or a 5Dmk3.
But within each bracket improvements were huge from model to model a decade ago. Check out DxOMark charts for the Nikon D70, D90, D7000 and D7100. 6 - 12 - 16 - 24 MP. Huge change in SNR, DR, ISO - but the last jump was far less significant than the first. The technology matured.
People get the best they can afford, not the best there is. They live with restrictions because they have to. If something comes along 3-4 years later that is the same price but much better, there is a good reason to upgrade. If the difference is marginal, there is no incentive.
Fact is each upgrade is no longer the major money-spinner it once was.
This is not altogether surprising - the market has matured after soaring increases in sales from the early 2000s. The market levelled out after the recession in 2008/9 and started declining.
No surprises here, surely? Compact small-sensor digicams were bread and butter to all these companies. Since most of them don't make phones (except Sony and Samsung) this chart merely reflects the loss of that market.
I suspect there is a lot more margin on high end products. The XT1 is Fuji's best seller, and the A7 is even more expensive. The EM5 wasn't cheap either. Add lenses and the CSC business model is fairly clear.
Of camera makers, only Fuji and Sony maintained overall market share (which is a good result considering) and actually increase CSC market share (which for Fuji meant coming from nowhere in 3 years).
I can't see Apple getting into dedicated cameras, but I reckon Samsung is a potential threat to all the established players, simply because of their phone market customer base and huge resources. Integrating cameras and phone/tablet function is something they are uniquely placed to do. What is the most logical upgrade path for a Galaxy phone owner?
Judging from all the complaints and dumb comments, this is going to be an excellent lens :-)