Lives in Poland Poland
Joined on Sep 4, 2010


Total: 1676, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Greg VdB: I have large hands and from an ergonomical point of view I´d never want my main camera to be smaller than the Eos 70D I currently use (a bit bigger like the 40D I used before is even better). So I'll happily buy a mirrorless in three years time, on the premise that it has to be LARGE ENOUGH. The larger-than-necessarry body can then be filled with an XL battery so that it equals or even improves on battery life over dslr's.

And what, hold mirrorless always vertically? That's just stupid. Problem is in a grip depth and overall ergonomics, something which aftermarket grips will never solve (BTW: that also defeats the only reason to buy mirrorless over DSLR - small size and weight).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 10:23 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: Outsell? I actually believe it. Mirrorless will be more appealing to the masses. Ma's and pa's looking for simple family photos will prefer the smaller, lighter and more portable options. And honestly, mirrorless is closing the performance gap to make it good enough for most consumers. Pros will never outnumber amateurs so I don't see why people don't think mirrorless will outsell DSLRs. I also don't understand why ppl are upset at this eventuality.

rrccad - Most people are. The better smartphones become the less chances mirrorless cameras have to outsell DSLRs.

Pat Cullinan Jr - mirrorless cameras are either comparable to DSLRs in terms of noise or louder. DSLRs got very well dumped mirror shock and shutter shock (big body being significant advantage in both topics), mirrorless on the other hand struggle a lot with dumping shuttervibration leading to plenty of problems with image degradation (there are hundreds of topics about that on A7). As for lenses - what you speak of is only theoretical advantage with wide angle lenses. In practice DSLRs still got the best, sharpest lenses on a market.

Your points are purely theoretical - in practice DSLRs win in all regards.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 10:16 UTC
In reply to:

Caerolle: "Mirrorless to outsell DSLRs 'in three years'"


The worst thing is how most of the effort seems to be put into video for most mirrorless these days, rather than stills.

And finally, Samsung, like Sony, is well short of a compelling lens system. Plus, I heard their lens opening or flange distance or something really intrinsic to the mount is all wrong. Well, and being Samsung, I would guess they have a bunch of useless 'whiz-bang' features that are far more trouble than they are worth, and get in the way.

Other than that, way to go Samsung!

Oh, I imagine their menus suck, too.

And BTW, wasnt it Samsung that made those adds about cameras not needing to look like dSLRs? By putting their little cameras in a dSLR body or something?

Paul JM - I guess it's said by former APS film format propagandist? Cause that's how it looks like.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 10:09 UTC
In reply to:

Lassoni: I don't know man.. I don't see many new ppl buying mirrorless. They're more expensive than entry level DSLRs. I see ppl going to store and asking about cameras (sometimes mirrorless) and usually the conversation turns to the "dslr is better anyway" and the store guy recommends that instead (or something).

They do it for a good reason. For people just starting photography an entry-level DSLR will be much better and slightly cheaper choice.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 10:06 UTC
In reply to:

iShootWideOpen: I helped the mirrorless segment by selling my Fuji XT-1 and an array of prime lenses last week. Going back to my primitive DSLR's.

Well done sir. Welcome back to serious shooting. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 10:04 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: The performance of their NX1 seems to be very good so even though people are loath to try new things, the market may shift somewhat, the way it did for Nikon DSLR's when they started using CMOS instead of CCD's and their performance improved.

Jeez, these mirrorless trolls are out of their mind. Market shifting due to Samsung releasing NX1. You've got to be kidding me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 10:03 UTC
In reply to:

Zeisschen: DSLR will be a niche product for OVF lovers and legacy SLR glas owners, nothing else. If it takes 3, 5 or 10 years is not the important question.

"Progress cannot be stopped"

Says Sony NEX user - maybe you should get a grip?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 10:02 UTC
In reply to:

T3: I think 3 years might be a bit optimistic, but I do think it's only a matter of time before mirrorless outsells DSLRs. Maybe 5 years.

AF performance on mirrorless cameras got noting to deal with sales of DSLRs. Mirrorless boys cling to this as an ultimate problem of mirrorless. It's not.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 09:59 UTC
In reply to:

Andrew Butterfield: It's extremely simple.

When mirrorless cameras catch up in the one area in which they slightly lag (focus speed and tracking for sports) there will no longer be any need for buyers of new systems to choose a DSLR. And that will presumably happen in the next two or three years. Or sooner, maybe.

People with heaps of old lenses will continue to use DSLRs for a while, but they'll start to be in the minority, then one day they'll be forced to switch like everyone else.

Canon and Nikon have given the others a head start but I'm sure they'll catch up soon (despite appearances) so they can cash in. Nothing like a worldwide format change to make a bit of money.

"there will no longer be any need for buyers of new systems to choose a DSLR" - sure there will be. Lenses (adapters are not an option for majority), system as a whole with all it's accessories, optical viewfinders (even if EVFs will be superior in every way to OVFs - plenty of people will still choose optics over tiny TV), support, clear long-term upgrade path, enormous market of used lenses and parts.

Even in most pessimistic scenario - where mirrorless deliver more than DSLRs do in every regard for a lower price - there still will be a significant DSLRs market (though in that case it'd be a minority).

Noone will be ever "forced to switch" unless Canon, Nikon or Pentax abandons it's DSLR mount like m4/3 did with theirs.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 09:58 UTC
In reply to:

prossi: It's too late for canon&nikon to do a resonably good job with mirrorless as Sony, Samsung,Fuji and Oly/Panasonic capture more and more DP market share. Why would they launch a product that fights with the bread&butter DLSR line?

We'll see, we'll see. Mirrorless might equally well repeat the history of APS format in a film era and never become an iceberg mirrorless propagandists on this portal want it to be.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 23:39 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1315 comments in total)
In reply to:

Petar Veliki: today upgrading means jumping from FF to m4/3.

m4/3 is too large to carry it everywhere I go. I still need a bag for that, and usually one battery just doesn't cut it... then I could use a lens... it's hardly a dream come true when it comes to carrying it around.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 23:35 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Samsung has the exact opposite strategy as Canon. Samsung knows that if they build a quality product with lots of features their customers will still be willing to spend the same amount of money and not ask for rock bottom prices.

They also know that if they are not leading the industry then there will be no catching up. It is lead or simply get out of the way and die by the roadside.

Canon on the other hand believes that its customers are for life. They believe that as long as they don’t change things too much their customers won’t want to change too much. Canon’s market share will be drastically reduced by the end of this year thanks to innovations by Sony, Olympus, Samsung, Panasonic, and even Nikon.

So in the end you need 3, possibly 4 cameras and a backpack full of batteries to replace single DSLR, while still having a tiny TV inside... awesome.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 23:27 UTC
In reply to:

rrccad: so CIPA shows that there was a bump up on shipping as of Nov 2013. most likely due to sony flipping from SLT to MILC as far as shipping emphasis.

since then, there has been no increase in shipping of MILC's marketshare against DSLR's, fluctuating between 23% and 26%

when you think that includes Fuji, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Kodak, Panasonic, Ricoh, Nikon MILC products and with all the press and positive news and internet fandom - eight vendors share a total of 25% of the marketshare.

Nikon and Canon are quietly taking between then basically the rest of the market - with maybe sony eeking out a few percentage points in SLT's.

Still if you look on - what's the leanding MILC? a 43% discounted NEX-5. even with a 43% dump in price, 4 DSLR's are outselling it.

So yeah. 3 years? doubtful.

Sony's market share is shrinking in DSLRs - less and less people believe there's a future for A-mount and more and more migrate either to EOS, F or E-mount (more rarely: Pentax). It was really short-sighted decision on Sony side to push A-mount so much back. And think that ~4 lenses per year+1 or 2 bodies + an clear timeline for next few years would be enough to at least keep current customers.

This division of a small market share among so many players is the reason of a few things: Companies loose money on a mirrorless cameras, significant price cuts in that market are very unlikely to happen, and these companies with more money focus very much on an aggressive marketing (including recently on a raise whisper marketing).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 23:20 UTC

"No, we don’t want to decrease prices in the market." - Then get out and make some space for others, as mirrorless will not outsell DSLRs in 3, 5 or even 20 years unless prices go down.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 23:10 UTC as 111th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ecube: As I recall, Sony was the first to offer [essentially] digital camera in 1981, the Mavica. In 1995, I used Mavica to document field work. I'm not sure but it seems that Contax was the lens used by Mavica. Around 1997, I tried Minolta D'Image at a traveling Minolta trailer. The so called "Minds of Minolta" merged with Konica and years later, Konica-Minolta was purchased by Sony

