Donnie G: IMO, the EOS M3 will be the dominate entry level enthusiast MILC camera in Asia and in Europe once Canon adds a few fast EF-M prime lenses to the system. I don't think Canon will bring an APS-C MILC to the U.S.. Instead, I'm guessing they will do a FF mirrorless hybrid stills/4k video capable camera to compete with the Sony A7 and Panasonic GH4. The other competitors are likely to just be caught in the crossfire between these 3 manufacturers, because it's gonna be brutal. :))
That may well be the way they go for the 'professional' range. However, I suspect they will still offer an adaptor that will enable use of both legacy and native lenses, even if just for wide-angle to normal size lenses where the advantage is most obvious.
Why are so many people obsessed with how successful a company was or how many cameras it sold? (Emphasis on past tense).
It has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of individual cameras, or how the market may be changing.
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 Weight and size of DSLRs is not an advantage, it is a result of outdated technology.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.
Stop grasping at straws. If there were a general issue related to mirrorless cameras, it would occur with all of them. It doesn't.
It happened in 1 Oly model AFAIK. The EM1. If it can be fixed in firmware, it's not just a mechanical issue is it? Or at least it is one that can be fixed by fine tuning the timing of different parameters to prevent resonance, which is what I have been saying all along.
If your assertion had any foundation at all, it would occur in all Panasonics, Samsungs and Fujis, as well as all NEX cameras. So prove it.
Moreover, if you were correct, it would not occur in SLRs, but it plagued both my Pentax K7 and D7000.
Since you know so much about physics you should also be aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete data because of incorrect assumptions based on partial knowledge.
The specific issue on the A7R is well documented. I dispute the attribution of this issue to all mirrorless cameras. The initial A7 models had incredibly loud shutters, which implies a great deal of energy being expended without any damping. It is notable that this issue was addressed on the A7ii.
As for the two stage operation of the shutter, there is no reason why the first movement would cause any residual vibration (at least not of the of the magnitude of the mirror). If it did, a small delay could be applied before exposure (as with mirrors) which would negate any possible effect. In which case, the issue should be no worse than a DSLR.
There IS a specific design issue on the A7R - in combination with a lens which has OSS. On a Fuji Xpro1 with a 55-200 mm lens (which has OIS and a similar pixel/view angle ratio) I cannot detect any significant directional image shift at any shutter speed, and the combination is 1/3 of the weight.
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.