thoughts on 70D based EOS-M

[meland]

T3 wrote:

meland wrote:

You are speaking from the perspective of an enthusiast. Which is fine of course but not really representative of the larger buying public. Additionally many of the purchasers of such cameras aren't buying a system. The manufacturers would love them to be buying a system but unfortunately most are sold with one standard zoom lens and most remain with that one standard zoom lens. I would suggest the Nikon 1's failure (allegedly) is that its lenses are not really compact enough to make it more attractive to the kind of buyer that already finds DSLRs too large. The sensor size, other than to people like you and me, is almost incidental.

You're being naively short-sighted. When the next generation of photographers starts buying their system cameras, mirrorless cameras may very well be a serious alternative to DSLRs. And when those buyers looks across the mirrorless camera system market, they'll see Sony, Canon, and Samsung with APS-C mirrorless systems, Panasonic and Olympus with m4/3 sensors, and finally Nikon with a tiny 1" sensor. Do you honestly think that Nikon will be on equal ground against these systems that all use much larger sensors? Are you honestly naive enough to think that these other systems won't tout their much larger sensors as being a strong selling point against Nikon's small 1" sensor? You don't think that Nikon's competitors will show diagrams like this (below), pointing out just how small the CX format is, compared to their own larger sensors?

Yep, Nikon's 1" sensor really is that small compared to m4/3 and APS-C. And you can bet that Nikon's competitors will want to point that out to consumers every chance they get!

The problem with your thinking is that you're not looking long-term, a few years down the road, when mirrorless systems will be much more mature, and be serious alternatives to today's DSLR cameras. Sensor size will definitely be a selling point. And you can bet companies like Canon and Sony will tout the APS-C sensors in their mirrorless systems as being the best option for users who would have otherwise bought an APS-C DSLR!

Thanks for the technical lesson. And for telling me I am naively short sighted.

The point though is that you are only thinking in terms of what we have now in terms of technology and still from the viewpoint of a photo enthusiast.

Thinking long term (and I certainly don't claim to be a genius or have powers of foresight) the general public are and still will be more than happy with products that produce sharp results and that are easy to use. You, me and other enthusiasts may want large sensors that require lenses that at large apertures give a depth of field that just covers one eye but Joe Public isn't interested in that. What he wants is a camera that gets everything in focus, from front to back, no messing. And he wants cameras that are small. Now you diagrams illustrate very well why the larger sensors are always going to require big bodies to mount them in and why the corresponding lenses are going to be larger as well.

So this rush to larger sensors is a great thing for us enthusiasts but ultimately pointless for non enthusiasts even if it is used as a marketing ploy in the short term.

 

[meland]

xlotus wrote:

meland wrote:

What you've got to remember, and I've no axe to grind as to whether Nikon's or Canon's decision of sensor size in their mirrorless offerings is the correct one, is that the general public (i.e. not photo forum dwellers) doesn't give a tinker's fart about sensor size.

What they want is something convenient to use; that produces good results in a variety of conditions; has a brand name that they are comfortable with; and costs what they are prepared to pay.

The stuff that we endlessly agonise about would have those vitally important ordinary consumers stupified with boredom. That's what Canon and Nikon really have to worry about.

People who are getting more serious about their photography would not blindly buy a camera that costs several hundred US dollars or more without doing some research of their own. People are more savvy than you think they are.

They need some good reasons why a camera they are interested to purchase is worth the money they are going to spend and what it can do to their photography.

I have brought my various ILC systems to work for a show and tell session with anybody who is interested to buy a new camera.

I have counseled friends, co-workers, even relatives who live halfway around the world on what/which cameras to buy given what they planned to do with the camera, reasons why they want to buy, the amount of money they are willing to spend and how serious they are about photography etc etc.

Hello Uncle Arthur. I didn't realise you were on line these days!

To me, an enthusiast is someone who is interested on pursuing their photography and is willing to spend the sizable amount of money, the time and the efforts to do it.

Today I paid a visit to a local BestBuy store conveniently located right across the street from my office. A quick sweep on the various cameras they have on display, I can see an invisible line dividing those point-and-shoot cameras and those enthusiast cameras. P&S cameras cost around $100-$200 with a few up to $300 with more features like touch screen, WiFi etc. No ILC is in that price range. They start at $399 and up. Some advanced compacts also cost $399 or above such as Sony RX100.

It is for this reason that mirrorless cameras don't sell well in the US market. Ordinary people would not spend $500 for a camera if they don't care about sensor size, low light ability and so on. If they have $500 to spend, they would rather buy the latest models of smartphone and be happy with the results they get from the built-in 5-8 megapixels camera with tiny sensor.

 

[meland]

Snapshot7 wrote:

Canon has shown time & again that they will do whatever is needed to protect their cash cows (DSLRs). A high end EOS-M would seriously cut into those profits.

You know many here keep saying this. It isn't true. If Canon don't make a high end EOS-M then they will lose sales in this segment to Sony, Olympus, Samsung, etc., etc.

Canon are very pragmatic. If they are going to lose DSLR sales then they would rather lose them to another Canon product line.

But if I could dream:

EOS-M Pro:

- 70D Sensor

- Built-In EVF (Tilt able... similar to the Panasonic GX7)

- Built-In Flash (Able to be pointed up for bounce)

- Fully Articulating LCD

- Flash/Accessory Hotshoe

- Wi-Fi, GPS, & Orientation Sensor

- Microphone/Accessory Port

- And a Usable Grip

One day, such a camera might exist, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[meland]

rrccad wrote:

Snapshot7 wrote:

While I'd LOVE and buy a high end, fully featured EOS-M version, I doubt that kind of camera will arrive any time soon.

Canon has shown time & again that they will do whatever is needed to protect their cash cows (DSLRs). A high end EOS-M would seriously cut into those profits.

I doubt canon cares what you buy as long as it's a canon product.

the G and G1X models are pretty advanced P&S's that compare pretty closely to the features of the rebel series.

A high end Mirrorless still doesn't compete really against a DSLR in alot of ways, and if the person wanted a mirrorless, odds are they wouldn't want a DSLR.

Absolutely correct.

 

[justmeMN]

Remember Dual Pixel was developed for the M-pro and NOT the 70D.

No, it was developed for both, DSLRs being the priority, because that is Canon's larger market. Canon wants the competitive advantage of having their DSLRs be excellent movie cameras.

As Canon's 70D press release puts it "Compared with Canon's conventional Live View AF systems, Dual Pixel CMOS AF realizes shorter focusing times, exceptional tracking performance and smoother autofocusing during video shooting."

 

[xlotus]

meland wrote:

Hello Uncle Arthur. I didn't realise you were on line these days!

Sorry, I am not Arthur. Are you Daffy?

 

[T3]

meland wrote:

Thanks for the technical lesson. And for telling me I am naively short sighted.

The point though is that you are only thinking in terms of what we have now in terms of technology and still from the viewpoint of a photo enthusiast.

Thinking long term (and I certainly don't claim to be a genius or have powers of foresight) the general public are and still will be more than happy with products that produce sharp results and that are easy to use. You, me and other enthusiasts may want large sensors that require lenses that at large apertures give a depth of field that just covers one eye but Joe Public isn't interested in that. What he wants is a camera that gets everything in focus, from front to back, no messing. And he wants cameras that are small. Now you diagrams illustrate very well why the larger sensors are always going to require big bodies to mount them in and why the corresponding lenses are going to be larger as well.

So this rush to larger sensors is a great thing for us enthusiasts but ultimately pointless for non enthusiasts even if it is used as a marketing ploy in the short term.

You have to realize that anyone who is seriously considering making the step towards an interchangeable lens camera is a very specific subset of "the general public". Most of the "general public" who "isn't interested in" the things we are discussing wouldn't be interested in an ILC to begin with! They'll get a P&S, or maybe even a high-end P&S, and won't even bother with an ILC. But people who want an ILC (mirrorless or otherwise) want an ILC because they are starting to care about things like sensor size, apertures, DOF, etc. So don't be so quick to lump them in with "the general public" that just wants a camera where they just want to push a button and get sharp results from front to back! The major flaw of your argument is that you think people who want an ILC (DSLR or MILC) are at the same level as people who just want a P&S. The reality is that people who are interested in (or, shall we say, "showing *enthusiasm* for") buying an ILC are, in reality, more in the "enthusiast" camp than the rest of the "general public."

Furthermore, what you fail to realize is that the type of consumers who are buying DSLRs today (and that includes all those consumers who consistently make entry-level DSLRs like the Canon Rebels and Nikon D3200's top sellers on Amazon) are the same kind of consumers who will be buying mirrorless ILC in the future. If the mirrorless ILC (or DSLM -- Digital Single Lens Mirrorless-- as some are now calling it) is to be the successor to today's DSLRs, or at least the comparable counterpart, then it makes perfect sense for these cameras to offer a comparable-sized sensor. Don't take consumers for fools. Consumers do their research. They look for advice on the internet. They have lots of resources to turn to in order to inform themselves.

Also, don't be so quick to dismiss the value, and role, of the enthusiast. Enthusiasts are *influencers*. They tend to *influence* people who are are below the level of the "enthusiast". Many less-knowledgeable buyers look to enthusiasts for guidance on what to buy, and are very much swayed by what they see enthusiasts using. And enthusiasts are *definitely* aware of sensor size! You're very naive to dismiss the effect and sway of enthusiasts on what other consumers end up buying. I've certainly been asked, countless times, for advice on camera buying, asked about what equipment I use, and why I use it. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are people I've met or know who have bought a particular camera or camera brand simply because they saw an enthusiast such as myself using it! That's just the way things are. So don't be naive enough to think that just because enthusiasts happen to choose a particular camera or brand, it won't have any effect on anyone else's buying decisions.

 

[JamesErik1971]

T3 wrote:

meland wrote:

Thanks for the technical lesson. And for telling me I am naively short sighted.

The point though is that you are only thinking in terms of what we have now in terms of technology and still from the viewpoint of a photo enthusiast.

Thinking long term (and I certainly don't claim to be a genius or have powers of foresight) the general public are and still will be more than happy with products that produce sharp results and that are easy to use. You, me and other enthusiasts may want large sensors that require lenses that at large apertures give a depth of field that just covers one eye but Joe Public isn't interested in that. What he wants is a camera that gets everything in focus, from front to back, no messing. And he wants cameras that are small. Now you diagrams illustrate very well why the larger sensors are always going to require big bodies to mount them in and why the corresponding lenses are going to be larger as well.

So this rush to larger sensors is a great thing for us enthusiasts but ultimately pointless for non enthusiasts even if it is used as a marketing ploy in the short term.

You have to realize that anyone who is seriously considering making the step towards an interchangeable lens camera is a very specific subset of "the general public". Most of the "general public" who "isn't interested in" the things we are discussing wouldn't be interested in an ILC to begin with! They'll get a P&S, or maybe even a high-end P&S, and won't even bother with an ILC. But people who want an ILC (mirrorless or otherwise) want an ILC because they are starting to care about things like sensor size, apertures, DOF, etc. So don't be so quick to lump them in with "the general public" that just wants a camera where they just want to push a button and get sharp results from front to back! The major flaw of your argument is that you think people who want an ILC (DSLR or MILC) are at the same level as people who just want a P&S. The reality is that people who are interested in (or, shall we say, "showing *enthusiasm* for") buying an ILC are, in reality, more in the "enthusiast" camp than the rest of the "general public."

Furthermore, what you fail to realize is that the type of consumers who are buying DSLRs today (and that includes all those consumers who consistently make entry-level DSLRs like the Canon Rebels and Nikon D3200's top sellers on Amazon) are the same kind of consumers who will be buying mirrorless ILC in the future. If the mirrorless ILC (or DSLM -- Digital Single Lens Mirrorless-- as some are now calling it) is to be the successor to today's DSLRs, or at least the comparable counterpart, then it makes perfect sense for these cameras to offer a comparable-sized sensor. Don't take consumers for fools. Consumers do their research. They look for advice on the internet. They have lots of resources to turn to in order to inform themselves.

Also, don't be so quick to dismiss the value, and role, of the enthusiast. Enthusiasts are *influencers*. They tend to *influence* people who are are below the level of the "enthusiast". Many less-knowledgeable buyers look to enthusiasts for guidance on what to buy, and are very much swayed by what they see enthusiasts using. And enthusiasts are *definitely* aware of sensor size! You're very naive to dismiss the effect and sway of enthusiasts on what other consumers end up buying. I've certainly been asked, countless times, for advice on camera buying, asked about what equipment I use, and why I use it. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are people I've met or know who have bought a particular camera or camera brand simply because they saw an enthusiast such as myself using it! That's just the way things are. So don't be naive enough to think that just because enthusiasts happen to choose a particular camera or brand, it won't have any effect on anyone else's buying decisions.

Nikon J1 = Best Selling Mirrorless Camera

 

[Jonathan Brady]

That damn Ashton!

 

[T3]

JamesErik1971 wrote:

Nikon J1 = Best Selling Mirrorless Camera

Yeah, and people used to buy cell phones just to make phone calls. Obviously, today's cell phones have evolved and matured far, far beyond simply being devices to make phone calls. Could someone like JamesErik1971 could have foreseen that level of maturation and change that the lowly cell phone has undergone, in addition to how consumers have adapted (and adopted) right alongside these changes?

My point is that the popularity of the J1 is kind of like the early cell phone market before the wide spread adoption of more advanced "smart" phones. Just as the simple cell phone evolved into a much more capable and advanced device, so too did consumer adoption of these changes.

Clearly, someone like JamesErik1971 can't see beyond the tip of his nose. He can't see beyond next week, next month, or next year, let alone a few years from now. He simply lacks the capacity to see the potential changes that lie ahead. Would someone like JamesErik1971 (not necessarily him, but people like him) have ever predicted that cell phone cameras would be disrupting the camera industry? Would a Nostrodamus like JamesErik1971 have ever foreseen that tablet devices would be disrupting the PC industry? Would a myopic thinker like him have ever predicted any of the countless amazing changes that technology has brought about in recent times? No, unfortunately, people like this simply can't even entertain the idea of change. People like that are this forum's equivalent of Kodak, Inc. That's why these types of individuals so stubbornly believes that the mirrorless camera will never evolve and mature beyond simply being "super point-and-shoot" cameras, and simply can't fathom the mirrorless camera's potential maturation to the point where it becomes a serious and viable alternative and competitor to today's DSLRs. That kind of thinking would require the capacity to envision evolution, change, and maturation of a product. And that's the kind of thinking someone like JamesErik1971 simply can't entertain. That's why he takes this current snapshot in time-- in which the current best selling mirrorless camera happens to be the J1-- and uses it as evidence that mirrorless cameras will never go beyond that state ("super point-and-shoot"). That's basically the equivalent of taking a photo of a small child playing with Play-Doh, and concluding that the child will never amount to anything more than that snapshot in time.

Over time, there will be a steady transition from DSLR to DSLM (mirrorless), especially as the technology evolves, and older diehard SLR users retire and die off, with younger users not so attached to the "R" (reflex) technology. Will it happen over night? Of course not. But people like Trey Ratcliff (read here: link ) are leading the way, showing that mirrorless cameras are absolutely a viable, effective, and advantageous (size, weight, bulk) alternative to DSLRs. And if Sony comes out with a FF version of their NEX, it will get even more enthusiasts, high-end users, and pros taking mirrorless cameras more seriously. My point is that we are now seeing the very beginnings of mirroreless's maturation curve. These are the very earliest days. But in the meantime, we're getting a lot of people who are too shortsighted to see these cameras as anything more than just being "super point-and-shoot" cameras for un-sophisticated users who don't care about sensor size, etc. Like I said, this is a very small snapshot in time.

 

[T3]

T3 wrote:

JamesErik1971 wrote:

Nikon J1 = Best Selling Mirrorless Camera

By the way, the best selling of pretty much any product category is usually the cheaper, lower models. With the J1 selling with 10-30mm kit lens at only $299 these days, and with a heavy marketing campaign, it's not surprising that it would sell well. But it's hardly a valid representation of the entire MILC category. For example, the best selling in DSLRs are always the low-end, budget-friendly Canon Rebels and the low-end Nikon equivalents. You certainly can't make a broad, generalized conclusion about the entire product category (MILC or DSLR) simply based on this! You certainly wouldn't draw the conclusion that DSLR buyers don't care about more expensive performance-oriented bodies, or FF sensors, simply because "Canon Rebel = Best Selling DSLR Camera"! Would you say, "Canon and Nikon should really stop making expensive FF DSLR bodies, because people mainly just buy cheap APS-C DSLR bodies"? So if you only looked at one particular statistic, in isolation, and without perspective, it can really distort the broader picture.

 

[meland]

T3 wrote:

You have to realize that anyone who is seriously considering making the step towards an interchangeable lens camera is a very specific subset of "the general public". Most of the "general public" who "isn't interested in" the things we are discussing wouldn't be interested in an ILC to begin with! They'll get a P&S, or maybe even a high-end P&S, and won't even bother with an ILC. But people who want an ILC (mirrorless or otherwise) want an ILC because they are starting to care about things like sensor size, apertures, DOF, etc. So don't be so quick to lump them in with "the general public" that just wants a camera where they just want to push a button and get sharp results from front to back! The major flaw of your argument is that you think people who want an ILC (DSLR or MILC) are at the same level as people who just want a P&S. The reality is that people who are interested in (or, shall we say, "showing *enthusiasm* for") buying an ILC are, in reality, more in the "enthusiast" camp than the rest of the "general public."

You are partially right of course. However I disagree that all, or even most, people who get an ILC are interested in sensor size, apertures, DOF, etc. In many cases they get one because either they realise, or the salesman tells them, that an ILC will give them better photographs for shooting their new baby, their kids playing soccer, or a special vacation or event. If their P&S or phone would do those things well they would certainly use those. They have no interest in apertures or shutter speeds or ISO, etc., and most will only ever use their cameras set to P.

Furthermore, what you fail to realize is that the type of consumers who are buying DSLRs today (and that includes all those consumers who consistently make entry-level DSLRs like the Canon Rebels and Nikon D3200's top sellers on Amazon) are the same kind of consumers who will be buying mirrorless ILC in the future. If the mirrorless ILC (or DSLM -- Digital Single Lens Mirrorless-- as some are now calling it) is to be the successor to today's DSLRs, or at least the comparable counterpart, then it makes perfect sense for these cameras to offer a comparable-sized sensor.

Correct. But you seem to be assuming all mirrorless products will gravitate towards an 'enthusiast focussed' product line. They won't of course and there will be mirrorless with large sensors for enthusiasts who do care about sensor size and mirrorless with small sensors for people who aren't enthusiasts and just want their cameras to be small and probably some in between. Where the sales volumes will be is another matter entirely.

Don't take consumers for fools. Consumers do their research. They look for advice on the internet. They have lots of resources to turn to in order to inform themselves.

I don't take consumers for fools, although some are obviously. But if a significant proportion of consumers will buy a new car costing £10,000 or more without having done any research whatsoever, why should that be any different with a camera costing considerably less?

Also, don't be so quick to dismiss the value, and role, of the enthusiast. Enthusiasts are *influencers*. They tend to *influence* people who are are below the level of the "enthusiast". Many less-knowledgeable buyers look to enthusiasts for guidance on what to buy, and are very much swayed by what they see enthusiasts using. And enthusiasts are *definitely* aware of sensor size! You're very naive to dismiss the effect and sway of enthusiasts on what other consumers end up buying. I've certainly been asked, countless times, for advice on camera buying, asked about what equipment I use, and why I use it. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are people I've met or know who have bought a particular camera or camera brand simply because they saw an enthusiast such as myself using it! That's just the way things are. So don't be naive enough to think that just because enthusiasts happen to choose a particular camera or brand, it won't have any effect on anyone else's buying decisions.

Yes and some enthusiasts do influence others and I am sure you are one of those. But you've got to admit (or perhaps you won't) that there is also a type, many of which inhabit forums like this, that are so anal and pedantic that they just put 'normal' people off. And unfortunately one of the issues that the photo industry is trying to grapple with and has been for some years is that the average age of DSLR users is 55+ and getting older, is mostly male, and in many cases socially weak. As a role model that is not terribly appealing for younger entrants to our hobby.

 

[meland]

T3 wrote:

Clearly, someone like JamesErik1971 can't see beyond the tip of his nose. He can't see beyond next week, next month, or next year, let alone a few years from now. He simply lacks the capacity to see the potential changes that lie ahead. Would someone like JamesErik1971 (not necessarily him, but people like him) have ever predicted that cell phone cameras would be disrupting the camera industry? Would a Nostrodamus like JamesErik1971 have ever foreseen that tablet devices would be disrupting the PC industry? Would a myopic thinker like him have ever predicted any of the countless amazing changes that technology has brought about in recent times? No, unfortunately, people like this simply can't even entertain the idea of change. People like that are this forum's equivalent of Kodak, Inc. That's why these types of individuals so stubbornly believes that the mirrorless camera will never evolve and mature beyond simply being "super point-and-shoot" cameras, and simply can't fathom the mirrorless camera's potential maturation to the point where it becomes a serious and viable alternative and competitor to today's DSLRs. That kind of thinking would require the capacity to envision evolution, change, and maturation of a product. And that's the kind of thinking someone like JamesErik1971 simply can't entertain.

But unlike JamesErik1971you can?

 

[Dedcakes]

T3 wrote:

JamesErik1971 wrote:

Nikon J1 = Best Selling Mirrorless Camera

By the way, the best selling of pretty much any product category is usually the cheaper, lower models. With the J1 selling with 10-30mm kit lens at only $299 these days, and with a heavy marketing campaign, it's not surprising that it would sell well. But it's hardly a valid representation of the entire MILC category. For example, the best selling in DSLRs are always the low-end, budget-friendly Canon Rebels and the low-end Nikon equivalents. You certainly can't make a broad, generalized conclusion about the entire product category (MILC or DSLR) simply based on this! You certainly wouldn't draw the conclusion that DSLR buyers don't care about more expensive performance-oriented bodies, or FF sensors, simply because "Canon Rebel = Best Selling DSLR Camera"! Would you say, "Canon and Nikon should really stop making expensive FF DSLR bodies, because people mainly just buy cheap APS-C DSLR bodies"? So if you only looked at one particular statistic, in isolation, and without perspective, it can really distort the broader picture.

Absolutely! You definitely can't be making broad general statements!!! LOL! Come on!

And you're right, after the population is educated that the M is the best camera, everyone will flock to it. When this happens I expect Nikon, Panasonic, and Olympus to declare bankruptcy.

This is exactly like mobile phones. People used to care about small phones back in the day but now bigger is better!!!

 

[JamesErik1971]

you are going in logical circles, my friend. also, the nikon j1 is way more than a super point and shoot. you seem to have forgotten killer AF is a major part of what makes DSLRs great. the nikon 1 series is much more of a mini-DSLR, especially the V-line with EVF. The canon-M has much better image quality, but bad-to-horrible AF for moving subjects and no EVF or OVF.

Again, you are just some guy shooting some crop-sensor DSLR spouting off nonsense. Sorry for the ad hominem remark, but you simply don't know what you are talking about. This is the last time I reply to you. Enjoy my posts.

 

[Dedcakes]

T3 wrote:

You have to realize that anyone who is seriously considering making the step towards an interchangeable lens camera is a very specific subset of "the general public". Most of the "general public" who "isn't interested in" the things we are discussing wouldn't be interested in an ILC to begin with! They'll get a P&S, or maybe even a high-end P&S, and won't even bother with an ILC. But people who want an ILC (mirrorless or otherwise) want an ILC because they are starting to care about things like sensor size, apertures, DOF, etc. So don't be so quick to lump them in with "the general public" that just wants a camera where they just want to push a button and get sharp results from front to back! The major flaw of your argument is that you think people who want an ILC (DSLR or MILC) are at the same level as people who just want a P&S. The reality is that people who are interested in (or, shall we say, "showing *enthusiasm* for") buying an ILC are, in reality, more in the "enthusiast" camp than the rest of the "general public."

You are partially right of course. However I disagree that all, or even most, people who get an ILC are interested in sensor size, apertures, DOF, etc. In many cases they get one because either they realise, or the salesman tells them, that an ILC will give them better photographs for shooting their new baby, their kids playing soccer, or a special vacation or event. If their P&S or phone would do those things well they would certainly use those. They have no interest in apertures or shutter speeds or ISO, etc., and most will only ever use their cameras set to P.

Furthermore, what you fail to realize is that the type of consumers who are buying DSLRs today (and that includes all those consumers who consistently make entry-level DSLRs like the Canon Rebels and Nikon D3200's top sellers on Amazon) are the same kind of consumers who will be buying mirrorless ILC in the future. If the mirrorless ILC (or DSLM -- Digital Single Lens Mirrorless-- as some are now calling it) is to be the successor to today's DSLRs, or at least the comparable counterpart, then it makes perfect sense for these cameras to offer a comparable-sized sensor.

Correct. But you seem to be assuming all mirrorless products will gravitate towards an 'enthusiast focussed' product line. They won't of course and there will be mirrorless with large sensors for enthusiasts who do care about sensor size and mirrorless with small sensors for people who aren't enthusiasts and just want their cameras to be small and probably some in between. Where the sales volumes will be is another matter entirely.

Don't take consumers for fools. Consumers do their research. They look for advice on the internet. They have lots of resources to turn to in order to inform themselves.

I don't take consumers for fools, although some are obviously. But if a significant proportion of consumers will buy a new car costing £10,000 or more without having done any research whatsoever, why should that be any different with a camera costing considerably less?

Also, don't be so quick to dismiss the value, and role, of the enthusiast. Enthusiasts are *influencers*. They tend to *influence* people who are are below the level of the "enthusiast". Many less-knowledgeable buyers look to enthusiasts for guidance on what to buy, and are very much swayed by what they see enthusiasts using. And enthusiasts are *definitely* aware of sensor size! You're very naive to dismiss the effect and sway of enthusiasts on what other consumers end up buying. I've certainly been asked, countless times, for advice on camera buying, asked about what equipment I use, and why I use it. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are people I've met or know who have bought a particular camera or camera brand simply because they saw an enthusiast such as myself using it! That's just the way things are. So don't be naive enough to think that just because enthusiasts happen to choose a particular camera or brand, it won't have any effect on anyone else's buying decisions.

Yes and some enthusiasts do influence others and I am sure you are one of those. But you've got to admit (or perhaps you won't) that there is also a type, many of which inhabit forums like this, that are so anal and pedantic that they just put 'normal' people off. And unfortunately one of the issues that the photo industry is trying to grapple with and has been for some years is that the average age of DSLR users is 55+ and getting older, is mostly male, and in many cases socially weak. As a role model that is not terribly appealing for younger entrants to our hobby.

Fact!

There are really not enough young people interested in DSLR. Perhaps people may like a DSLR for indie film, but thats just such a minor subset of people who buy a T#i or 5D.

Just look at YouTube or Amazon. The DSLR video market is shrinking up and less and less people are interested in movie-like video.

The only people buying DSLR are old men who prefer heavier and clunkier devices with dedicated manual focus. One day they'll realize that a small ILC is much easier to carry when birding.

 

[T3]

meland wrote:

T3 wrote:

Clearly, someone like JamesErik1971 can't see beyond the tip of his nose. He can't see beyond next week, next month, or next year, let alone a few years from now. He simply lacks the capacity to see the potential changes that lie ahead. Would someone like JamesErik1971 (not necessarily him, but people like him) have ever predicted that cell phone cameras would be disrupting the camera industry? Would a Nostrodamus like JamesErik1971 have ever foreseen that tablet devices would be disrupting the PC industry? Would a myopic thinker like him have ever predicted any of the countless amazing changes that technology has brought about in recent times? No, unfortunately, people like this simply can't even entertain the idea of change. People like that are this forum's equivalent of Kodak, Inc. That's why these types of individuals so stubbornly believes that the mirrorless camera will never evolve and mature beyond simply being "super point-and-shoot" cameras, and simply can't fathom the mirrorless camera's potential maturation to the point where it becomes a serious and viable alternative and competitor to today's DSLRs. That kind of thinking would require the capacity to envision evolution, change, and maturation of a product. And that's the kind of thinking someone like JamesErik1971 simply can't entertain.

But unlike JamesErik1971you can?

While some people are the equivalent of Kodak-- unwilling to accept or entertain the idea of change and changing paradigms-- others are more like Fujifilm...much more cognizant of change, much more adaptable, and not so resistant to evolving with the times. Some people, and some companies, are too set in their ways, too set in their thinking. Other people, and other companies, realize that things don't stay the same forever.

There are some companies out there who smartly anticipate a day when a new buyer is going to be looking for a new ILC camera, and is going to give *equal* consideration to a DSLR *and* an ILC...and they're going to take into consideration all the *same* factors that a current DSLR buyer would take into consideration. Like sensor size. You can deny it all you want, but people do that today, and they'll do it in the future. While the products and technologies may change, human nature generally stays the same. Yes, there will be people who don't care. But there will be plenty of enthusiasts who do! And those enthusiasts become influencers. And I'm not talking about cragly old men. I'm talking about the next generation of young, forward-thinking photographers who care about all the same things that current photographers care about...such as sensor size, DOF control, IQ, etc. Companies that dismiss this idea, and think no one is going to care what sensor size they are using, are going to find themselves at a disadvantage in the future.

 

[justmeMN]

The only people buying DSLR are old men ...

The only people buying mirrorless cameras are Asian women.

 

[JamesErik1971]

justmeMN wrote:

The only people buying DSLR are old men ...

The only people buying mirrorless cameras are Asian women.

Aug 19th Rumors didnt hold.

 

[rrccad]

JamesErik1971 wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

The only people buying DSLR are old men ...

The only people buying mirrorless cameras are Asian women.

Aug 19th Rumors didnt hold.

"We’re told that an announcement date hasn’t been finalized for the EOS M camera(s), but at least one camera will be available before Christmas of this year."

I didn't know it was Christmas yet.