Previous news story    Next news story

CIPA starts to report growing mirrorless sales

By dpreview staff on Feb 15, 2012 at 00:06 GMT

CIPA has started publishing sales and shipment figures for mirrorless cameras, giving a clear picture for their take-up around the world. The Japanese trade body will issue separate figures for 'Non-reflex' cameras and Single Lens Reflex cameras, rather than a combined 'interchangeable lens camera' category. The first batch of figures show mirrorless cameras are becoming increasingly popular in all major markets.

Unsurprisingly, Japan leads the world in embracing mirrorless cameras, with over half the interchangeable lens cameras shipped between October and December 2011 being of the non-reflex variety. Asia (excluding Japan) is in second place, with 30% of ILCs being mirrorless, with Europe and the Americas sitting around 21%. The interesting thing to note is that mirrorless continues to grow, proportionally, almost everywhere in the world.

These four regions saw the mirrorless proportion of ILC shipments increase at least 20% in the last three months of the year. For instance, the proportion of mirrorless cameras sold in the Americas region jumped from 12.5% to 22.1% between the third and fourth quarter of the year, a 76% increase. Sadly it's unlikely that we'll ever be told explicitly how much of that is a result of Nikon's marketing campaign for its 1 System - which is likely have helped raise awareness of the sector as a whole, as well as those specific models.

The proportion of interchangeable lens camera sales made up by SLRs (light blue) and non-reflex cameras (dark blue).

November's flooding in Thailand will have had some impact on the figures, since it resulted in a dramatic drop in DSLR production (which would boost the mirrorless proportion). However, it also hit production of Sony's NEX-7 and NEX-5N mirrorless models so the skewing effect isn't totally one-sided. The bigger picture will become clearer once figures for the first quarter of 2012 become available.

Ultimately, though, a big factor in mirrorless sales is that the technology is maturing and most of the big players have products available.

If you're not up-to-date with the state of the market, click here to read our updated Mirrorless camera roundup.

Comments

Total comments: 207
Peter K Burian
By Peter K Burian (Feb 23, 2012)

Why are DSLR sales low in 2011? Because of the natural disasters in Japan and especially in Thailand. Numerous parts factories (and Nikon's DSLR factories) were severely damaged or destroyed.

Some of that affected mirrorless cameras too, especially the Sony NEX5n and NEX-7 but not to the same degree.

I don't know how many DSLRs Nikon was unable to manufacture, but it was a huge problem. .... I'll bet DSLR sales will show an increase in the second half of 2012 once the "supply chain disruption" issues have been fully resolved.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 23, 2012)

It could be one of those twists of fate that allowed mirrorless cameras to get a big boost of exposure. Frankly, a lot of consumers probably don't know about mirrorless cameras simply because they haven't seen many in use. People generally buy what they see other people using, and are generally less inclined to try something "new" unless they see a lot of other people doing so too...or if their default choice (the DSLR) had been unavailable. So in many ways, this "supply chain disruption" came at a perfect time for mirrorless cameras. It might prove to be a watershed moment for them.

But I don't know how much can be attributed to the DSLR "supply chain disruption." I realized that I'm one of those purchase stats because I bought my Oly E-PM1 kit in December...and it had nothing to do with DSLR shortages because I already have three DSLR's. I wasn't in the market for a DSLR. I was in the market specifically for an alternative to the DSLR...a MILC.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dirk U
By Dirk U (Feb 17, 2012)

The graphs suggest that DSLR's are sliding in all the major markets but gaining in "other" markets. DSLR prices, particularly entry-level, seem to be tumbling here in South Africa, perhaps to levels similar to those which First World consumers have been enjoying all along. Are DSLR prices here dropping and sales increasing because DSLR makers are shifting stock away from sophisticated markets?

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Feb 17, 2012)

How come the text and the charts don't match? Is America sitting at 13 per cent as per the chart, or at 22 per cent as per the text?

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 23, 2012)

You need to mouse over the "October – December 2011" box below the chart to see the chart change. Then you'll see the America pie graph switch from 13 percent to 22 percent.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
RoAlmeida
By RoAlmeida (Feb 16, 2012)

ILCs are just another good, convenient and now mature option for consumers. IMHO, in the short term they'll continue to take a significant share from bridge and entry-level DSLRs. But in the long run, I see ILCs getting very sophisticated, competitive and expensive as well. For sure they'll capture the attention from enthusiasts and also as second option for professionals. Let's no forget Canikon APS systems are over a decade old and ILCs started just in 2008. Just to name a few, the NEX-7, X-Pro1, E-M5 and soon the GH3 are just the beginning of a new and promising generation.. Making an option among dSLRs, dSLTs, ILCs and high-end compacts will not be so obvious like now. Regardless of the technology, we'll buy the best experience...

2 upvotes
Peter K Burian
By Peter K Burian (Feb 23, 2012)

I know a few industry observers who believe that in five years, mirrorless Compact System Cameras will outsell DSLRs. As they keep getting better and better, there will be less need for the average family or photo enthusiast to buy a DSLR.

0 upvotes
Frank C.
By Frank C. (Feb 16, 2012)

Size and weight is thrown around as the predominant argument for mirrorless cameras but in the end you still have to carry a chunky camera around lol, it's not like you can fold it up like a piece of paper and tuck it in your back pocket. Who cares if it's .5in smaller and weighs a little less than a dslr... the 'mirroless' vs 'dslr' argument is plain silly, if you want a real compact camera then get just that... a compact camera!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 16, 2012)

As someone who had to buy a backpack in order to acommodate all my micro 4/3 equipment, I'm tempted to agree with you. Except that there's no way you'll get the same image quality with a compact camera. Not even with the Canon G1 x or the Sigma DPs, as they don't allow you to choose your lenses.
On the other hand, mirrorless are perfect for someone upgrading from a P&S and is intimidated by DSLRs' complexity.
'Been there, done that'!

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 17, 2012)

Frank, as someone who has been using DSLR's since the Canon 10D, and who currently uses a 40D, 60D, and 5D, I can definitely tell you that there is a significant size and weight difference between an MILC and a DSLR. A couple months ago, I bought an Oly E-PM1 with VF3 viewfinder because I wanted something more compact and lighter than my DSLR gear. Wow, what a difference. I sling the camera strap across my chest, head out the door, and most people don't even notice I have a camera on me. Heck, sometimes I don't even notice it myself! The camera is so compact and inconspicuous, it's the ultimate street and take-anywhere camera that you can actually change lenses or put a fast prime on!

Anyone who thinks that just because you can't stick it in your pocket the size doesn't matter hasn't tried it for themselves. Even a small DSLR like a Canon Rebel looks huge next to my E-PM1 + VF3. The whole E-PM1 camera+lens+vf is the same size (or smaller) as my Canon 17-40/4L alone!

2 upvotes
smolix
By smolix (Feb 17, 2012)

I have both. A Canon T2i with L series glass and good optics otherwise (24-105/4, 70-200/4, 10-22/3.5-4.5, 50/1.8, 90/2.8 macro) and quite recently a Panasonic GF2 (14/2.5, 20/1.7, CanonFD 50/1.4, CanonFD 135/2.5). So I think I'm qualified to compare ...

Yes, the T2i produces way better photos. A lot better ones. 1600 ISO is still quite workable whereas on the GF2 800 ISO is pretty much the limit. BUT - the GF2 is much smaller. I've got it with me every day in my backpack. It weighs next to nothing and with the fast and tack-sharp 20mm pancake lens (1.7 aperture on Micro 4/3 gives me the same depth of field as an APS-C lens with 2.7 aperture) I've always got a great photographic tool with me.

I just wish Canon made an EVIL camera that would allow me to use my good glass when I need it. But contrast detect AF is probably not feasible with these lenses.

0 upvotes
Peter K Burian
By Peter K Burian (Feb 23, 2012)

Some people see the mirrorless models (very small in some cases; check the NEX-5n or the Nikon J1 or Olympus Mini for example) as the best of both worlds. Smaller, lighter more portable but with DSLR-style features and accept interchangeable lenses. Only problem is, that in most brands, the majority of lenses are not tiny. (That's why Nikon went with a slightly smaller sensor so the lenses would be more compact.)

0 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Feb 25, 2012)

I guess you haven't tried it.

I always throw my e-pl2 and a couple of lenses in to a bag when I go to school or work and it barely add any bulk. I can also put the e-pl2 with vf-2 and 20/1.7 in one jacket pocket and another lens in the other, providing me a camera with good iq and low light capability anywhere I go. I've had no problem bringing my e-pl2 and longer lenses like 45/1.8 and 40-150mm to stadiums/theaters where they don't allow dslr with teles. When I go on trips, I can bring all my m4/3 lenses (9-18, 20, 14-42, 45, 40-150) without adding to much weight to my luggage.

Basically, there is a big size/weight difference in practice use, especially with a mirrorless system with small lenses like the m4/3. Try it and you might just like it.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 15, 2012)

It would be more usefull to see compacts in here ass well as de actual numbers sold. Not every mirrorless is a lost sale for dslr. It will also appeal to people who stayed away from de dslr and as a second camera.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 15, 2012)

A mirrorless camera probably meets the needs of 70-80% of first time DSLR buyers, but in a smaller, lighter package. People are increasingly going to realize this. That's got to take a chunk out of DSLR sales.

3 upvotes
Willfergus
By Willfergus (Feb 15, 2012)

Good article, i agree 100%.

Camasino Team

0 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (Feb 15, 2012)

Who cares

1 upvote
MarkByland
By MarkByland (Feb 15, 2012)

A mirror is often used as a reflection of the soul. To be mirrorless is to be ...

Digital killed off film swiftly and without remorse and so mirrorless moves in for the kill.

Not a fan.

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Feb 15, 2012)

When the last dslr dies, the 'mirrorless' will and could be dropped from the name.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Feb 15, 2012)

Yeah, well, in some cultures they believe that if you have your photo taken, you're having your soul stolen. So does that mean we're all walking around without souls? Of course not. That idea is as silly as thinking that "to be mirrorless is to be...[without a soul]."

Let's leave all the superstitious mumbo-jumbo out of this, okay. It's all just camera equipment. What really counts, in the end, are the photos you create with the equipment. What you *do* with the equipment is really what imbues any inanimate object with "soul" (or whatever you want to call it). For example, a guitar is just a guitar, but when a guitar is played by Eric Clapton or BB King, it gets "soul" because of the music that is produced on it-- if you really want to get into the "soul" characterization.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 15, 2012)

BTW, do you also think that a view camera also lacks a "soul" because it doesn't have a mirror? I've seen some amazing portraits and images shot with view cameras.

1 upvote
geezer52
By geezer52 (Feb 15, 2012)

T3 - I believe you're taking the remark FAR too seriously

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Feb 15, 2012)

I'm just pointing out how silly it is that people are putting so much esteem and value in a mirror.

1 upvote
MarkByland
By MarkByland (Feb 15, 2012)

As a musician, I would like to point out the difference between a stringed instrument and some thing along the lines of a Keytar, or a keyboard guitar iow, which would be more appropriately compared to mirrorless technology in which the moving, soulful, parts have been replaced by some thing that 'does the same job' just differently.

On 'Soul Stealing': If a person willfully asks me to take my picture, and I agree, I have given that person the right to take a piece of me/my soul and place it on some form of media, therefor 'stealing' is subjective. On the other hand, if some one is sitting on a park bench and snaps a shot or two of some one a block away without permission, that is considered the 'stealing' in question and, never-the-less, just plain creepy.

And to reverse this quote a touch: "I'm just pointing out how silly it is that people are putting so much esteem and value in a mirrorless."

0 upvotes
DaveMarx
By DaveMarx (Feb 16, 2012)

If the mirror reflects your face, then you can look into your own soul. A mirror that reflects the outside world says nothing about the individual using it. The photograph reveals the photographer's soul - and no mirror is needed to take a photograph.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 16, 2012)

@DaveMarx, very well said! "No mirror is needed to take a photograph!"

Whether a camera has a mirror or not has no bearing on whether the camera has a "soul", whether the photographer has a "soul" or whether the photo has a "soul".

@MarkByland- if you honestly believe that the mirror is "the moving, soulful, part" of a camera, then how do you feel about rangefinder cameras, which don't have mirrors much like these digital mirrorless cameras don't have mirrors. Do you believe that Henri Cartier-Bresson lacked "soul", his rangefinder lacked "soul", and his photos lacked "soul" because his camera lacked a mirror?

Ironically, I think that if Cartier-Bresson was of this present generation and starting out in photography today, and assuming that Leica's never existed, his obvious choice in camera would be a mirrorless camera, because it is the closest equivalent to the compact, stealthy, quiet, mirrorless ILC cameras that the original Cartier-Bresson used in the film days!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MarkByland
By MarkByland (Feb 16, 2012)

@T3 - all of your points well made and I grant the fact that I have no long-term experience shooting mirrorless for any more than a few quick test clicks. I like the compact design and that some cameras are built around the APS-C sensor and can provide DSLR-like performance in most situations. I understand it's not necessary to have a mirror to take a picture. That said ...

Allow me to try and validate my opinion more than what I have. The design is interesting in that exposing the sensor leaves potential for intrusion of dust and debris while switching lenses in less than optimal situations. While sensor cleanings can be an income avenue for shops, the potential for damage increases.

I like prisms. I personally need a viewfinder and I prefer flip mirror. I feel like with LCD projection mirrorless, I'm getting the camera's point of view and not what I necessarily see completing my vision. Again, that could easily be contributed to not having shot with one for more than a few clicks.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 16, 2012)

Regarding dust on the sensor, all these systems have automatic sensor cleaning systems and anti-dust coatings that greatly diminish any sensor dust issues. I've been shooting with my Oly E-PM1 for two months now, and I've yet to either clean my sensor nor see any dust in my images. If I do ever see any dust in my images, I have no problem cleaning my sensor as I've done with every DSLR I've ever owned. And as anyone with a DSLR will tell you (at least before the age of auto sensor cleaning systems), having a mirror does nothing to stop dust getting onto the sensor. In fact, many believe that it is the flipping and movement of the mirror that churns up dust and particles in the mirror box, which allows dust to get onto the sensor.

As for an EVF giving "the camera's point of view", that's why I always shoot RAW and do my own image processing. Ultimately, the image is as *I* want it to be, regardless of what I saw in an optical or electronic viewfinder.

0 upvotes
MarkByland
By MarkByland (Feb 16, 2012)

You know, it's funny, I still won't concede to the fact that every one is still trying to tell me they're a better decision. You like what you like, I like what I like.

I won't accept camera manufacturers telling me what I like. As long as they provide choices, the trends can be as trendy as they want for as long as the trend followers are willing to bite.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Feb 16, 2012)

@MarkByland, there's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring what you prefer. Just pointing out that the reasons you mention are a bit faulty. And even kooky (that "reflection of the soul" stuff).

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Feb 15, 2012)

Add the word "mirrorless" and you bring about the photo commenting ire, the hating on any change, "include smart phones in mirror-less sales!", etc.

The happiest camera users on forums/comments are the one bashing other camera that they don't own. Why? That's beyond me as to why. Why are µ4/3 enthusiasts always defensive? Because they're products and forums are populated by other camera systems trolls.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Feb 15, 2012)

I absolutely agree! 1 point

0 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Feb 15, 2012)

" Camera System Trolls" raise your hands plzzz

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Feb 15, 2012)

Certainly agree.

0 upvotes
eliaskyo
By eliaskyo (Feb 15, 2012)

But by calling other people "trolls," aren't you guilty of trolling, to an extent?

I frequent the m43 forum because I am interested in a compact but well-performaing camera system to compliment my dSLR, not replace it.

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Feb 15, 2012)

No I don't think so, the people that I'm referring to as trolls, specifically go to another camera systems forum for the sole purpose of telling the users that their choice of equipment is foolish. "iPhone vs. GX-1" is a thread theme that recently popped up there, solely for the purpose of aggravating people. They're there just simply to mess with people, based upon camera choice.

Using a forum as you describe, complimenting equipment to a DSLR, well- of course that's fine, that's using a forum as a resource :) You're not going there to tell everyone you're getting a toy camera to go with your real camera, and want to know if you should just get an iPhone instead- THAT'S trolling.

0 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Feb 15, 2012)

maybe CIPA/Japan doesn't have worthy smartphones in the market. that's why they didn't include it here

0 upvotes
Photog74
By Photog74 (Feb 15, 2012)

Do you understand the concept of "interchangeable-lens cameras"?

2 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Feb 15, 2012)

owws ILC's, CSC's, MSC's, DSLM's, EVIL'S and WHATEVER's?

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Feb 15, 2012)

Why people keep comparing apples with pears. For example the Sony Nex system have the same size sensors as their DSLR cousins and basically they are smaller, lighter "DSLR" cameras with an evf. In theory there shouldn't be any difference to the final image they produce compare to cropped sensor DSLR's. Any other smaller sensor interchangeable system isn't directly in competition with apsc format and to me they are glorified P&S. The question is whether the evf will finally perform as good even exceed in some areas the ovf, until then both will exist. I sense some hostility towards the DSLR owners who are seen as posers just for having a DSLR. Probably some people think that there is no difference in owning a very small sensor or a big sensor camera and there is no need for big sensor/lens combination. I personally will be happy to buy any camera with a 35mm sensor even it has an evf providing that it performs. I worry as culture becomes increasingly hollow so will the cameras.

3 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 15, 2012)

What a glorious display of ignorance...!

5 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Feb 15, 2012)

obviously you are over and above the laws of physics... A happy life I wish to you with your "gear" whatever it may change to every three months.

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 15, 2012)

If you weren't so bigoted, I could show you what a 'glorified P&S' can do, but that would be a complete waste of time. At the end of the day, sensor size is all that matters: lenses, processors, shutters and all that are absolutely secondary. Yeah, right...
I guess Dr. Oskar Barnack must have had to put up with the same kind of absurd arguing when he invented the 35mm format.

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Feb 15, 2012)

If I can afford I would prefer even a bigger format than 35mm and that wouldn't be for megapixel reasons at all. It is very clear that you have no idea about what kind of impact a lens, camera/sensor size combination has on the final picture. There is much more to photography than megapixels. By the way I still use a P&S camera with 4mp about 6 years old and it can still produce fine looking pictures up to a point, surprised? People can invent as many formats as they like and we chose the one which suits our purpose, vision and pocket best. Unfortunately you didn't understand a word I wrote in my main post. Obviously you are in this forum for creating pointless arguments about nothing. My post is entirely about the evf with which I have no problems and hope it will develop fine for everybody's sake. First you try to correctly understand what you read than make some claims or comments.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 16, 2012)

'Any other smaller sensor interchangeable system isn't directly in competition with apsc format and to me they are glorified P&S'. That's what I read in your main comment, and that's a rather uninformed thing to say. It shows you're so convinced of APS-C superiority you never even cared to look at photos taken with what you find to be lesser cameras. For your information, a 4/3 sensor is TEN times bigger than a P&S sensor (with the exceptions of the Sigmas DP-1/2 and the new Canon G1 X). So that sentence you wrote does not make any sense.
If the highlight-blown photo you published at your gallery is the best you can do, you don't even know what photography is. It isn't even interesting: it has no emotional content, no message, no meaning - except possibly for yourself, which makes it a case of photographic onanism. What do you need larger formats for? You know as much about photography as I do about quantum physics - but at least I don't post comments on quantum physics websites...

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Feb 16, 2012)

You are a complete waste of time. "Ignorance can be bliss"

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 16, 2012)

You live in a state of permanent bliss, then... both as a person and as a photographer.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 16, 2012)

@oselimg - "My post is entirely about the evf with which I have no problems and hope it will develop fine for everybody's sake."

Huh? It sounds like your posts are more about rambling, incoherent, pointless thoughts that don't add up to anything!

1 upvote
oselimg
By oselimg (Feb 16, 2012)

Whatever personal issues you may have I suggest you look for answers somewhere else.

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 16, 2012)

Give up, T3. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

0 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Feb 15, 2012)

Probably 70% of this mirrorless sales came from iphone and other android smartphones:)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Feb 15, 2012)

I never realised that these phones had interchangeable lenses! How exacltly do you change the lens on them?

11 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Feb 15, 2012)

Since they sell 350,000 iPhones a day if they counted all phones that are capable of taking photos DSLR % would drop to 1% in the US. But this article is about interchangeable lens camera sales .

1 upvote
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Feb 15, 2012)

to the editor kindly include iphone and smartphones in these figure because they are the most used tool today.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 15, 2012)

This is about ILCs/system cameras. Smartphones doesn't fall under that category. Besides, there's not much the editors can do, because they only report the figures as reported by CIPA.
Why do people always feel the need, whenever there's talk about mirrorless cameras, and even though it's obvious from the context that it's about system cameras, to point out that compacts and smartphones are mirrorless too?

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
JackRoch
By JackRoch (Feb 15, 2012)

@pacogwapo
Why would you want to do that? Even as it is you can't distinguish those that bought a smartphone phone for a) its ability to make phone calls b) the quality of the camera. And now you suggest it would be helpful to add in 4/3, NEX, etc to make a one big category?

Then again, I suppose it would have the advantage that some could then criticise EVIL cameras for their inabilities as communication devices.

1 upvote
JohnHoppy
By JohnHoppy (Feb 15, 2012)

........and my washing machine and television are mirrorless too! Come on, Class, pay attention - this article is headed "Sales and shipment figures for mirrorless CAMERAS". Herrumphh!

1 upvote
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Feb 15, 2012)

are they capable of taking pictures? maybe then ask CIPA to include your appliances too.lol!

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 15, 2012)

Again, this isn't about devices with photo capabilities, or about cameras in general, it's about digital system cameras. The figures doesn't include compact cameras with fixed lenses either, so why should smartphones be included?

0 upvotes
geezer52
By geezer52 (Feb 15, 2012)

When someone say DSLR we know exactly what kind of camera is being discuss. "Mirrorless" can mean all sorts of not really comparable cameras. I propose a new standard shorthand term - MILC. as in
--Mirrorless
--Interchangeable
--Lens
--Camera

That narrows it down nicely, and eliminates P&S and smartphones

0 upvotes
chanpion01
By chanpion01 (Feb 15, 2012)

Sony a57 is coming out very soon. maybe april. it will be the high end camera for sony. it will unfortunately have the same sensor but much better colour and focus, better light/apertue mode and better shutter and better a lot of things

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Feb 15, 2012)

If the Sony A57 has the same sensor as the Sony A55... then there won't be anything unfortunate about that.

The 16.2 MP Sony sensor is truly outstanding.

1 upvote
Wally626
By Wally626 (Feb 15, 2012)

A57 rumors are all over the place, but it appears to be an A55 replacement with an upgraded 16 MP sensor, perhaps the one from the NEX 5N, maybe a slightly improved version. It's also rumored to have a new viewfinder, not known if better or worse than the A77/A65 finder. Will most likely have the electronic stabilization system of the A65 to keep the cameras from overheating during long videos. the A9X will be the new full frame high end, expected in September, with two more full frame models due in 2013.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Feb 15, 2012)

Lets see a chart showing which brand of lenses sell more than the other.
That should give us a clearer indication of what serious camera users are purchasing, as we all know a serious photographer would not limit themselves to the kit lens.
In regards to Japan, I've always seen it as a region that is obsessed with the newest, best looking gadgetry. I would gather that when the X Pro 1 is released, it will sell like gangbusters over there.

0 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 15, 2012)

Remember, Manufactures are not Artist, they are here to makes MONEY! They go where the MONEY go, If Chinese and Japanese Consumers wants Mirror less, then they will satisfy the market, you can contiue live in your dream land or fancy Artistic world, but the real world doesn't work like that...

I asked one of my friend who live in Hong Kong and work for a major camera shop there regarding camera sales and the availability of camera, such as Sony Nex 7, he told me that when the whole world are still waiting for stock, Sony supplied them enough Nex 7 to fill back order and sale before European market and definitely NA market. They are expecting a big shipment of the New Canon G1X and Fuji X-pro1, Nikon D800 and D4 in any days now. Also, he told me he already pre-sold more than 100 set of D800, X-rp 1 and G1X already. Which Camera store or camera salesman in NA could say that?

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Feb 15, 2012)

You should explain a little better what a "serious camera user" is, and also consider that it is your personal point of view.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 15, 2012)

So are you implying that "serious photographers" don't use mirrorless cameras? That's completely inane. Does that mean you wouldn't consider Henri Cartier-Bresson to be a "serious photographer" because his rangefinder camera was technically a "mirrorless" camera?

I think if Henri Cartier-Bresson were of this present era and time, and if Leica didn't exist, his natural choice would be one of these compact mirrorless cameras. Compact, stealthy, unobtrusive, no mirror slap sound, etc.

2 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Feb 15, 2012)

Ne-eh.
You release a product locally to shake out the last of the problems. Apple supplied the iPhone to the US market exclusively for a year and then went international. Ditto for cars. This is common practice and has nothing to do with favoring or satisfying the natives.

Now, if Fuji had only released the X10 locally, the orbs problem would have been an embarrassment but not a fiasco.

0 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Feb 16, 2012)

Actually Apple uses a "mouth-watering" marketing technique:
"-Look, bigger! Better than ever! Stylish! Apple! But you can't have it yet, you have to wait at least 6 months."
That's all they need to do, and it actually works. Marketing, it's called.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Feb 15, 2012)

Portability is key. I'm about to upgrade from the D5000 to the D5100 not the D7000 for this reason. Meanwhile, I love d-SLRs & nothing quite matches them. However, I've been trying out a mirrorless camera again (E-PL1 for 2nd time) & especially for landscapes & "always with you" shots, it's great. You get a near-SLR sized sensor (2x crop vs 1.5x-1.6x for most d-SLRs) & all the advantages which come with it--higher dynamic range, lower ISO noise, shallow depth-of-field possibilities, control & access to advanced settings--and the E-PL1 is hardly the most up-to-date or feature-rich model either. It's still 5 steps above using a PHONE for "photography" (c'mon people) and makes d-SLRs look like monsters.

As wonderful as d-SLRs are & I don't know that anything will totally replace them, mirrorless satisfies a major need we've been begging for for years--d-SLR or near d-SLR quality, control and most of its versatility without so much bulk & dead wood to drag around.

5 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 15, 2012)

Traditionally, Japan always is the indicator for what the trend of new technology or gadget are heading.(Except Iphone or Ipad) Don't forget the asian market(China, Hong Kong, Singapore, India and Japan, etc.) will be the battle ground for all the big camera manufacture, that off course includes Nikon and Canon. WHen you looks at the chart then you will realize the Mirror less share in Japan and Asia is the future of Digital Camera, I know most N. American or European still in denial that N. America is not and will not be the economical or consuming powerhouse no longer, face the future, people.

How many Digital Camera sold in an hour in NA and Europe combined Vs. China, Japan and India, you think?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 15, 2012)

If the Japanese market is an indicator of what the latest technology is, then the US market is the confirmation of whether a product will survive in the long run or not.

History has shown products that thrive in other parts of the world but fail to take off in the US never survive in the long run.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Feb 15, 2012)

Which products?
There examples of the opposite. American cars thrive in the US, but not in the rest of the world..

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 15, 2012)

"American cars thrive in the US, but not in the rest of the world..."

Yeah, but "cars" thrive everywhere. So your analogy doesn't fit at all.

0 upvotes
BamaPanda
By BamaPanda (Feb 15, 2012)

Quote. "History has shown products that thrive in other parts of the world but fail to take off in the US never survive in the long run."

That may have been true, but the US dominance is not as strong as it once was.

1 upvote
taktak91
By taktak91 (Feb 15, 2012)

As a DSLR, mirrorless, and compact P&S user in Japan, I personally don't understand the foreign craze for mirrorless. Mirrorless is just one of many options in the future of photography. It's not viewed as the only option, nor the ultimate solution. They have their uses, but don't suit all needs. At least, not yet. Many people in this forum say that DSLRs (along with their mirrors) are dinosaurs headed for extinction. That may be true, but with the technical advancement of smartphones, I think digital cameras themselves are headed for extinction. I believe that in the end, devices dedicated solely for photography (and videography) will go extinct, and DPR would probably have to transform itself to a smartphone (or something along that line) review site. Once that happens, those still using mirrorless cameras will be laughed at as using dinosaurs.

2 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 15, 2012)

Fo a Japanese, your English is very N. American, eh!

2 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Feb 15, 2012)

lol!

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Feb 15, 2012)

Right, mirrorless is a fad just like the internet.

1 upvote
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (Feb 15, 2012)

I don't think devices dedicated solely for photography will die out anytime soon. Shallow DoF requires large sensors and optics, neither of which favour miniaturisation.

3 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 15, 2012)

And how many % of people actually using a FF DSLR?

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 16, 2012)

'I think digital cameras themselves are headed for extinction. I believe that in the end, devices dedicated solely for photography (and videography) will go extinct...' That would only happen if the interest for serious photography - and I mean 'serious' as being a means of artistic expression - would also 'go extinct'. As long as there are creative photographers, there will be dedicated cameras and lenses. Your prediction will not come true. Just like CD failed to kill vinyl, fast food didn't replace a nice home-cooked dinner and hanging out with friends is still better than chatting on Facebook, there are some things progress can't eliminate.

1 upvote
JohnHoppy
By JohnHoppy (Feb 15, 2012)

The figures are good news for those of us who have invested in the newer tech and want to see it doing well : hopefully the results of competition will be greater choice and lower costs for all of us, including the DSLR sector. However, pie charts alone aren’t so informative and don’t show, for example, the relative progress by mirrorless models over the past 2 years : in graph form, showing shifts in Compacts and DSLRs as well as CSCs, it would be far more informative. I should also be interested to see how it breaks down by manufacturer. The farthest you go here is to mention the Nikon 1 campaign, which was only recent. I’m sure such data is obtainable – have a word with Canon and ask for their logs and forward projections!

0 upvotes
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Feb 15, 2012)

From 13% to 22% in 3 months in the Americas is nothing to sniff at. I agree that Nikon has brought mirrorless into the consciousness of Americans. We will see where it goes from here. My guess is up.

0 upvotes
kev777zero
By kev777zero (Feb 15, 2012)

13% for Americans haha. It's the stubborn mindset of "bigger the better" from the past. soon, DSLRs will be viewed as Hummers

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 15, 2012)

and cheap people will still envy a hummer while driving in their ford pintos....

3 upvotes
dmanthree
By dmanthree (Feb 15, 2012)

Check the charts again. It WAS 13%, then it ramped up to 22% over the next time period. We may be stubborn, but at least we can read charts. ;-)

2 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Feb 15, 2012)

Just imagine yourself driving Hummers, Durangos, Silverados, F150's and other gas guzzling American cars while holding this stuffs as ur camera:) yikes so lousy... LOL!

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
DaveMarx
By DaveMarx (Feb 16, 2012)

The interesting thing about Nikon's marketing is that they're not selling "mirrorless" - it's not about what the camera is not, but how much fun you can have using it. Toss in a very appealing star spokesman (Ashton Kutcher), tie it to an existing, successful advertising campaign rather than start from scratch... It's about "What sexy camera is sexy Ashton using now," it's not a measure of consumer acceptance of a new technology.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Feb 15, 2012)

As more electronic aids are made available on mirrorless cameras (data and WYSIWIG results on viewfinders, touch screen functions, exposure curve, focus peaking, hyperfocal distance calculating, etc), it is almost certain that the pace will pick up, possibly quite dramatically soon. The tipping point has been past. The Olympus OM-D cannot be the only ones going at the high-end mirrorless market. Its success will prompt others.

Canon still has no mirrorless (interchangeable lens) model yet. I think Canon is taking a huge risk, giving Fuji, Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic, a real chance in breaking the duopoly. That will be great for competition. Let's hope Canon continue to stay away and Nikon continues to make only small sensor mirrorless cameras. :)

Let's see who will take the next step and get a truly high-end mirrorless out, e.g. an APSC equivalent of OM-D or even a FF mirrorless camera, with even better EVF, AF, etc than the NEX7 and E-M5. I hope it is Fuji and Olympus.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 15, 2012)

well.... mirrorless buyer have no brand loyality.
today they buy oly, next time pana and then fuji or sony.

it only matters for people who invest in a system anyway.
people who spend a lot of money on lenses.

new buyer are not affected by the past at all.
for them it does not matter what oly, sony, pana etc. have produced in the past. what matters to most is if the camera + kit lens is good.

for the majority of CSC buyer with only a kit lens and a pancake it´s just like buying a compact P&S. they sell their old gear and buy what´s the best at the moment. no matter if it´s fuji, sony, olympus or canikon.

so no matter when canon decides to bring a mirrorless they will have success. canon said a while ago the EVF is not good enough for their standards. and looking at some EVF i have to agree!

so when canon will release a mirrorless system i bet it will be on par if not better then anything on the market.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Marcelobtp
By Marcelobtp (Feb 15, 2012)

Not having loyalty is a bad thing???
I think that type of monopoly by the lens is what made the canon and nikon the most used cameras for a long time...
Time to change...
EVF from sony nex 7 as you should have read is extremely good. In my opinion the next evf generation will surpass the sharpness of the ovf.
For me the 2 main things until today that are not good enough is the contrast detection speed(especialy in low light)
and the EVF. When they go professional with this 2 things better i will buy without thinking.

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 15, 2012)

of course it´s a bad thing... for companys.

if your customer is not bound to your products he will easily switch to another brand if their product is better.
but when you have 10000-20000 euro worth of lenses you will think twice.

that´s why it has no big influence if canon is late to the mirrorless party... as long at the product they finally come up with is GOOD.

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Feb 15, 2012)

@Henry: but lenses mean nothing when you buy a CSC for the first time; it becomes important later, when considering another CSC. Nowadays when a typical CSC newcomer (either a DSLR owner or someone upgrading from a compact) buys a CSC, he doesn´t care about lenses; he will have to buy new lenses specially designed for CSCs (with one exception - Pentax K-01).
As regards the Canon: I don´t believe they made a misteke by not introducing a CSC. The G1x is a great alternative to CSCs, having big sensor and decent lens (far better than any other kit zoom on CSC), making lens changes unimportant (and a typical CSC owner has apart from kit zoom max. one pancake).

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Feb 15, 2012)

But why does it matter what Canon does?
... regarding loyalty ... :D

0 upvotes
sglewis
By sglewis (Feb 15, 2012)

Sure people have loyalty. I recently got an EPM-1, decided the control layout was too basic, went to the E-P3. I now have the E-P3, the 14-42, the 12mm prime, 45mm prime, 17mm pancake and the 40-150mm. I also have the VF-2 (higher res. than VF-3), bought a C-mount adapter and some cheap CCTV lenses, got a pinhole setup, new bag, and will be ordering the 75mm once it's up for preorder. I'm also real trigger happy on the new body and grip. Not sure you can accuse me of not being loyal. And I have some pretty neat glass.

It won't replace my 5D-MKII, but I carry the Canon a lot less. And I'm not sure I still need my 7D, to be honest.

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Feb 15, 2012)

But that's not loyalty, that's just being smart. :)

0 upvotes
DaveMarx
By DaveMarx (Feb 16, 2012)

Brand loyalty is earned. People are no less brand-loyal today than in the past, once they find what they like. Just look at Apple. But when an industry is in transition, when your current brand is not keeping pace, and each month's product announcements offer new enticements... loyalty takes a back seat. Brand loyalty does better with mature products.

0 upvotes
draschan
By draschan (Feb 15, 2012)

as much as I enjoy looking through a good viewfinder (of a decent DSLR) I really enjoy using my pana G3. the available pancakes are incredibly small and of amazing quality. I overcome some of the limitations with stacking and stitching, mostly the camera does an incredible job. I go for m43 as carry around and for FF when needed. I am very happy to see the mirrorless market grow as I think this will cause every manufacturer to increase his product: DSLRs becoming smaller, morrorless getting hight IQ.... all in all a total win win situation.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 15, 2012)

i will always prefer a FF camera for studio work and a DSLR sized body fits my big hands better then a E-P3.

but i see why mirrorless is becoming popular in this economy.

with canons new 24-70mm for 2000 euro and a new 100-400mm for 3000 euro we see a tremendous increase in lens cost for DSLR bodys.

average joe will think a lot if he spends 2000 euro on a FF body when a standard zoom cost him another 2000 euro.
with m43 you can have a complete system with good lenses for 2000 euro.

1 upvote
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (Feb 15, 2012)

Average Joe don't need no FF...

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 15, 2012)

but average joe nevertheless buys it....

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
1 upvote
CTaylorTX
By CTaylorTX (Feb 15, 2012)

...and cannot explain why he did choose it over an APC camera

1 upvote
gbvalli
By gbvalli (Feb 15, 2012)

A lot of us cannot renounce the DSRL's optical viewfinder !!!!!!!!! It's another world !

6 upvotes
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (Feb 15, 2012)

Yes, but for most entry to mid level DSLRs, the optical viewfinder is small, dim and useless for focusing manual focus lenses. The viewfinder in the Panasonic G3 is close in size to the one in the Canon 1Ds-MkIII. That's unimaginable for DSLRs in the same price range. EVF technology is becoming more fluid (higher refresh rates, shorter lag), and offers some advantages over the optical viewfinder. There will be a time when the OVF will become obsolete, although I don't think we're there yet for the higher end of the market.

6 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Feb 15, 2012)

Optical viewfinder brightness can be increased by using faster glass.
The size of the viewfinder can be increased by purchasing a $30 magnified eye piece.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 15, 2012)

folks forget mirrorless format sensors initially were simply mirrorless integrated digicam sensors, the pixel pitch is very conventional, but of course sensor pixels have improved for those 'conventional pixel pitches.

how many mfr's have truly did the original technical research on pushing pixel pitch to the smallest size and truly understand the limitations and benefits? likewise push in the other direction, improving sensors so noise is less at higher ISOs (or all ISOs) than before for 'any size pixel' (smaller/smallest to bigger/biggest)... who DIDN'T do 'original' research and simply bought the sensor of 'other research mfrs'?

those who do the research... know what's there to know... and own the patents, the rest know only 'after the fact.

secondary mfr's buying sensors or farming out production capacity because they don't have it nor can afford it, are the ones in the weakest position to always be behind, and 'settle for hand me downs'... or white elephants.

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 15, 2012)

'Mirrorless format sensors initially were simply mirrorless integrated digicam sensors'.
Not true. The first mirrorless cameras on the market were the Panasonic GH-1 and GF-1, followed by the Olympus E-P1. All these cameras use 4/3 sensors, which are substantially larger than the ones in digicams - in fact closer in size to APS-C than to digicam.

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Feb 15, 2012)

Do you really think that new Nikon Sensor is actually made by Nikon? OF course it isn't, they never admit it but it's a Sony Sensor.

0 upvotes
chanpion01
By chanpion01 (Feb 15, 2012)

Mirrorless cameras have very good advantages over DSLRs and in the future nearly all DSLRs will be smaller. Cameras in the future might be $50 for a 100 megapixel camera with an electronic viewfinder and sensors will be nano size yet superior to the sensors we have now. They will have all the features that are in cameras nowadays and can shrink or grow according to how large you need it to be to catch lots of light. The mirror less cameras now are amazing and the technology is mature but think of the future. Canon hopefully will release a mirror less camera. Nikon 1 has tried but the Sony NEX-7, 5N & C3, Panasonic Lumix GX1, GF2, GF3, G3, GH2, Olympus EP3, EP2, EPL3, EPM1, EPL2 are far superior to the V1 and J1. The technology is great. Maybe DSLR's are old news now but the technology in DSLRs are still better than mirror less

2 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Feb 15, 2012)

Pure nonsense. 4/3 cameras mentioned are not far surperior to j1/v1. The Nikons are superior regarding AF, high ISO and metering. That has been shown over and over again.

2 upvotes
Keto
By Keto (Feb 15, 2012)

A 100mp camera? Pretty much no lens (expect maybe some medium format ones) would cope well with that.

2 upvotes
dark goob
By dark goob (Feb 15, 2012)

AnHund- high ISO is nonsense. Who cares if Nikon has a slightly less terrible worst-quality mode than current 4/3? That is to say, who cares how "good" high ISO is? The fact is, there are only four 1-series lenses. The cameras are very over-priced. The sensor is HALF the surface area of 4/3 yet the J1 and V1 bodies offer no size advantage. They lack rotating screens, lack scene modes, lack a proper mode dial, have terrible shutter lag, can't shoot longer than a few minutes of video, have useless 1200fps mode (?!) yet lack art filters or in-camera RAW conversion, no standard hot-shoe... Need I go on? Only thing 1-series really has is good marketing, which honestly is the most important thing, and Oly and Panasonic should get their acts together regarding serious advertising in the USA.

4 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 15, 2012)

You are right about progress but I haven't seen technology that could improve lens performance dramatically and without compromise. I'm tired of the MP race wherein each sensor format has reached lens limitations, wherein a good prime could not be sufficient for high-res cameras. I prefer less noise reduction and better DR in the future.

1 upvote
YouDidntDidYou
By YouDidntDidYou (Feb 15, 2012)

@dark goob
Nion's s successful USA marketing campaign of the Nikon 1 is a false economy if it's an eventually disappointing over priced product.

1 upvote
AndyGM
By AndyGM (Feb 15, 2012)

AnHund - Nikon 1 is not superior to m43 at High ISO, it is comparable, and only achieves this by smoothing the image data (even the RAW data, which suggests it is on sensor smoothing).

Smoothing is just another word for blurring or pixel binning - it is a reduction in resolution. So to equal a 16mp m43 camera, they have to reduce the resolution of their already 10mp sensor...

Not superior AT ALL!

The on sensor PDAF is very clever though, and I hope Olympus and Panasonic are not limited from doing it because of patents.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Feb 15, 2012)

You obviously haven't owned a N1. I have owned 2 Olys. Horrible noise in high contrast scenes already at Iso 200. But of course it is old sensor design they use for the current breed. Lets hope it gets better with the OMD ( did I hear overpriced Lol).

0 upvotes
chanpion01
By chanpion01 (Feb 15, 2012)

maybe but at the current rate nikon probably cannot improve on their 1 series. maybe a nikon 2 series needs to be made. nikon market very well and stupid dumasses buy it. only if you need to shoot fast action still shot then the camera is for you but really people would take a video of the sport rather than still shots of the sport

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Feb 15, 2012)

Look at the review of DMC-GX1, jpeg@ISO1600, (or why not 3200)
zoom in on the old lady, chin and collar. Compare that to Nikon 1 , and lets take in Pentax 645D for reference.

Yes, the Nikon1 is the smoothest, but is true to the original?
It looks more like a botox treatment to me.

So, yes, noise may be lower, but what more was washed away in the process?

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Feb 15, 2012)

So what if they can't improve the n1, they are great as they are if shooting raw.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 15, 2012)

... keep in mind, proportions of sales usually reflect proportion of models manufactured and distributed (pumped out inventory).
if a mfr makes both types, and starts to produce more of one type, and less of the other type, then sales will simply follow inventory levels on shelves... buyers buy what they see generally, unless they are particular, most will simply buy whats available 'in sight', and suggested by the sales clerk right there in person.

it would be nice to know how much of the sales dipped and rose for mfr's who produced both types, and how much of it matched or mismatched production level output; that would be the only true indicator if sales are getting better or worse for any particular type (or model line)

e.g.
if dual-makers

initially produce 100 dSLRs and 20 mirrorless (120 interchangeables)

then produce 50 dSLRs and 70 mirrorless (120 interchangeables)

by limiting the dSLRs, and upping the mirrorless, one forces the sales to simply follow inventory availability

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 15, 2012)

plus, what is excluded is

integrated digicams, especially the prosumer models

if they sell multiple magnitudes of the 'integrated' ZOOM LENS systems beyond 'interchangeables'... then that is even a greater significance than merely shifts internally with dSLRs and mirrorless 'interchangeable' systems for a mfr that produces both.

either way, integrated digicams overall dominate, the key now, is will the prosumer ones start to push deep into mirrorless AND dSLR sales (PowerShot G1X... being the first likely to do so with significant differences from past models to now rival any higher 'interchangeable' systems, bar the very top end)

0 upvotes
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (Feb 15, 2012)

There were some slides from an Olympus presentation (based on BCN rankings in Japan) which showed that overall dominant market share of Nikon and Canon has strongly declined since the introduction of mirrorless cameras. That does not necessarily mean that Canon and Nikon have sold less cameras; the total market for all interchangeable lens cameras has shown strong growth. But the trend is clearly there, and as more manufacturers enter the mirrorless playing field, it becomes clear that DSLRs will be replaced by mirrorless. Starting at the consumer end. Why buy a D3100 when you can get all that it does (and more) in a much smaller package for a similar price?

0 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 15, 2012)

Traditionally, Japan always is the indicator for what the trend of new technology or gadget are heading.(Except Iphone or Ipad) Don't forget the asian market(China, Hong Kong, Singapore, India and Japan, etc.) will be the battle ground for all the big camera manufacture, that off course includes Nikon and Canon. WHen you looks at the chart then you will realize the Mirror less share in Japan and Asia is the future of Digital Camera, I know most N. American or European still in denial that N. AMerica is not and will not be the economical or consuming powerhouse no longer, face the future, people.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Feb 15, 2012)

Let's not forget that all four of the major DSLR manufacturers were not updating their lines until this spring, and people knew it. The big two have been sorely in need of upgrades in their semi-pro and pro lines, so it didn't make sense to buy one of those unless you needed it immediately.

I don't doubt, however, that the mirrorless market is growing. And most DSLR sales are in the low end, where many people weren't waiting for upgraded models.

But the better question is: How are mirrorless lens sales vs. DSLR lenses? No doubt they will lag behind, but if they don't show significant growth over the next 18 months it's a bad sign. The only mirrorless model I feel confident will generate generous lens sales is Pentax' "too large" K-01. No one would want to buy this large body unless they are looking for image quality, which means considering some of that nice glass starting at $200.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Feb 15, 2012)

My next digital will be mirrorless. But not yet. These cameras still needs to be improved technically and in price, so I'm tend to wait a little.

0 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Feb 15, 2012)

I think the olympus OM-D EM5 is your best bet or a panasonic GH2...

0 upvotes
Stephen123
By Stephen123 (Feb 15, 2012)

I resent paying for a moving mirror I don't want or need in a digital system. I also resent paying for image stabilization in each lens. I resent paying for a touch screen which is basically useless. I care a lot about size and weight, but when the camera is smaller than the lens and too small for a hot shoe, that's too small. I don't need a better sensor than the one in the NEX 7. So I guess I'm done with FF. But right now there isn't a camera that I would choose if I had my druthers.

2 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 15, 2012)

WTF are you talking about???!!!

7 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 15, 2012)

Wow, so much resentment. How do you enjoy anything?

1 upvote
pabloman
By pabloman (Feb 15, 2012)

Stephen, fully agree with you on everything.

The times are changing and the sooner companies understand that, the better for them...

1 upvote
Stephen123
By Stephen123 (Feb 15, 2012)

Jmmg: I am talking about the current crop of Mirrorless cameras in relationship to DSLRs and why I don't want a DSLR but am not yet satisfied with the available Mirrorless cameras.

0 upvotes
DaveMarx
By DaveMarx (Feb 15, 2012)

It's not just about size and weight. I'd happily carry around a DSLR-sized light box to have a larger sensor. My problem is that the DSLR is an outright, silly kludge (inelegant solution to a problem, a.k.a. Rube Goldberg device). It's filled with mechanical systems that are more complex than any solid-state imaging system requires. The SLR was developed in a different age, to solve completely different problems than those faced by electronic imaging. It's a vestigial organ.

The father of the digital still camera is the video camera. Grandpa had a vidicon tube. Tweak the design to suit the needs of still photography, et voila! Sony and Panasonic are leading the "mirrorless" pack because they're the Nikon and Leica of pro video. Canon is already the Canon of pro video - why are they on the sidelines?

Still imaging is finally moving from typewriter age to the Internet age. Light blue will be exchanged for dark blue on those pie charts in very short order. Roll over, Beethoven!

7 upvotes
tko
By tko (Feb 15, 2012)

Ah, but what is the best selling, most efficient, state of the art cars out there? The hybrid, a terrible kludge of of microprocessors and chemicals and gasoline. But they work pretty well.

Is a kludge still a kludge when there is no engineer around to take it apart?

Funny how people proudly pronounce a dSLR to be a dinosaur and a kludge. But the part about how they get their butt kicked by a kludge is never mentioned. It's always, well, the performance isn't that good, but it's all I need.

Dinosaurs don't have to rationalize, they don't even notice what they just stepped on!

3 upvotes
migus
By migus (Feb 15, 2012)

"Dinosaurs don't have to rationalize, they don't even notice what they just stepped on!"... they simply vanish, to re-surface later as oil, museum pieces and movie material :-)

6 upvotes
Delacosta
By Delacosta (Feb 15, 2012)

Actually, DaveMarx makes a good point. When I look at the miniscule camera (lens+electronics) in my smartphone, I am amazed it can produce the quality of images it does. No doubt, coming advances in technology will relegate the DSLR to looking as an absurd solution to capturing digital images. So, what's not to like? People love to collect antiques. Usually, the value of antiques appreciates over time too! ;-)

0 upvotes
DaveMarx
By DaveMarx (Feb 15, 2012)

tko, yes, kludges will always exist. Often, as bridge technologies as new tech matures. The primary motive for hybrid autos is fuel savings. Best fuel saver is an all-electric car, but their still-too-limited battery range and the lack of rapid-charge "gas" stations makes them not ready for prime time. So for now, it's gas + electric. Eventually, if electric does catch on, the kludginess of the hybrid becomes more of a burden than a solution.

Kludges are usually designed by engineers, so they knoweth what they build. It's often a pragmatic, rather than best of all possible worlds choice. Yeah, engineers love to pick apart other engineers' kludges, and maybe the layperson doesn't care, as long as it works. Over time, however, a kludge presents a great big target to anyone who can accomplish the same ends with fewer parts, fewer assembly steps, etc.

0 upvotes
amalric
By amalric (Feb 15, 2012)

Prudently DPR omits the breakdown by brands, but it's all here, in charts slides recently provided by Olympus at a conference:
http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40557521

Mirrorless is certainly set to outmatch sales mirror cameras in Japan - it is already doing it - and in the rest of the world, with America coming last.

This explains a lot of misconceptions in the forums.
DPR should be more open to the full import ot the news. The C&N dominance in the ILC camera sector is probably over.

0 upvotes
36hike
By 36hike (Feb 15, 2012)

I'm again amazed -- as an old timer returning to photography after a number of years -- at the utter gullibility of today's consumers. What again is the advantage of these hybrids? Size? Weight? It certainly isn't image quality.

I suppose it's a wonderful thing for those suffering from tendinitis in lugging around cumbersome dslr's. But the real motive for companies isn't tech. advancement. It's profit margin by pushing an unneeded segment to market. Small sensors equal greater profits and slow down the demand for REAL innovation, particularly in the area of anti-aliasing and color.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
JosephScha
By JosephScha (Feb 15, 2012)

From another old timer - who had an old 620 box camera as a kid, then an instamatic 104, then a Pentax H1a, that got stolen then an Pentax H3V, went digital with a Canon A70, then a Panasonic FZ7 super-zoom, now a Panasonic micro four thirds camera (G10). Let me tell you the picture quality I can get shooting raw on the G10 is better than anything I had before. I am sure that a full frame, >$1000 body could do better but I would not consider spending that much or carrying that big a camera and lens. Micro four thirds cameras are not Hybrids. They are something other than SLR that also has interchangeable lenses. Buying one does not show the gullibility of the consumer. In my case it was the quality upgrade I wanted, at a price I was willing to pay, and a size I liked - only slightly larger than my FZ7.

9 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Feb 15, 2012)

"What again is the advantage of these hybrids? Size? Weight? It certainly isn't image quality."

Size and weight are the main advantages that mirrorless cameras hold over DSLRs. As a recent convert to the Micro Four Thirds system (coming from Nikon DSLR) I have been amazed to find that the difference in image quality between m43 and DSLR is minimal. In fact, I am achieving better results with my m43 system than I ever did with my Nikon gear.

Small sensors do not slow down the demand for sensor innovation. In fact, they enhance it. Mirrorless camera producers are scrambling to produce small sensors that can match APS-C and even full-frame.

By the way - welcome back to the photography fold!

7 upvotes
migus
By migus (Feb 15, 2012)

"What again is the advantage of these hybrids?"
that's what IBM said when the mini came around...
then what DEC said when pre-PCs appeared ("Who needs a personal computer?" went in history)
While the mainframe is still around, the rest is all gone; now my phone has a stronger computer than what NASA used in the 80s.

1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Feb 15, 2012)

dSLRs were not what consumers wanted. Too bulky and too complex. They bought them because at the time there was nothing else. Now we see dSLRs being relegated to their natural, niche space in the enthusiast and profsissional markets.

2 upvotes
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (Feb 15, 2012)

"What again is the advantage of these hybrids? Size? Weight? It certainly isn't image quality."

Mirrorless cameras use a variety of sensor sizes, depending on the manufacturer. Nikon uses a 2.7x crop sensor, m4/3 a 2x crop sensor, and Sony/Pentax/Samsung use a 1.5x crop sensor (which is the same as that in all DSLRs bar full frame).

This article is about the camera design, reflex mirror or 'compact system camera'; it's not about the size of the sensor or IQ.

1 upvote
maboleth
By maboleth (Feb 15, 2012)

Often quite misleading fact about small sensors is about how good they have become with noise and how much more mpx is packed into a small package. Yes, we may see a 18mpx micro fourthirds or whatever, but BIG disadvantage about small-ish sensors is their physical size that result in large depth of field and lack of fine details. While that may be good for macros and stuff like that, it kills more creative photography (dare I say - professional).
Even if they make fast lenses - they will be much more expensive than DSLR variants and DOF will again be greater for 2 stops compared to the FF.
Speaking of the fine details, you can't beat physics - medium format still rules for professionals that do product photography, fashion, even portraits, etc. - we still need physically big sensors. No the Nikon's 36mpx can't beat 20mpx medium format in terms of details! The bigger the better. Period.

In the current form, I see mirrorless as toys for consumers who replaced their P&S camera.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AndyGM
By AndyGM (Feb 15, 2012)

Its not an unneeded segment. I need it. I want it. I've just bought one. I wouldn't ever buy a DSLR because I'd never take it with me, its too cumbersome.

As for image quality, very few (a tiny proportion) of DSLRs sold have 32mm full frame sensors, those are the only DSLR models that have any image quality advantage. The best selling DSLR right now is the Nikon D5100, which has a Sony APS-C sensor in it. A Sony sensor that is 2 development generations behind the same size and resolution Sony sensor in the NEX-5N.

Its quite clear you have not looked into what Mirrorless cameras are, because they are not really "small sensor" cameras at all. The link to the Roundup article is at the bottom of this news story.

0 upvotes
MattyJ47
By MattyJ47 (Feb 15, 2012)

Not everyone needs the image quality of a full frame camera. The largest pic most people print is an 8 x 10. I will be looking into the mirrorless cameras in the future as I don't sell my pics and need the highest of quality that a pro does. If i was a pro i would use medium format. People have to stop worrying about the sensor size/iso noise/mega pixels and just enjoy taking photos if on a iphone or what ever else they have.

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 16, 2012)

Migus: that's what 140mm makers said when Oskar Barnack came up with 35mm!

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Feb 15, 2012)

During Oct-Dec last year there were many exciting new mirrorless cameras released. Over that same time frame, dSLR releases were basically in the deep freeze. We got rumors and finally announcements, but nothing to buy.

So it's not too surprising to see a big spike in mirrorless in late 2011. The question will be whether the refreshed lineup from Nikon and Canon later this year can reverse the trend or not.

dSLRs are not dead. They are just pining for the fjords.

0 upvotes
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (Feb 15, 2012)

There are other sources with numbers from the first half year of 2011 which already show a strong trend towards mirrorless. It's not just based on the Q4 figures.

0 upvotes
Nismo350Z
By Nismo350Z (Feb 15, 2012)

Mirrorless cameras are becoming a middle ground option that can please most groups. Those who use compacts for it's convenient size want better image quality so they don't mind a slight increase in size. Those who use DSLRs for the best image quality want a lighter package. Actually, there's another group who don't use cameras at all: spouses. They always complain whenever the pro DSLR and lenses are brought to a simple, intimate dine-out ;)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Maxfield_photo
By Maxfield_photo (Feb 15, 2012)

Love me, love my 70-200 f2.8, if she can't accept it, probably better off without her :P

1 upvote
J. Qian
By J. Qian (Feb 15, 2012)

The beginning of the end for the DSLRs?

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 15, 2012)

No. The DSLR is a tool in the midst of so many others and with specific functions that other won't have. each photographer takes the tool that he/she want to run your work or hobby.
There are photographers for all types of cameras, and always will be.

1 upvote
Ithackermike
By Ithackermike (Feb 15, 2012)

@J. Qian, No more than APS was the beginning of the end of FF film cameras. The remarkable success of the Canon Elph and the FF SLR features of the Nikon Pronea S raised the bar for point and shoot but it didn't kill the Contax G2 or the Nikon F4/F5.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 15, 2012)

@ Digitall,

How many % of camera buyer are real professional Photographer or working pro? 10%? 15%? 20%? 50%? How many people REALLY needed a Hasselblad, Lecia, Mamiya, Phase one, 5DMk2, D4, etc. Again, what we want and what we need is a completely different thing.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Jmmg
By Jmmg (Feb 15, 2012)

BTW, how do you define a Photographer? Everyone spend some $ and get some gears(toys) than going around and calls themselves a PHOTOGRAPHER, how arrogant and ignorant.

IMHO. unless you make money with your PHOTOS, than you can label yourself a PHOTOGRAPHER, otherwise please just call yourself either a family picture album maker or random picture collector. And it doesn't make any different either you are using a Kodak P & S or a Phase one with gigantic lens in front of it, and Yes that including myself.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Wally626
By Wally626 (Feb 15, 2012)

Yes, the days of widespread DSLR is coming to an end. Once the EVF and image sensor focus systems become good enough then the mirror just gets in the way. Right now the Sony OLED finders are good enough for me, but they have to use a semi-transparent mirror for the focus system which causes some loss of light to the sensor. Once the mirror goes away the speed the camera can run at is limited only by the speed of the CPU and memory. Essentially the camera can go from still mode to 60 or 100 fps like the NIkon 1 does with the small images it captures, you can do this with 16 MP or 54 MP. The CPU and memory are still following Moore's law. The size of the sensor is more an issue of physical optics, there is just an advantage in some situations from having a big sensor. I expect we will see, large format, medium format, FF, APS-C, m4/3, Nikon 1 sensor systems all being sold mirrorless, along with the camera phone. The smaller the senor the cheaper and more popular they will be.

2 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 15, 2012)

@Jmmg, Photographer is anyone who photographs. Hence there can be variations..., And it is not worth to us addressed the meaning of photographer, since my intention to simplify rather than complicate, and do not always need to be money involved. At this time, It is to be expected the market to grow with mirrorless cameras, but also, I think I will stabilize sales much faster than you can imagine. And time will tell us...At the moment everything is not to guess the future, both, the consumers and manufacturers.
And what we all need is to shoot more and the war of numbers are for economists and manufacturers. Not for real photographers. ;)

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 15, 2012)

@Jmmg, agree with you here, when you talk about % of camera buyer. Only a small percentage actually need these cameras. There is also those who buy the label, others who buy cameras above their dowries of photographers, and who think that buying the best cameras with your budget, shoot better than others and others still serves simply to satisfy your ego. Thats why I tell, there are photographers for all types of cameras, and always will be. And cameras for all kind of photographers too. On the one hand, this is no more than a fashion market. I think.

0 upvotes
DaveDog54
By DaveDog54 (Feb 16, 2012)

I love my NEX 5N…. Yes it would be better with an EVF and maybe someday I will buy it. Or, I'll get a 7 when it becomes $600. Part of the marketing of a 'Pro' is the big camera. It sets them apart. Although I think that someday, even the pro will have an EVF, but that is double digit years away anyway.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Feb 15, 2012)

The difference in Pro and amateur, is that the Pro makes a living through photography, is not distinguished by equipment. I know amateurs with better equipment than professionals. This stereotypes which are made in our head and we want at all costs to put labels on everything. Manufacturers love these labels...

2 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Feb 15, 2012)

DSLRs are dead!

4 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Feb 22, 2012)

Well, actually, no. :)

0 upvotes
LukeDuciel
By LukeDuciel (Feb 15, 2012)

I don't get the ones "defending" DSLR as a "pro" product.

Back to the film days, I do not think using a Contax G, Leica M or Mamiya 7 making one less of a "pro" user.

It's silly.

Everyone picks what suits him/her.

With film, you cannot get exact view behind the lens other than using a mirror box. Now we have electronic sensor which gives you exact what the final image looks like.

Yes there are people who like to look through glass but I think eventually digital camera will ditch as much mechanical parts as possible, hence gone the mirrors and even mechanical shutters.

I do not mean mechanical optical stuff is inferior or bad. I am indeed big fan of Leica M cameras. But it is the technology trend.

8 upvotes
healer81
By healer81 (Feb 15, 2012)

No kidding of course sales are increasing

0 upvotes
G10Rebel
By G10Rebel (Feb 15, 2012)

Good to know that the other side of technology grows significantly. I still trust DSLR though. Same hassle.

Probably when I am having trouble picking up DSLRs i'll move to ILC.

1 upvote
Maxfield_photo
By Maxfield_photo (Feb 15, 2012)

I think the mirrorless trend will stabilize eventually. Until recently people had to choose between the image quality of a DSLR and the size of a P&S. Now there is another option, and so DSLR owners who were unhappy with the size of their camera are migrating to something smaller, and P&S owners who were unhappy with the IQ of their cameras are migrating to something sharper and cleaner. BUT, and this is important to understand, THE SKY IS NOT FALLING!

Some people actually like a traditional SLR design, there is just something fundamentally satisfying about putting a high quality piece of optical engineering up to your eye, pressing the shutter, and hearing the satisfying "chunk" of the mirror. I don't care how much vibration it introduces, it just FEELS like photography.

I'm afraid like Chicken Little, the camera industry has been hit on the head by the mirroless apple. Not everyone wants a mirrorless camera.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 15, 2012)

"something fundamentally satisfying about...pressing the shutter, and hearing the satisfying "chunk" of the mirror. I don't care how much vibration it introduces, it just FEELS like photography."

Meanwhile, many of us wedding and event photographers have been wanting quieter and more well-dampened DSLRs, because people at these events are less enthusiastic about the "chunk" or "clack" of the mirror. Quieter is better.

You may not realize this, but mirrorless cameras *do* have an audible and vibrational-- but softer-- "chunk". I have an E-PM1. The first time I hit the shutter button, I was expecting no sound or feel, like a digicam. Not so! The E-PM1 still has a mechanical shutter. You still get a very auditory and tactile feedback with every shot. Next time you're in a camera shop, pick up an Oly mirrorless camera, take off the lens, watch the sensor, and take a shot. You'll see the shutter, feel the shutter, and hear the shutter! It still "FEELS" like photography to me!

7 upvotes
DaveMarx
By DaveMarx (Feb 15, 2012)

"I think the mirrorless trend will stabilize eventually." Yes, it will, probably at around 98% of the market. The only differences between a $100 p&s and a "mirrorless" boil down to sensor size, quality of the EVF, and "system" add-ons like interchangeable lenses. There's nothing stopping anyone from building a "mirrorless" with a 2.25" x 2.25" sensor, a 4x5, or even an Ansel Adams-quality 8x10. It's just a matter of building a bigger sensor at an affordable price. If you had an astronomical observatory's budget, you'd already have several.

You don't need a mirror, pentaprism, and focal plane shutter to take a quality image. A view camera has none of those, and an electronic camera doesn't need them, either.

A 1950s-vintage English sports car feels like driving, but nobody claims carburetors, points, and distributor caps are superior to electronic ignition systems. Most Triumph fans are quite happy with Mazda Miatas, and Teslas are supposed to be a lot of fun, too.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Feb 15, 2012)

@ T3 You're totally right, I just got a panasonic micro 4/3 camera and was a little surprised and disappointed in how loud it was. Something about that mechanical shutter sound that just cues people in on their soul being stolen.

I very much wish electronic shutter were a feature in DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. I feel like they probably should already be able to do it, as long as the shutter speed is kept low. If micro four thirds cameras made no noise when they took pictures I honestly think lots of event photographers would move over to them. It's weird how I can take video of someone and they don't care(even though it's more revealing) yet the noise of that shutter makes them think I'm up to no good.

0 upvotes
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (Feb 15, 2012)

"Not everyone wants a mirrorless camera."

Maybe true now, but you already see most manufacturers moving into the mirrorless design. As a disruptive design, it started from the bottom with models aimed at P&S upgraders who are intimidated by a big DSLR (PENs, first NEX models). It then moved into the entry level DSLR segments as AF technology and other limitations improved (GF1, G3, GH2, Pentax K-01). Now we can see a push for the higher end of the enthousiast market (NEX-7, Fuji X-PRO system, Olympus E-M5), because on a technological level the mirrorless can now compete with DSLRs.

There's no competition yet for full frame professional DSLRs, but I have no doubt that technological advances will continue to move up in the chain.

As that happens, the entry and mid level markets will become totally mirrorless. It's not a choice of wanting, it's a matter of what manufacturers offer. Maybe there will be one or two who continue to offer entry level DSLRs, but that will be a niche.

0 upvotes
Jon Stern
By Jon Stern (Feb 15, 2012)

It's silly that we are still calling these cameras "mirrorless". We don't call DSLR cameras "filmless"; film cameras weren't called "glass-plateless"; and glass plate cameras weren't called "portrait-painterless".

Equally, we don't normally name things by what they don't contain. Otherwise my computer would be called a chickenless, pyramidless, stuffed-toyless, Andromeda-Galaxyless, swimming-pooless, 5000-foot-statue-of-Charlie-Chaplinless, Pope Gregory-II-less, etc., etc., etc., ... laptop computer!

11 upvotes
MichaelKJ
By MichaelKJ (Feb 15, 2012)

I think many would agree with you, which is why several other names have been proposed (EVIL, CSC, etc.). Unfortunately, nothing has been able to supersede mirrorless. If you can improve on it, please feel free to do so.

1 upvote
psn
By psn (Feb 15, 2012)

How about just calling it a view camera? Or if people prefer, a direct view camera or digital view camera. DVC!

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mick232
By mick232 (Feb 15, 2012)

What about cordless phones?
Wireless networks?

7 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Feb 15, 2012)

Mirrorless and filmless are technically correct.

0 upvotes
MGJA
By MGJA (Feb 15, 2012)

Personally, I enjoy calling it "mirror free camera". MFC is a nice TLA, too.

1 upvote
Kund
By Kund (Feb 15, 2012)

Hahaha, catchy... :D

0 upvotes
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (Feb 15, 2012)

It's silly that we are still calling these cameras "mirrorless". We don't call DSLR cameras "filmless"; film cameras weren't called "glass-plateless"; and glass plate cameras weren't called "portrait-painterless".

But we do call them 'Single Lens Reflex' to distinguish them from the 'Twin Lens Reflex' cameras that came before them...

0 upvotes
RickPick
By RickPick (Feb 15, 2012)

It was exactly the same when Henry Ford brought the Model T to the market. Cars were called "horseless carriages". Sound familiar? Of course, as carriages drawn by horses became things of the past, reserved for ceremonial occasions and the like, the name "automobile" came to the fore. Same with digital cameras, undoubtedly. Not that there weren't some advantages to horses....

0 upvotes
Jay A
By Jay A (Feb 15, 2012)

It would be nice if some of the major manufacturers would begin to realize that it's not necessarily a love for something mirrorless that people like but rather a love for smaller, lighter systems. Years ago the market was dominated by cameras such as the FM2, OM1, AE1 and such. Then came the behemoths like the F4 and then the digital cameras. Why oh why doesn't someone like Canon produce a full frame digital the size of a Canon F1? Tell me they cannot do so and I will say that's a crock. I myself own a 5D MKII, Fuji X100 and Panasonic GH2. The 5D MKII rarely gets used anymore even though its picture quality is the best of the 3. Fact is I would just rather carry around something smaller and lighter. If Canon would replace the 5D MKII with something the size of a Canon F1, I would dump the X100 and GH2 in a heartbeat.

6 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Feb 15, 2012)

"Why are cameras so big?"
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&thread=40435138

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Feb 15, 2012)

Would be interesting, further down the line, to see how fixed lens non compact sensor cameras will also fit into this chart.
System cameras or not, they will eventually take up a section of the pie as serious camera options.
I'm talking about the X100, G1X, DP1 etc cameras.
Not many on the market right now, but in time.

2 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Feb 15, 2012)

I agree - it will be interesting.

I think these cameras are great, but I personally would not buy one.

The reason is that camera bodies are becoming obsolete much faster than lenses are.

With my m43 system, I can buy a new body every few years and use it with my old lenses. With fix-lens cameras, you have to throw away the glass with the sensor.

2 upvotes
Noogy
By Noogy (Feb 15, 2012)

There is no Black Swan here so I find this article another one of those "reporting the uneventful" exercises. Until the ILCs came along, there was only the high-end P&S before the entry-level DSLR. That was a niche waiting to be tapped and when it was tapped by Lumix, Olympus, Sony and Pentax - sure, the consumer would respond this way. I would be more interested to see the data five years from now - how much of the entry-level DSLR market have they taken over?

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 15, 2012)

I want to see a mirrorless full frame camera. I can't wait to buy one. :)

But please.... give us the lenses too.

14 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Feb 15, 2012)

forget it!

0 upvotes
Midnighter
By Midnighter (Feb 15, 2012)

While I agree with what you say and would love to see one FF, I am not sure how the ergonomics of the idea hold up. For me mirrorless is about being compact and lightweight while providing good image quality. While Sony has done wonders shrinking the camera body for APS-C the lenses are...well... fat. The Nikon 1 balances size of body and lenses but... well... the sensor is really quite small. The Pentax Q... well I am sure spies love it to death. It would seem that four thirds, as a sensor size, seems to have hit the sweet spot of how big a sensor should be to make it work well enough all around.

6 upvotes
skytoastar
By skytoastar (Feb 15, 2012)

Leica M9. Great lenses, too. Or did you mean affordable, mirrorless, full frame camera?

9 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 15, 2012)

Leica M9?

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 15, 2012)

Leica M9 is expensive and poor value for money (horrible sensor). Anything from Sony/Nikon/Canon is good.

3 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Feb 15, 2012)

I can't help but look at 70's SLR cameras and wonder why they can't make them that small now, while maintaining a 35mm sensor.
Are zoom lenses, autofocus, and in lens IS really a good trade off considering the glass ends up being smaller?
Personally I would love a full frame mirrorless system that embraces fast manual focus glass. Where optical quality and handling are the main priority. Call me old fashioned if you will.
Sure, it's a risky move, but so was the X100 with it's fixed focal length lens in this age of zoom lenses. And I'm sure Fuji do not regret their decision.
And yes, I am talking about affordable cameras.

2 upvotes
CTaylorTX
By CTaylorTX (Feb 15, 2012)

I would love to know the percentage of people on these forums that discount the modern EVF cameras (1.4 million pixel display or better) and yet have never shot a photo with one. Having owned a Nikon Ftn Photomic in the 70s and a progression of 35mm SLRs and then D-SLRs, I can state in no uncertain terms that being able to preview with a detailed EVF your exposure, white balance, focusing, and even watch a live histogram BEFORE you push the shutter button is a total game-changer. Not only CAN an EVF full-frame pro camera be made, it's inevitable. The only question is - who gets there first?

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Carol Stee
By Carol Stee (Feb 15, 2012)

The Leica M9 is a mirrorless full frame rangefinder camera, the smallest full frame camera made with small M mount lenses too. The body and the lenses are manual, which cuts down on size and weight. The M9 body alone costs US$7,000! In time other manufacturers will bring out small full frame bodies costing less than that. When that happens the DSLR will die out.

1 upvote
migus
By migus (Feb 15, 2012)

+1

since years i'm awaiting w/ hefty budget set aside for a reasonable version of M9, not from Leica. If nobody wants my money, it'll pay for my house insulation and solar heating.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Feb 15, 2012)

Just popped in mind, "Sony".

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 15, 2012)

This chart looks this way only because of an arbitrary definition of "mirrorless" cameras as having interchangeable lenses.

Compact cameras are mirrorless, as well as cell phone cameras.

Many more mirrorless cameras are sold each year than DSLRs.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 15, 2012)

It's not arbitrary at all. This is about system cameras. "Mirrorless" in this context is short for "mirrorless system cameras" or "mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras". Compacts and cell phones are different markets.

6 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Feb 15, 2012)

If you look at the charts you will see that the chart never mentions mirror-less. It says "The proportion of interchangeable lens camera sales made up by SLRs (light blue) and non-reflex cameras (dark blue).". So it is very clear, we are talking about DSLR vs non-DSLR interchangeable lens system cameras.

4 upvotes
starwolfy
By starwolfy (Feb 15, 2012)

I've never understood why some people are always stressing facts like you do about the definition of what is a mirror less camera.

I think everybody here know what we are talking about: PEN, GF, NEX, NX, etc. vs DSLR's.
Those mirror less cameras with larger sensors.

There is No need to play with words...

11 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Feb 15, 2012)

Well, first of all, the fact that all you guys have taken the time to respond shows that mirrorless vs. DSLR is a sensitive subject.

My point is that as an industry overall, cameras have already become mirrorless for the most part.

I shoot a Panasonic G2, which is a mirrorless camera with serious limitations. I have been thinking of moving (back) to a DSLR for that reason. I picked up a Canon 7D and T2i in the shop today, and while they were clearly very well made, excellent cameras, there was much less of a "Wow" factor than I expected. I thought that the autofocus would me much faster than my G2, and it actually seemed slower to me.

1 upvote
Gregm61
By Gregm61 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tell us something we don't already know....

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Feb 15, 2012)

Royal "we"?

1 upvote
sdyzpjt
By sdyzpjt (Feb 15, 2012)

Even though most of "us" know the mirrorless market share is definitely growing, I, at least, never know the EXACT figures.
Thanks for CIPA's report.

3 upvotes
dkirk7000
By dkirk7000 (Feb 15, 2012)

I don't think we need to look too far into the future when 4-3 camera will shoot at 200,000 iso and no grain, the only wall we will hit (as Nikon is now) will be too many megapixels for resolving power of the lens. The Market will just keep growing and growing.

2 upvotes
Umberto V
By Umberto V (Feb 15, 2012)

My friend recently bought a Nikon 1 V1 and loves it. He already has a Canon 5DMkII. He says the pictures are not as good as the 5D but convenience-wise its great and beats the best point and shoots. I myself can't justify getting one at the moment. I have a Canon 30D but would appreciate being able to shoot at higher ISO with less grain. Maybe my next camera will be mirrorless.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 207