Why bring this up? Contax, Minolta, and Konica had GREAT lenses for SLR. Minolta, Canon, and Nikon produced GREAT Japanese lenses that competed with the best of German lenses since the late 1940s. I don't know when Sony stopped using Contax but I assume Sony owns all the lens design and technology pf Minolta and Konica. That said, I am puzzled why Sony seem well behind Canon and Nikon in producing lenses for their DSLR

On an "aside", the best Japanese lens I ever owned was the Takumar lenses from Asahi Optical Company, aka Pentax. That was in the mid-1960s

Be free to correct any of my errors

"Sony retained the K-M name and is actually Konica-Minolta-Sony to take advantage of the K-M heritage / brand recognition" - No, it did not. Sony doesn't have any rights to K-M name nor any rights to use K-M heritage - which they never used. Only people familiar with the history of A-mount know that but Sony didn't advertise it's DSLRs as anything to be a successors of K-M DSLRs.

Sony never benefited from Konica Minolta brand recognition in camera industry. They were specifically forbidden from doing that. That's why even up till now people are surprised when I mention that my A-mount camera is a direct successor to the Minolta and I can use Minolta lenses with it.

"such transaction includes ALL Properties, physical and intellectual" - that's also incorrect. Sony gained most of the intellectual rights, but not all. They bought most of patents related to cameras and lenses, but that's about it. K-M continued to manufacture and design small-sensor lenses for JVC.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 18:41 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1315 comments in total)
In reply to:

GPW: My upgrade path is from a D7100 DX to a pro DX, not to a FF camera. Why do I have to settle for less FPS, smaller buffer, build quality, and autofocus because I want to shoot with a DX camera? Is my money not the same as a FF shooters money? Am I not as important a customer as a FF shooter? At this point in time Nikon is saying NO you are NOT because you shoot a DX camera.

Nope, they just use D7xxx series cameras. Not the same, but does the job.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 14:29 UTC
On Canon to move camera production back to Japan article (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

tabloid: The truth is that nobody knows where their camera is made, until they look to see the small print.
I suspect that they will have a factory in Thailand/China, and a factory in Japan.
When its beneficial they will increase production in one or another country depending on the state of the currency …simple.

More likely they'll produce some models in Japan and some in Thailand. You can't just "increase production in one or another country depending on the state of the currency", changing production line and moving materials for it is both: very expensive and time-taking (which makes it even more expensive as time=money).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 09:57 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1315 comments in total)
In reply to:

Robert Eckerlin: For me and my 70-year-old and relatively poor back: a Full Frame camera together with its heavier (zoom) lenses are just too heavy to take them along on long hikes. I will therefore stick to a good DX DSLR camera (in my particular case a follow-on to my beloved Nikon D5000 or perhaps a follow-on to the Nikon D7100).

...By the way: I would be ready to pay more for a good DX DSLR Camera and its lenses, if weighting less.

"nandbytes" @"basically using EVF in store for a few minutes doesn't get you the full view of its capabilities" - I shoot for over 3 years with Sony EVFs and I find them inferior to a proper optical viewfinder.

That said though - I do agree that good EVF can be better than a small pentamirror OVF, but even then - small OVF is still better than small, cheap EVF.

"like you said of course there will be lag, but you can't notice it" - lag depends very much on the amount of light you have (quite obvious considering that sensor is exposed for longer in low-light), and whatever people notice it or not is debatable. I see that. But I also see a difference between 30 and 60 FPS or 60 and 120 FPS screens, and I most definietly do see a huge difference between current high-end EVFs and OVFs. Heck: even my mother can see it (comparing D800 vs Fuji X-T1) despite of being long past her mid age and having quite serve short-sightedness.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 16:00 UTC

Guy travels with 3 Full Frame DSLRs! Impossible! Where are mirrorless propagandists to burn him on a stake?!

[edit] Oh, nevermind me - there's already 2 down below.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 12:37 UTC as 30th comment
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1315 comments in total)
In reply to:

moving_comfort: The upgrade path is real. It just doesn't necessitate that every single lens purchase you make is part of that path.

The upgrade path is an optional direction to take that might utilize the majority of your past apsc purchases - having *no* upgrade path within your mount doesn't even allow you that option. You're stuck at aps-c, or m43, or whatever... Unless you're willing to sell *everything* and start over with a FF manufacturer.

The upgrade path is very real and an important consideration.


You can either build with upgrade in mind, or not. Having "right lens" doesn't mean "being stuck at APS-C". Despite of what author of this article suggests - you can have a right lens that will work great on both: APS-C and FF if your system has FF camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 11:22 UTC
Total: 1676, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »