Why Thom is wrong...

[Erik Magnuson]

Beach Bum wrote:

Then came the iPod and iPhone, and, in less than a decade, they went from loser to industry leader.

In terms of profit yes. In terms of market share (particularly in computers), not.

The point is that this was virtually impossible to predict back then.

And what turned Apple around? A dramatic change in leadership. That's what it takes: a big change in direction (which hasn't happened yet and almost never happens in Japanese public companies.)

Some are getting a little bigger, but no bigger than what would fit comfortably in a pocket.

One (recently coined) word: phablet.

 

[tomtom50]

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless or they can produce better EOSM and V1 units. Again, they cover Pro, Advanced amateur, beginner, small size DSLRs. (they both produce point and shoots too.)

Mirrorless is dead because... Canon and Nikon can improve their mirrorless system?

Does that make any sense at all?

How about this: DSLRs are dead because Pentax can improve their DSLRs?

 

[Dodge Man]

Mike_PEAT wrote:

Both Canon and Nikon used to produce FF (35mm/135 format) SLRs that are close in size to the E-M5.

Yes and they were toys, like the EM.

 

[Beach Bum]

stevo23 wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. They push the mirror out of the way when they go into live view. The first objection is that the AF is faster on mirrorless, sure using on sensor AF on a DSLR. Right now that is true but if you think Canonikon is going to sit on the hands and not improve live view to the point it is better than current mirrorless, I think they are smarter than that. It will happen or Canonikon will die. Mirrorless will lose the AF advantage in live view.

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. They also can use a laptop, tablet or smart phone as a remote. They have had this for some time. Mirrorless has no advantage there.

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless or they can produce better EOSM and V1 units. Again, they cover Pro, Advanced amateur, beginner, small size DSLRs. (they both produce point and shoots too.)

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

So is mirrorless really going to be dead? No, I think M43 because of the number of lenses and market penetration even though small will survived as a niche market camera. BUT I only think there will be 2 major players, Sony and Panny, possibly Sony and Oly but Oly seems to be on its way out or at least to a reduced market share and segment at this point.

Thom can predict, but so can I. I think that cell phones will only get better and be good enough for the masses, and Canikon will take up the rest of the market with some mirrorless being niche while other disappear. Because Japanese culture is different, it is hard for me to predict what they will buy. I am sure budding Asian markets will embrace cell phones, with pros and advanced amatuers buying Canikon.

Canikons strength is not just DSLR, it is lenses APS-C for smaller cameras and FF which mirrorless lacks.

I think most camera people know these points already and if they are honest with themselves, they already know mirrorless in its present form is not where it is at.

- Compacts won't die completely, but Nikon have vowed to own what's left while Panasonic have vowed to reduce their compact efforts and focus on higher value/higher end cameras.

Any links for these claims. One thing is for sure. If Nikon owns the compact market, it'll be a sad day. You're literally talking about the best compact maker (Panasonic) vs the worst (Nikon). This would be worse than the camera phone for the camera market.

This came from each's 2013 annual reports - and I generalized a bit.

I just re-read Nikon's and what they actually said is that compact unit sales remained flat amid a 30% contraction in the market (remarkable). Extrapolate that and they're gaining market share. In fact, they also plan a "flexible strategy" that will scale with the market and yet still maintain their full line of compacts. So Nikon sees worldwide value in staying with compacts for a time being. But they talk about a 30% market share - kind of like being valedictorian of the summer school class.

And Panasonic say they will decrease low end compact production and focus on high end/high value compacts and ICL. I don't know what they consider a high end/high value compact. Maybe an LX7?

In other words, Panasonic won't or can't stay in low end compacts while Nikon thinks they can. And that's only comparing these two.

I've said it before, but Panasonic rarely exits anything. All they really need to do is invest more in

Actually, they do exit things. How about Jungle? Or computer monitors? What about Panasonic bicycles? That's just three. Historically, they've anchored on a few core businesses and built around them. They're into a lot of things, but there are some common threads throughout.

There's no blanket statement that can be made there. Panasonic isn't just "mr. reliable" to be your buddy. They have to make money and drop things as they see need. I expect to see them start abandoning their vertical strategies so they can drop some of the non-profitable stuff. At least that's what I read into their statment about veritcal strategies.

advertising and possibly some restructuring. They already have a quality product. Plus they have much bigger money losers than their camera business, and it has a major upside. I don't believe

they even list their camera business specifically with respect to losses/gains because I don't believe it's a significant enough chunk of their assets to do so.

Considering that they've re-shuffled their BU's as part of their "get healthy" strategy, one can only guess what it was before. But the AVC BU which contains cameras looks to be their biggest sector and their biggest loser.

So, will mirrorless win? That's not the first question to ask in my mind. The question to ask is, who will survive? Then you can ask if and when things will change and what they will look like. Panasonic and Olympus probably can't cause this change on their own - they might not even continue making cameras. It will take the big three - Sony, Nikon and Canon.

Panasonic isn't exiting either. You're talking about a megacorp here. They make a lot of imaging

If only one company were left other than Canon and Nikon, I hope it's Panasonic. It won't be that bleak, but those are my emotional reactions.

gear from pro camcorders to compacts to ILCs, and, even then, it's small fries to them. If they really cared that much, they'd spend more on advertising of restructure before ever considering leaving.

I don't think it's small fries to them, it's a major part of their revenue. It's enough to mention as a major reason for posting a net loss. Take a look at their annual report and then see what you think. What I read is this: DP: "What caused your problems"? P: "TV's and Digital Cameras". Take a look at their data and see if you can formulate a better strategy than they have. They're in a tough spot right now. If I were them, I'd unload cameras to someone else like Nikon!

To say otherwise is FUD IMO.

Read up - compare annual reports and look at all the messages that are in there and see what you think. FUD is exactly what causes people to say things like "Nikon 1 is a flop". Read the source material for yourself and forget what DPReview articles say.

Ditto for Sony, almost word for word. Except Sony spends more on advertising.

So I think that when it becomes economical and sensible for Nikon and Canon to go mirrorless in their big cameras, they will. People who own DSLRs and previous film SLR owners bought into systems and tended to keep them through many marketing / sales cycles. I don't know what that cycle is/was, but it wasn't annual. That included lenses.

You're making the assumption that they can easily transition into mirrorless with a competitive market share. Both have already tried and failed.

Really? Both have been in mirrorless for some time and continue quite well. Are you referring specifically to ICL mirrorless? Nikon 1's have gained market share according to Nikon. What the heck does that mean? What is "2nd place" and what is the competition? And in Japan, I think the 1 series is on top.

And you can't take Thom Hogan or Ming Thien or Ken Rockwell as indications of what's about to happen. They're just human and expressing opinions.

I could say the same about you.

Exactly! But then, who's listening to me?

I downloaded Panasonic's annual report and searched for the word "camera". Here's what I found:

"Digital still camera business: concentrate on mirror-less cameras and high value-added compact cameras. We intend to concentrate resources on mirror-less cameras and high value-added compact cameras, and at the same time work to reduce the number of entry-level compact camera models and fixed costs."

The end. I actually typed it out rather than trying to copy it because it was that small. That's everything with the word "camera" in the whole document. I've been stupidly wrong before and embarrassed myself by prematurely dismissing someone's idea, so correct me if there's anything else that they've said about cameras.

Also, let's not forget that Panasonic has a well-established sensor industry which has recently culminated in the GX7. It's entirely possible that they've finally caught up to Sony in sensor manufacturing, which would be a major boon to them.

Very few companies have the resources to manufacture sensors. Nikon and Olympus can't even do it. While exiting the camera business doesn't necessarily mean exiting the sensor business, I just don't see either happening.

Keep this in mind. There are a lot of companies with far less resources that continue with low volume camera sales. I estimate the odds of Panasonic leaving the imaging business entirely as next to nil. That's just IMO. If they do anything, they'll scale down.

 

[Beach Bum]

stevo23 wrote:

Really? Both have been in mirrorless for some time and continue quite well.

If true, that's based on name alone because both are quite poorly specified. "Some people" need to do a better job of spreading more information about other camera brands. That's all it comes down to. Whoever this Thom guy is, kudos and props to him for at least doing something positive.

It would also be nice if we could thin out some of the CaNikon herd here and bring in some more mirrorless fanboys.

 

[MarkJH]

paulkienitz wrote:

MarkJH wrote:

I'm missing the evidence for your CaNikon confidence, here. It's true that both companies are clearly putting r&d into better on-sensor focus systems, but neither is yet coming away with a clear victory. The Canon 70D's "dual-pixel" phase sensor, as a case in point, really does dramatically improve live-view performance, but it's still not as fast or as confident as Olympus's contast-detection for stills. And, in time Canon took to develop it, Olympus cooked some improvements into their system such that the new EM-1 now offers true phase-detect continuous performance.

I don't think there's any doubt that Canon's sensor is ahead of Olympus's at phase-detecting. I'd bet Oly's advantage is mostly in the lens motors being faster.

Have you ever photographed anything or anyone with an EM-5, Paulkeinitz?

Full disclosure: I haven't shot an Olympus EM-1 yet, so I can't really talk from experience, there.

However, I have shot both the Canon 70D and the Olympus EM-5, side-by-side. (My studio partner got a 70D three weeks ago as a backup for her 5DIII, and we've explored some possibilities with it here-and-there when she's assisting me with my clients.) My experience is with studio and location fashion / editorial / commercial photography, not with weddings, events, or sports.

So: in that context, I'll be the first to point out how *incredible* the 70D's new "dual-pixel" system is. It's everything Canon promises in their marketing material, which is a truly rare occurrence. It's both *much* faster than Canon's previous live-view systems (it totally smokes my shooting partner's primary 5DIII), and, more importantly, it's single-loop confident: there's little-to-no of the back-forth hunting that characterized previous CaNikon contrast-detection Live View systems.

It works quite well with tracking continuous motion, too, though not nearly so well as the through-the-viewfinder phase-detect system. It's just not as quick. Of course, I can only test this kind of thing with tracking a single subject (a model jumping, for example), so it'd be interesting to hear what dedicated sports shooters think.

I guess what I'm getting at, here, is that the "dual-pixel" development is impressive, but it's also very clearly a "first gen" product. Live View with the 70D is a big leap over, say, Live View with the 5DIII; and for subjects in motion, it may have an advantage over Olympus or Panasonic (I say "may" because, again, I'm not a sports shooter; it isn't more effective with models).

However, it's still not nearly so quick or so confident as the 2012-vintage EM-5 for single-shot stills. It's not really close. And it's not just an issue of lens motor speed: there's a confidence in the way the EM-5 locks that no DSLR I've ever shot has. It's amazing, and though the 70D is great, shooting the EM-5 reminds you how far Canon still has to go.

If you haven't done a gig with an EM-5 (or one of the GH cameras), you really need to before you make judgments about how mirrorless performs comparatively. My studio partner dislikes the EM-5 because she feels that seeing exposure, white balance, and tone curve response live encourages her to "post process" while she's shooting, pulling her from the most connected possible moment with the client. OK. But then whenever I use it, she's always jealous of my 100% focus hit rate regardless of focus point, composition, or aperture, my perfect out-of-camera exposure, and publication-ready tone.

That's why threads that posit DSLR architecture or CaNikon dominance arouse my suspicion. The question of whether they're always the best for a given kind of photography just isn't cut-and-dry the way it was five years ago, and CaNikon have a long way to go if they want to close the crack-in-the-door Olympus, Panasonic, Sony have opened.

 

[MPA1]

PK24X36NOW wrote:

Thom (and all of the mirrorless cheerleaders here) are wrong because the mirror provides something no mirrorless camera can EVER provide - a real time, lag free, eyestrain inducing flicker free view through the taking lens that consumes NO battery power. This unique aspect of the SLR/dSLR makes it a superior photography instrument that will not be bettered by the best electronic viewfinder in the world.

Flange distance? Not only a non-issue, but actually beneficial given the angles of incoming light caused by short flange distances, coupled with the nature of digital sensors.

Size/weight are only arguments because you're comparing smaller sensor cameras with larger sensor cameras for the most part, and becasue you're not comparing cameras with equal image capabilities (i.e., including DOF control). If they make a FF MILC, the lenses will be just as big as for FF dSLRs, and the FF MILC + lens will be an awkward, front-heavy combination when you have a small, thin camera body.

If you're willing to sacrifice the ability to isolate subjects from background, are willing to sacrifice (high ISO and overall) image quality, are willing to sacrifice tracking autofocus for moving subjects, are willing to sacrifice battery life, and are willing to suffer with akward ergonomics/poor controls because the camera bodies are too small to allow enough room for extensive on-camera controls (or because the controls are so small they can't be easily used), then mirrorless cameras may seem like a good "alternative," but when those limitations are taken into account, they provide no compelling reason to move away from dSLRs. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Given that we mostly view the images after they are shot on giant EVF's called monitors or televisions it seems to me that sooner rather than later a retina display EVF will come along that can actually be calibrated to match your monitor.

I shot for over 30 years with OVF's before getting a camera with an EVF and after a week I really preferred the EVF. I wear glasses and the OVF's today are much worse in terms of eye point than they used to be, so I cannot see the edges of a D3s VF whilst wearing my glasses at all. Thus there is no great benefit to it for me.

For any photographer whose work includes a high proportion of travel, the weight savings from M43 cameras and lenses are significant - especially when you travel by air. New lenses from Olympus and Panasonic match and exceed many SLR lenses in terms of IQ and cost half as much.

Finally an EVF allows you to shoot video (if you want to do that) with the camera to your eye. You cannot do that with a DSLR.

 

[stevo23]

Beach Bum wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

I downloaded Panasonic's annual report and searched for the word "camera". Here's what I found:

Make sure you look at 2013.

"Digital still camera business: concentrate on mirror-less cameras and high value-added compact cameras. We intend to concentrate resources on mirror-less cameras and high value-added compact cameras, and at the same time work to reduce the number of entry-level compact camera models and fixed costs."

That's only one statement they made, but the word camera appears 36 times. Look at page 7 especially. But you also have to do some reading and try to understand what they're holding back etc. What exactly are you trying to say here?

The end. I actually typed it out rather than trying to copy it because it was that small. That's everything with the word "camera" in the whole document. I've been stupidly wrong before and embarrassed myself by prematurely dismissing someone's idea, so correct me if there's anything else that they've said about cameras.

I'd be surprised if you can actually copy and paste. Usually these things are locked down.

Also, let's not forget that Panasonic has a well-established sensor industry which has recently culminated in the GX7. It's entirely possible that they've finally caught up to Sony in sensor manufacturing, which would be a major boon to them.

I like that aspect - they could exit the camera business but still sell sensors.

Very few companies have the resources to manufacture sensors. Nikon and Olympus can't even do it. While exiting the camera business doesn't necessarily mean exiting the sensor business, I just don't see either happening.

If I had to bet on two smaller makers remaining, it would be Panasonic and Fuji.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not expecting Panasonic to exit. I'm just saying that it could happen. Their current state is bleak. They have to do something. It would make me sad.

 

[DT200]

If you can put PDAF on the sensor and get rid of a mirror completely it makes perfect sense to do so. Less moving parts, less things to adjust, less things to break, less cost, less weight and size, less vibration, less noise. LensRentals proved better accuracy too. Once we have a fast electronic shutter or even a global shutter, the mirror will only be an added expense found on specialty cameras.

Remember how old people got upset with phones that didn't have physical keys? They lost that argument too.

 

[DT200]

Richard wrote:

Promit wrote:

Richard wrote:

Canikons strength is not just DSLR, it is lenses APS-C for smaller cameras and FF which mirrorless lacks.

Can we just stop here for a second?

Canon and Nikon's APS-C lens selection sucks.

Really, all FF nikon and canon lenses fit, including the 3rd party brands for FF and APS-c. I would not say that lens selections "sucks"

But why pay for large lenses and glass? Most of that glass is not used.

I guess I could put large truck tires on my car too. They might even last longer and get good traction, right?

 

[DT200]

Richard wrote:

robert1955 wrote:

Seems you give no reasons why the mirror should or will be kept. And a DSLR without a mirror ...

Selfish reason I guess. I like the viewfinder and I don't like EVF. If I am predicting a good EVF that will compete with a dslr viewfinder will cost more than a mirror box.

The DSLR has a OVF...

..and a lot of extra parts that can break and have to be adjusted and that add extra weight and cost.

You remind me of the old people who hate phones without physical buttons. They hate touchscreens. We laugh at those people today.

 

[Wanganuilad]

dunno who the hell 'Thom' is but my K-01 is not dead and working very nicely thankyou

 

[Beach Bum]

stevo23 wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

I downloaded Panasonic's annual report and searched for the word "camera". Here's what I found:

Make sure you look at 2013.

"Digital still camera business: concentrate on mirror-less cameras and high value-added compact cameras. We intend to concentrate resources on mirror-less cameras and high value-added compact cameras, and at the same time work to reduce the number of entry-level compact camera models and fixed costs."

That's only one statement they made, but the word camera appears 36 times. Look at page 7 especially. But you also have to do some reading and try to understand what they're holding back etc. What exactly are you trying to say here?

The end. I actually typed it out rather than trying to copy it because it was that small. That's everything with the word "camera" in the whole document. I've been stupidly wrong before and embarrassed myself by prematurely dismissing someone's idea, so correct me if there's anything else that they've said about cameras.

I'd be surprised if you can actually copy and paste. Usually these things are locked down.

Also, let's not forget that Panasonic has a well-established sensor industry which has recently culminated in the GX7. It's entirely possible that they've finally caught up to Sony in sensor manufacturing, which would be a major boon to them.

I like that aspect - they could exit the camera business but still sell sensors.

Very few companies have the resources to manufacture sensors. Nikon and Olympus can't even do it. While exiting the camera business doesn't necessarily mean exiting the sensor business, I just don't see either happening.

If I had to bet on two smaller makers remaining, it would be Panasonic and Fuji.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not expecting Panasonic to exit. I'm just saying that it could happen. Their current state is bleak. They have to do something. It would make me sad.

There's no breakdown whatsoever about what portion of their losses are attributable to cameras. They're in bad financial shape, but I have no idea what lines you're reading between. If they exit cameras, that means they'll likely exit most of the consumer electronic industry, including TVs. It'll be an entirely different company to the one we know now.

I don't see this happening before/until things get bad enough that they have to declare bankruptcy. You're being WAY too premature here. I don't think they're anywhere near that point.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

DT200 wrote:

..and a lot of extra parts that can break

Mirror mechanism failures in DSLRs are quite rare. It's not like they've been making them for 50 years or so. I'd suspect EVF failures are more common at this state of maturity.

and have to be adjusted

This is the biggest issue.

and that add extra weight and cost.

Not much weight to a pentamirror or the moving mirror. And since right now anything with a decent EVF costs *more* than a number of DSLRs, asserting cost savings is not well supported.

--
Erik

 

[RaymondR]

except the size/eight advantage relates to MORE than body size. add a collection of lenses for the D5200 that matches up with lenses most commonly used by m4/3 owners and the size weight disparity is far more significant.

 

[paulkienitz]

MarkJH wrote:

I guess what I'm getting at, here, is that the "dual-pixel" development is impressive, but it's also very clearly a "first gen" product. Live View with the 70D is a big leap over, say, Live View with the 5DIII; and for subjects in motion, it may have an advantage over Olympus or Panasonic (I say "may" because, again, I'm not a sports shooter; it isn't more effective with models).

However, it's still not nearly so quick or so confident as the 2012-vintage EM-5 for single-shot stills. It's not really close. And it's not just an issue of lens motor speed: there's a confidence in the way the EM-5 locks that no DSLR I've ever shot has. It's amazing, and though the 70D is great, shooting the EM-5 reminds you how far Canon still has to go.

I'm curious on what grounds you believe this "confidence" is not about lens motors. Bear in mind that the Canon is doing all this with lenses designed solely for use with viewfinder focusing, and the equivalent test for the EM-5 (or more appropriately, the EM-1) would be to try it solely with Four Thirds Classic lenses.

 

[paulkienitz]

Promit wrote:

Richard wrote:

Canikons strength is not just DSLR, it is lenses APS-C for smaller cameras and FF which mirrorless lacks.

Can we just stop here for a second?

Canon and Nikon's APS-C lens selection sucks. Nikon is bad and Canon is worse. That has nothing to do with mirrorless and nothing to do with other companies. N and C decided that the way to get the most money out of their customers was to upsell them hard to full frame lenses, and then leave them with essentially no choice but to buy the expensive FF camera. All they've done is be clever about the ranges. If you're an APS-C shooter who wants to step up, Canon will try and sell you a 17-40L, not the 17-55/2.8. Because it's the L lens, because it's full frame compatibility. After a few of those sales you may as well buy the 6D, or you're just letting your glass investment go to waste! Sigma had to produce the 50-150/2.8, since CN couldn't be bothered.

All of the FF lenses mount and work fine, sure. (Well Nikon's a mixed bag but never mind.) Some of them even work well with the crop; the big telephotos are often more useful as crop lenses. But both companies did the bare minimum in producing DX/EF-S lenses. One wide zoom, one fast zoom, and then a bunch of basic consumer lenses and maybe a prime or two.

Don't give Canikon a free pass on their neglect just to argue about mirrorless.

I don't think the lack of APS-only lenses matters much. If what we all craved was a broad selection of APS lenses, then Pentax would be the number one DSLR company.

 

[jonrobertp]

Beach Bum wrote:

Richard wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now.

They don't act like mirrorless for a number of reasons. Most mirrorless cameras have a shorter flange focal distance due to the lack of a mirror, which allows greater leeway in lens design and possibly the option of making smaller or cheaper lenses while maintaining image quality.

So, who cares, the lenses right now are very expensive so this logic does not fly.

Who cares? Like I said, when the mirror is long dead and buried, the Nikon and Canon body designs will be unnecessarily large and cumbersome.

You said that CaNikon existing DSLRs could function like mirrorless cameras, and my point is that when the mirror is no longer needed or even wanted, their body/lens design will be unnecessarily large and cumbersome and won't be competitive. In simpler terms, the smaller bodies will do the same thing as CaNikon bodies when the mirror is gone. What do you think people will want?

Stop thinking in the short term. The mirror box is doomed. It won't happen immediately, but it will happen.

I will disagree, I will say that Canon and Nikon did not put much thought into this and did not think it was going to be competition, when it becomes competition, they step it up.

Highly doubtful that they haven't put much thought into it. They're outgunned by larger competitors, and, until now, they've sold cameras on name alone, even when competitors are producing better products.

Panasonic and Sony are far larger than Canon or Nikon and have far more resources available to them to develop tech. It's really the same reason Panny and Sony are so good at video while Canon and Nikon (especially Nikon) are not so good.

This is the reason why Panasonic and Sony are so consistent in quality across their line-up while Canon and Nikon have to cut corners in some models.

Sony and Panny products quality is not that great, sorry, accros all products including cameras.

These two companies put out some of the best and most reliable electronics on the planet. I'm watching a Panny TV right now with a Sony Blu-ray player, BTW.

Look at the reliability ratings for TVs, cameras, etc. You might be surprised at who's on top and who isn't.

In short, I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are "smarter" in any way, shape, or form

I think they are and only time will tell. That is not to discount that Sony and Panasonic are good brands, they just are not as good as Canon and Nikon in cameras

Definitely better in the compact market. Better autofocus, better video, and, for the most part, better glass. They're not in the DSLR market so they can't really compete in it.

Panny ? someone help the boy. Get him some vitamins.

 

[Beach Bum]

jonrobertp wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Richard wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now.

They don't act like mirrorless for a number of reasons. Most mirrorless cameras have a shorter flange focal distance due to the lack of a mirror, which allows greater leeway in lens design and possibly the option of making smaller or cheaper lenses while maintaining image quality.

So, who cares, the lenses right now are very expensive so this logic does not fly.

Who cares? Like I said, when the mirror is long dead and buried, the Nikon and Canon body designs will be unnecessarily large and cumbersome.

You said that CaNikon existing DSLRs could function like mirrorless cameras, and my point is that when the mirror is no longer needed or even wanted, their body/lens design will be unnecessarily large and cumbersome and won't be competitive. In simpler terms, the smaller bodies will do the same thing as CaNikon bodies when the mirror is gone. What do you think people will want?

Stop thinking in the short term. The mirror box is doomed. It won't happen immediately, but it will happen.

I will disagree, I will say that Canon and Nikon did not put much thought into this and did not think it was going to be competition, when it becomes competition, they step it up.

Highly doubtful that they haven't put much thought into it. They're outgunned by larger competitors, and, until now, they've sold cameras on name alone, even when competitors are producing better products.

Panasonic and Sony are far larger than Canon or Nikon and have far more resources available to them to develop tech. It's really the same reason Panny and Sony are so good at video while Canon and Nikon (especially Nikon) are not so good.

This is the reason why Panasonic and Sony are so consistent in quality across their line-up while Canon and Nikon have to cut corners in some models.

Sony and Panny products quality is not that great, sorry, accros all products including cameras.

These two companies put out some of the best and most reliable electronics on the planet. I'm watching a Panny TV right now with a Sony Blu-ray player, BTW.

Look at the reliability ratings for TVs, cameras, etc. You might be surprised at who's on top and who isn't.

In short, I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are "smarter" in any way, shape, or form

I think they are and only time will tell. That is not to discount that Sony and Panasonic are good brands, they just are not as good as Canon and Nikon in cameras

Definitely better in the compact market. Better autofocus, better video, and, for the most part, better glass. They're not in the DSLR market so they can't really compete in it.

Panny ? someone help the boy. Get him some vitamins.

Nearly 10,000 posts on this forum, and this is what you've wasted them on. Like I told you in the other thread you trolled me on, go outside, get some fresh air, and stop wasting your life.

 

[MPA1]

RaymondR wrote:

except the size/eight advantage relates to MORE than body size. add a collection of lenses for the D5200 that matches up with lenses most commonly used by m4/3 owners and the size weight disparity is far more significant.