Who's FF system will be in the best shape 5 years from now?

Started Nov 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
Graham Hill Senior Member • Posts: 1,355
Re: Who's FF system will be in the best shape 5 years from now?

Chris Dodkin wrote:

Again - you miss the point...

If you say so.

At this point in the curve, it's highly unlikely that any one manufacturer would be selling sufficient volume of product to cover the extensive R&D costs to get that product to market.

That only comes with later mass adoption.

No, you miss the point.  Mass adoption?  Where?  Mirrorless sales are in decline.  What is your definition of mass adoption?  It must be different from mine.  I saw the masses adopt digital over film.  It sure as hell did not look like what is happening to mirrorless sales now.   Did digital sales EVER decline once it started its path forward?  No.  They never did.

This is understood by the manufacturers, and they play a long game in order to break into a new market segment.

How's that game when their ROI is negative and growing! Fujifilm's losses were up over 100% year-on-year last quarter.  Fujifilm now has many lenses for sale, and 4 different bodies.  Yet losses increase.

There are many many reasons why mirror-less will supersede DSLRs - but there's one overriding reason which drives every manufacturer to look at mirror-less as the future for their camera lines.

They are simpler and cheaper to mass-produce

Sorry, but the prices I see are in direct contradiction to this.  Mirrorless is very expensive.  At least at first.  Then, when units dont move, the prices crater and you can pick up gear for 40-50% off.

That's because they have fewer moving parts, and less complex mechanics.

They have more electronic parts which is almost always the parts that fail.  Mechanical parts rarely fail.  I have owned SLR's since the Canon AE-1 days.  I've never had an SLR break.  Not once.  I have had two mirrorless cameras break and it was the electronics that fried.

The only reason prices for mirror-less cameras are high today, is to cover for the R&D costs.

If you say so.  I think you are far overstating the R & D efforts, by far.

Manufacturing costs are lower, and overtime, prices of mirrorless cameras will drop to lower levels than even entry-level DSLRs.

This reason alone will promote mirror-less over DSLR.

And if the market has totally collapsed by then?  If 80% of the people are A-OK with smart phones, then what?

Add in the multitude of other advantages for the photographer, and DSLR is destined for a declining and increasingly niche market.

SLR's produce profits.  Once they start losing money, and mirrorless becomes profitable, then I'll believe.  Not a moment sooner.  I am not religious like the mirrorless crowd.  It's all data with me.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow