-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Mirrorless shipments to Europe and America plunge
- Thread starter HappyVan
- Start date
But the time is not yet.
Mirrorless is capable of replacing enthusiast compact camera because the technology is relatively low. In fact, even generic brands like 'Kodak' is using the m43 mount. But, it is a major technical hurdle to replicate the DSLR's core strengths (continuous/tracking AF, OVF).
Once the technology offers a value proposition superior to consumer DSLR, then MILC will be able to overcome DSLR's superior ecosystem and economies of scale.
At that time, Canon and Nikon are the most likely brands to make MILC successful, because of their strength in mass markets.
Nikon is the one to watch. They said that they weren't worried about MILC. They were right in 2012/3. Mirrorless momentum fizzled out.
Nikon launched Nikon One as a bridge camera. Saying that it was something completely different. N1 sold well despite the sceptics.
IMO, Nikon is the only one with an integrated forward-looking strategy. From the N1, they are developing the best PDAF on-sensors. The N1 sensors are said to have the best quantum efficiency. Nikon claims that the N1 processing pipeline is the fastest by a magnitude.
What else do they need before they have THE DSLR REPLACEMENT.
Exciting times are ahead of us. But, you need to have realistic expectations. Technology and costs matter. Pipe dreams evaporate.
Mirrorless is capable of replacing enthusiast compact camera because the technology is relatively low. In fact, even generic brands like 'Kodak' is using the m43 mount. But, it is a major technical hurdle to replicate the DSLR's core strengths (continuous/tracking AF, OVF).
Once the technology offers a value proposition superior to consumer DSLR, then MILC will be able to overcome DSLR's superior ecosystem and economies of scale.
At that time, Canon and Nikon are the most likely brands to make MILC successful, because of their strength in mass markets.
Nikon is the one to watch. They said that they weren't worried about MILC. They were right in 2012/3. Mirrorless momentum fizzled out.
Nikon launched Nikon One as a bridge camera. Saying that it was something completely different. N1 sold well despite the sceptics.
IMO, Nikon is the only one with an integrated forward-looking strategy. From the N1, they are developing the best PDAF on-sensors. The N1 sensors are said to have the best quantum efficiency. Nikon claims that the N1 processing pipeline is the fastest by a magnitude.
What else do they need before they have THE DSLR REPLACEMENT.
Exciting times are ahead of us. But, you need to have realistic expectations. Technology and costs matter. Pipe dreams evaporate.
Last edited:
It doesn't have to completely replace DSLRs for all people, just a sizeable number. That size, so far, seems to be about 20%? Mirrorless cameras are an innovation away from taking another chunk away. What innovation is in store for DSLRs? Meanwhile, as mirrorless cameras become cheaper (so far, they haven't been that much cheaper) and perform nearly as well (they don't have to perform as well as mid to high-end DSLRs, just entry-level, IMO), they will really eat away at DSLR sales. So, that's my prediction. While the economy is sluggish, I wouldn't expect camera sales to be good for any type.
Also, I'm curious to know what conventional technology means. They are already using on-sensor PDAF, which sounds a bit unconventional. But, further refinements in the current technology may be all that's necessary to improve AF. The sensors are already the same, IQ-wise (Nex), but not everyone needs an APS-C sensor either.
At a better price-point, Nikon would have made bigger inroads, but I think it's, again, another sign that they really didn't want it to be too successful and pull sales away from the DSLR. They'd really rather you get into the DSLR line.
GeraldW
Veteran Member
So, here we are, a bunch of photo enthusiasts, who know all about cameras; while out there is a much, much larger group of people who could care less, and are using cell phones and iPads to take pictures. Somewhat analogous to the film era when the enthusiasts used SLR's and rangefinders, and the masses bought Instamatics and single use cameras. It differs, however, in that cell phones and iPads don't bring revenue to the camera companies. OK, Samsung and Sony do benefit from sales of phones; but Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji, and Pentax do not).
I have seen no statistics on how many potential (or existing) DSLR and MILC buyers have gone to the premium fixed lens cameras (G15, RX100, P7700, etc.). They are good enough now to replace a DSLR or MILC about 90% of the time and are even smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Especially when the cost, bulk and inconvenience of additional lenses is figured in.
History does tend to repeat itself. If you go back into the film era, from the 60's forward, there have been several low points in the sales of SLR's, usually brought on by the availability of something smaller, lighter, or more convenient. These would be followed by asome new "big thing in SLR's and sales would pick up again. The changes brought by the Minolta Maxxum being a good example. Might we not be seeing something similar right now? Obviously, the MILC's were not enough of a "big thing" to create a revolution similar to what the Maxxum did.
The next question, then; is what is going to be the next "big thing". I have only one possible thought on that. Sony's mirrorless Alpha series coming in 2014. If that can compete on even terms (or better) with cameras with separate AF sensors; it might be a game changer in the DSLR business and in the way cameras are made. That same sensor would also work in Sony's NEX series and in premium fixed lens cameras. Basically, an extension of Nikon N1 technology to everything; except possibly cameras with the smallest sensors.
Why assume that they are 'good enough' when you have no facts to back the proposition?
There are a class of people who seek affiliation with the 'next big thing'. Usually, they are wrong.
GeraldW
Veteran Member
I certainly do. I have a DSLR and a G15 and a Panasonic FZ200. Images at low to middle ISO print just as well as shots from the DSLR. I said about 90%, and there are conditions where the DSLR excells, which is why I still have one. I only print up to 8.5" x 11" with maybe 3-% crops. Larger might show more difference; but most people out there don't even do that.
The next question, then; is what is going to be the next "big thing". I have only one possible thought on that. Sony's mirrorless Alpha series coming in 2014.
Usually, threy don't recognize "the next big thing" from some catchy improvement. There is a difference. The introduction of the Maxxum as the first successful AF camera system changed the market - big time. Suddenly everyone was scrambling to come up with something as good or hopefully, better. That was the origin of the Canon EOS system with in-lens IS. Nikon followed; but took a while to convert to in-lens AF motors. It also allowed Canon to move to #1 is DSLR sales. Despite the people saying MILC's would take over, it hasn't happened, at least not yet Part of the problem is push Vs pull. If it's something like the Maxxum, the market will pull strongly on the industry. MILC's just have not had that effect; despite all the push from the industry.
I am a retired Engineering Manager in a product development function. Although our product line had nothing to do with photography, we studied the SLR business, as it taught us some valuable lessons in modularity, long term support of interfaces, mistakes made, and because most of my staff were amateur photographers and were familiar with the technology. It was also painless and fun and didn't threaten anyone personally.
There have been some queries about the selling price per unit.
Vitaliy did some work. Published July 5.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/7436/camera-sales-history-part-2#Item_1
As you can see, the average sale value of DSLR is usually higher than Mirrorless. In 2013, the difference between DSLR and mirrorless narrowed. Likely to be a difficult year for some mirrorless brands.
They can cut prices further and injure their profit margin. Or, they can watch sales shrink and cut overheads to match.
Vitaliy did some work. Published July 5.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/7436/camera-sales-history-part-2#Item_1
As you can see, the average sale value of DSLR is usually higher than Mirrorless. In 2013, the difference between DSLR and mirrorless narrowed. Likely to be a difficult year for some mirrorless brands.
They can cut prices further and injure their profit margin. Or, they can watch sales shrink and cut overheads to match.
Mr.NoFlash
Senior Member
Mirrorless shipments will rise again,
Reason: Canon will offer a camera which is a bit more serious than the first EOS-M with slow AF. Canon has now a sensor optimized to provide phase detect AF which usually is faster - at least with DSLR lenses attached. Thats important in the canon case because cannon offers only 3 mirrorless-optimized lenses ( compare that to microfourthirds with 28 AF-able mirrorless-specific lenses ).
the question will then be
How much market share will canon eat in the mirrorless market?
--
cheers
Reason: Canon will offer a camera which is a bit more serious than the first EOS-M with slow AF. Canon has now a sensor optimized to provide phase detect AF which usually is faster - at least with DSLR lenses attached. Thats important in the canon case because cannon offers only 3 mirrorless-optimized lenses ( compare that to microfourthirds with 28 AF-able mirrorless-specific lenses ).
the question will then be
How much market share will canon eat in the mirrorless market?
--
cheers
Last edited:
B
Basalite
Guest
The EU is not "Europe," nor is it a country to be compared to a country.
Craig Gillette
Forum Pro
What's the "Unit" price unit? Dollars? Euros? At best the unit price of a dslr is about "200" over the mr. And the apparent average "unit" price of the dslr is always under 550. That suggests that the higher priced dslrs are almost irrelevant in the overall sales picture.HappyVan wrote:
There have been some queries about the selling price per unit.
Vitaliy did some work. Published July 5.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/7436/camera-sales-history-part-2#Item_1
As you can see, the average sale value of DSLR is usually higher than Mirrorless. In 2013, the difference between DSLR and mirrorless narrowed. Likely to be a difficult year for some mirrorless brands.
They can cut prices further and injure their profit margin. Or, they can watch sales shrink and cut overheads to match.
happypoppeye
Senior Member
#1 ...and yet my camera still works perfectly know matter who sells what, where and how much
#2 ...there are a lot of m43 gear that is priced way too high relative to SLR gear ...not all but alot
#3 ...bad marketing and advertising. No where to actually, physically, see these products
#4 ...omission of features that most of the camera buying public want ...ie: in camera flash ...99% of SLR's have a flash built in and 100% of them that a walk in would buy have them
#5 ...bad reputation ...Olympus rep vs. Canon / NIkon rep ...average person walking into a best buy would take Canon/Nikon any day of the week
Same as any other industry ...some one comes up with something new and everyone goes crazy and the big players are going down, power to the people, best thing since sliced bagels, so much better than the big boys. ...and than in a few years everyone realizes that the Canon/Nikons are actually really good cameras compared to the new finnicky, can't track a moving subject, have to carry around an add on flash and often times pay more for it newbies.
Add to that m43 is at an instant disadvantge with he sensor size relative to APS-C (Using m43 because it is a big part of mirrorless).
Predictions: In the next few years Oly is in the same boat. Samsung becomes a bigger and bigger player in mirrorless, as well as Sony, having much bigger pockets. Canon is going to get going one of thee days and start taking real sales away from m43 ...Fuji is already starting but don't see them really becoming huge in the market. I'm hoping Panasonic just quits the m43 format and goes their own way...
#2 ...there are a lot of m43 gear that is priced way too high relative to SLR gear ...not all but alot
#3 ...bad marketing and advertising. No where to actually, physically, see these products
#4 ...omission of features that most of the camera buying public want ...ie: in camera flash ...99% of SLR's have a flash built in and 100% of them that a walk in would buy have them
#5 ...bad reputation ...Olympus rep vs. Canon / NIkon rep ...average person walking into a best buy would take Canon/Nikon any day of the week
Same as any other industry ...some one comes up with something new and everyone goes crazy and the big players are going down, power to the people, best thing since sliced bagels, so much better than the big boys. ...and than in a few years everyone realizes that the Canon/Nikons are actually really good cameras compared to the new finnicky, can't track a moving subject, have to carry around an add on flash and often times pay more for it newbies.
Add to that m43 is at an instant disadvantge with he sensor size relative to APS-C (Using m43 because it is a big part of mirrorless).
Predictions: In the next few years Oly is in the same boat. Samsung becomes a bigger and bigger player in mirrorless, as well as Sony, having much bigger pockets. Canon is going to get going one of thee days and start taking real sales away from m43 ...Fuji is already starting but don't see them really becoming huge in the market. I'm hoping Panasonic just quits the m43 format and goes their own way...
LincolnB
Senior Member
Actually, between Dec. and March it increased quite a bit, then it mostly leveled off.
What HappyTroll doesn't realize is that the larger the price gap between the two, the more compelling a purchase of the lower priced item becomes. What this graph shows is that a mirrorless camera will cost you less than a DSLR.
This is a forum for consumers, not manufacturers and vendors. Consumers are looking for the best value. Consumers are not looking to see which company they can help make rich. HappyTroll is nothing but a shill for Nikon - he's looking at this from to point of view of someone who owns Nikon stock, not someone who wants to take pictures. Look at his gallery; look at his posting history.
But will it be a difficult year for mirrorless camera consumers? Looks like not.
Yay for lower prices!!!!
They can cut prices further and injure their profit margin.
Less profit for them means more value to us.
Craig Gillette wrote:
What's the "Unit" price unit? Dollars? Euros? At best the unit price of a dslr is about "200" over the mr. And the apparent average "unit" price of the dslr is always under 550. That suggests that the higher priced dslrs are almost irrelevant in the overall sales picture.HappyVan wrote:
There have been some queries about the selling price per unit.
Vitaliy did some work. Published July 5.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/7436/camera-sales-history-part-2#Item_1
As you can see, the average sale value of DSLR is usually higher than Mirrorless. In 2013, the difference between DSLR and mirrorless narrowed. Likely to be a difficult year for some mirrorless brands.
They can cut prices further and injure their profit margin. Or, they can watch sales shrink and cut overheads to match.
Cailean Gallimore
Veteran Member
The reason that these shipments to America and Europe are down is because DSLR owning, filmophobic, mirrorless-hating, zealots have been intercepting them on the high seas and sinking them.
As we speak, users of mirrorless cameras are being forcibly relocated to uninhabited islands in the south pacific.
Save yourselves. Ditch the EVF whilst there's still time.
As we speak, users of mirrorless cameras are being forcibly relocated to uninhabited islands in the south pacific.
Save yourselves. Ditch the EVF whilst there's still time.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum