To add,,people do not move to mirrorless just for size advantage,,that's more garbage...stop talking for everyone else,,we don't all think like you...
BY far the most of them do, but I am sure many Samsung users are not a part of that group.
One of the neat things about mirrorless is size
versatility. I can make my m4/3 cameras gigantic or tiny (with trade-offs), depending on what I'm trying to do. It's not unusual for my GH4 to be in a cage, carrying a speed booster and a Sigma 18-35 with a mic on top. That is a large combo. But if I'm in daylight, shooting casually, and traveling light, I can strip all that off, bolt on a 14-140mm, and have a nice walkaround. Or I can go to any number of compact primes.
The tricky question for mirrorless cameras is, do you target the ultimate in performance and try to take on DSLRs, or do you go for the size angle and try and convince people that they don't need DSLRs in the first place? Or do you try and leverage the tech to try and do something DSLRs don't do well, like video? And all of the manufacturers have landed on different answers for that balance.
When you read on forums it is overwhelmingly size and weight loss. It is very evident to my mind this is the main factor. People will buy this as long as the tradeoffs are not too big. I remember very well that when EM5 came out, Oly made a some sort of a kickstart and many many DSLR users, also FF, gave up on their DSLRs with advent of that cam.
Many people also bought a m43 cam to acompany their DSLR but found their DSLR was gathering dust and sold it. Again: the convenience was the main reason.
I agree with you that this is the most common
stated reason in communities such as this one. However it appears that
as a market, the broad reasoning - at least in North America - has little or no interest in the "small and light" concept that drove development of the original PEN cameras. The sales simply weren't there, until the bodies were put on fire sale at values that created little revenue. That's why we're seeing cameras like the GH4, NX1, EM1, A7, etc. These cameras are gradually discarding the concept of size in favor of other advantages, because the camera market has completely failed to respond to miniaturization as a desirable innovation. They're also high dollar bodies being sold to smaller, more niche markets that are willing to pay those prices.
On the flip side, we now get 1", m4/3, and APS-C sensors in fixed lens compact camera bodies. The interaction in the market between these cameras and something like a GM1 remains to be seen. I personally suspect that the compacts will win that battle.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the market has spoken and the concept of mirrorless as a size/weight advantage is over.
Far from it. What we have seen is DSLR bodies (Canon SLT being the most notable) shrinking in size. What we have seen in FF camera's in a much smaller body. We have seen no G7, but we did see the next iteration of the GM1 (GM5). We see the Samsung mini, a 1" mirroless cam. The Sony A6000, A5000 are all very small still.
Oly now has the EPL7, not the bigger EP7...
The fact there is no profit does not mean they do not sell. It is the toughest part of the market. But apparantly the smallest cams sold by far the best in Asia for instance.
Also, the GH4 is big for a mirrorless but small for a DSLR. It still has environmental sealing, it has a swiveling display, it has huge vieuwfinder and 4K video. And with the two lenses I mentioned (12-35 and 35-100) it is much smaller and ligher than the DSLR counterparts. Not to mention the 100-300 mm lens which is only 500 gram. Also it has lots of controls on the body, timelapse etcetc.
EM1 has exceptional weatherselaing and I wonder which DSLR is as good, it has IBIS built in but it is much smaller than any DSLR out there.
It is for a reaosn you can find many proshooters on the net now jumping ship to EM1. Of course video pro's have a keen eye on the GH4.
The larger cams seem to be the money makers, but the smaller ones sell better I think.
The companies tried that and it did not work as a business strategy.
Like I said above. Recent development is not showing that.
Not that the size advantage is going away, mind you, but I think we're going to see the GM1, PL7 type cameras slowly start to wither,
First you state things as a fact, now you come with a prediction. The fact is that all camera brands have come out with smal bodies and in fact, Samsung and Panasonic have only recently come up with their absolutely smallest bodies of all. Panasonic also added some really smal lenses. Leica actually developped once lens for it. Not becuase it won't sell...
becoming strictly low end cheap bodies.
GM5 is not cheap, A6000 is not cheap, EPL7 is not cheap. EX2 is not cheap.
What mirrorless will do for its bread and butter is compete on features and price. For the crowd who feels a GH4 is too big, I think disappointment is looming.
I say the contrary, neither of us has proof. So let's not go into our cyrstalballs too much.
Incidentally, we are also nearly at the point that D3300/5300 and T5i successors could switch to mirrorless designs (without changing mount) and the broad buyers' market simply won't mind, or will actually welcome the change.
Sorry, but no on topic again.
Are Nikon and Canon planning to do so? I have no idea. But they could and it would create a better camera for your typical Rebel buyer - and a handy up-sell opportunity. (Oh, you value OVF and tracking AF? Well boy have we got a 70D to sell you!)
Canon Nikon etc: okey, but it is another argument so I know what I wrote but I'll leave it there as I want to stick to the topic as much as possible.
Canon 70D does video quite well the latest Nikons are doing much better. Many DSLR users are prejudiced towards EVF or have used it and dislike it, so Panasonics new tech (different from Fji I believe) here is a smart solution. It is more usefull to look at those things than just add lots of features.
Nikon's video output quality has improved, and Canon's dual pixel AF seems to work smoothly in video. Full frame availability is a definite advantage as well, as well as the strong range of lenses. But taken as a whole, it's difficult to take the consumer grade offerings from either company seriously for video. There are too many usability problems, codec problems, feature problems, etc. If video is your thing, Canon wants to sell you a C100 and Nikon just seems confused.
I leave the Canon Nikon thing for another argument.
Of course all of that is just my read on the situation, but I feel like people here tend to lose touch with the market forces that are actually driving camera sales and development. The GH4 is bringing home the $$ for Panasonic like a GM1 never will. They aren't blind to that.
The marketforces are not a force. The force is client. The client is a bit slow to change, certainly when that client is heavily invested in a system and it means losing money to change it. But I am sure the client will opt for a smaller, much easier to cary system when it means a few lenses are in there too. But small and convenient is the keyword. So if the client does not need lenses, he will probably opt for his iphone to shoot pics with...
