Why mirrorless sales are disapointing

LongLensPhotography

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
17,618
Name
LongLensPhotography
Edit My Images
No
Amateur Photographer was looking at the mirrorless cameras sales performance recently http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...-camera-sales-crash-special-report-with-video and raised some valid points, including Canon/Nikon brand loyalty and confusing nomenclature.

They did however miss one key technical aspect - the viewfinder. The reality is that the current models are still pretty much inadequate compared with most full frames (I don't have an APS-C). I looked at Fuji X-T1 and Samsung NX30 at the show. I was really disappointed with the size of EVF. They are so tiny it is not really possible to tell much about the scene at all. The dSLR full frames have a bright and large field of view that allows working with comfort. While pixelation of the EVFs has been decreased, it was still visible, and even worse the low refresh rates caused a lot of flickering under artificial fluorescent light. I haven't had a chance to play with A7, but I don't expect miracles after watching the latest DigitalRev 5DIII/A7 comparison. To be blatantly honest the CSCs are best on tripod with the LCD screen for landscape work and perhaps for video recording.

According to article, the main selling propositions is to the pros and advanced amateurs looking for a secondary just-in-case go to camera. That makes a lot of sense.

So, as a cheap compact CSCs are too expensive and perhaps too complex, particularly when it comes to instant instagramming of pics. Hail the iPhone!
 
Last edited:
My feeling is that part of the reason mirrorless sales have slowed down is that there actually servicing a different market to DSLR's.

Ok some high end models do offer similar handling but a lot of the "DSLR killer" rep of smaller models that lack viewfinders is IMHO marketing. DSLR's are viewed as the top level of photography and so something that's "killing" them must also be "top level".

The smaller viewfinderless mirrorless systems to me seem to be catering more to a market of users who want the handling of a compact camera but the image quality of a larger sensor. In the days of film this market was pretty well serviced, in the digital era it was rather ignored in the scamble to build DSLR sales. Hence there was a pent up demand for these kinds of products that resulted in fast growth when they were released, now that demand has been used up growth has naturally slowed or actually declined.

If Mirrorless were depending on "killing DSLR's" for its growth you wouldn't expect to see that kind of slowdown but you would if it were instead servicing a new market that has reached saturation.
 
the a7 viewfinder is pretty decent, and the a77 i have i prefer the viewfinder to the crop dslr's ive tried, maybe more than the old film camera's ive got too. find it easier to really see whats in focus and whats not on the a77, and the hud elements (focus points etc) just seem clearer and easier to tell whats going on.

and be interesting to know what what lenses and settings they used for the run in the dark carpark, as if the a7 is like the nex's it stops down the lens full time, while a dslr only stops down when taking the picture... so you could make the evf look way worse than it actually is.
 
Compact system since week one of 2014 has actually shown growth, versus 2013.

So sales arent slowing.
 
Do you think the cause is the viewfinder? IMO the relative lack of lenses make a difference in the purchasing decision also.
 
Mirrorless system sales are disappointing because there are too many camera snobs who dismiss them as toy cameras without really trying them. IMHO of course....
 
In my experience it's difficult to find some CSC in the high street shops and that's gotta be part of the reason they don't sell at least in some areas as a lot of people wont buy what isn't in the shops locally. Again, in my experience, when asking about kit salesmen tend to recommend Canon and Nikon and I'm sure a lot of people are influenced by that and go that way. Those reasons have to be a significant part of the problem for CSC in some areas.

Also, another problem, I'm sure I've read somewhere that in markets that are relatively resistant to CSC's they're at least in part seen as womens cameras and not for men. DSLR's and big fat lenses being for men and even if all a man ever buys is an entry level APS-C DSLR and kit lens it's still a more manly choice than a girly CSC. I'm sure that that view is held by some, hogwash though it is.

I'm pretty sure that if the average Mr / Mrs out camera shopping knew more about CSC's and if they were in the shops they'd sell better. I'm also quietly confident that if Canon and Nikon decided to make a serious push into CSC's they'd sell and sell well with the big two's market presence, sales push and preasure on dealers all acting in favour.

It's interesting to follow what's going on on forums with some long time photo people ditching quite exotic DSLR gear and taking up CSC's. Me included. The informed buyer may be in a minority though and again this isn't going to help CSC sales. At the moment I'll choose a CSC and be happy to be a part of a niche market and amongst people who make informed choices :D

Regarding the usual EVF complaints... to an extent I find the usual complaints a little hard to understand and countered by the rather obvious benefits. My own experiences of EVF's is Fuji S602, G1 and Sony A7 and I found all perfectly usable for the good to lowish indoor light that most people shoot in. My own dissatisfaction with EVF's only comes into play when shooting in darkness and related to light output and eye strain and is to a large extent but not totally fixed with the A7. Anyway, any real or perceived through prejudice inadequacies may be outweighed by the benefits, they are for me.
 
Last edited:
IMHO it's because mostly they are neither fish nor fowl.

By that I mean that they are not small enough to comfortably go in a pocket, so they require a camera bag and if you are going to carry a camera bag anyway then you might as well go for the better/cheaper/more versatile/whatever (take your pick) DSLR.

Don't get me wrong, I know that they have their advantages (particularly for a certain kind of shooter) but at the moment they are not enough to sway the bulk of the market away from the "safe bets" of Canon or Nikon.
 
I never understand the desire for CSC's to be DSLR killers though? They're a camera aimed at photographers who want a smaller option which are less imposing and (for the average user) less nerdy than carrying a DSLR out for a family trip. Coupled with this, photographers like myself have also realised that they can deliver equal or better performance than some much larger DSLRs in the right environment. I sold all of my canon kit last year because I was taking a break from studio portrait and event work and since then, the NEX has delivered great results for me so I don't miss my Canon gear for what I currently shoot.

I've shot DSLRs as well as M4/3 and Sony Nex and agree with all of the comments surrounding the pros and cons of CSCs but in their current form I don't see why anyone should expect them to replace DSLRs. I see articles like the one linked like an article in Top Gear staying that Small City cars are a failure because they don't transport pallets as well as a lorry!

With regards to Sony specifically, I think they cause confusion with potential buyers by having numerous models within the NEX range which all come in a similar package

Overall, I think DSLRs will always have a market but CSCs can run alongside these as well.

Steve
 
CSC are doing quite well in the Asia market,but not so well in the US & Europe,Fuji just did a bit of a study on it in the US market,and one of the things that came up in the US was the cameras weren't big enough,some were saying"if i spend that amount of money on that sort of camera,i want it to look big" .

:)
 
I agree that it's more likely down to cost vs size (eg "lb for Pound" to the average buyer). CSCs in general are more expensive than entry level SLRs that take premium position on displays in Currys etc so the majority of high street buyers will walk straight past them. However, DSLRs have the advantage of age over CSCs. That is, Canon have been selling DSLRs for around 14 years so that's a long time to reduce their costs and therefore sell kit more cheaply and appeal to a larger market.
 
EVF is always going to be a marmite-style love-it-or-loathe it kind of thing. Coming from Canon 1ds3 and 5d3 and Nikon d800e OVF carrying cameras and have had Sony a77 and now a Fuji XE-2 I can honestly say that I prefer EVF in the majority of instances but OVF has clear advantages in circumstances that EVF simply cannot handle.

My view is that the AF ability of CSC cameras is simply not up to top quality Nikon and Canon cameras and the range of long, fast lenses is not there so sports, wildlife and other such shooters will not touch CSC as their main bodies.

Personally, I think the IQ of my Fuji images particularly at high iso matches any Canikon that I have owned and am delighted with the XE-2.

I am pretty certain that CSC cameras will gain in popularity as EVF/AF improves and roll on the super telephoto on the Fuji roadmap.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting question. I tried the NX30 at the show and loved it in some ways: low weight, super fast & accurate focusing, viewfinder that pulled out and up for viewing from above. The deal breaker for me was the electronic rather than mechanical coupling of focusing, and it's not a system I am at all happy working with.

My main camera is a Sony SLT, and I chose it partially for the EVF and live view. Compared to other crop sensor DSLRs at a similar price point the viewfinder was large, bright and detailed, easy to use, although it does struggle in strong sunlight.

Photography is changing as kit is being developed further, and I'd expect a fragmentation of the 'traditional' groups of users and types of kit.
 
I dislike EVF's... At least I did until I tried the Fuji X-T1! That changed my mind! :)

I still struggle with the m4/3 cameras... They seem far too toy-like to my mind (I wait to get flamed for that remark)! ;) As it stands, I just can't seem to take them seriously although I have friends who think the world of their little m4/3 systems.
 
A while back, I was looking for a small camera to slip into a pocket. I had sort of narrowed my choice down to a V1 Nikon or an X10 Fuji so visited my friendly local shop to see which fitted the bill (well, pocket!) Neither did but the XF1 Fuji had been recently introduced and does fit the bill and the pocket. However, I had liked what I'd seen of the 2 rejects and when the opportunities came, I bought them as well - for bigger pockets! In the meantime, I had also bought myself an FT1 which is the Nikon adaptor to mate F mount lenses to the 1 series bodies - any long, fast lens now fits my V1 and, with its 2.7x crop factor, is silly long! A friend has a 600 f/4 VR and a 1.4x telecom... you do the maths! AF isn't as fast as the D700 but if I need that sort of AF speed, I'll use the SLR.
More recently, I've been seduced by the allure of a Fuji XPro1 system and traded in my D800 body against it. The cashback and free lens deals mean that I'll have a 4 lens system for £400 or so at a total weight of less than the D800 with the 24-120 mounted on it - a major plus point for me! At print sizes up to A3, I doubt anyone would be able to tell which camera had taken a particular shot (other than DoF and since I'm not a huge fan of ultra shallow DoF, not an issue for me.)
I much prefer a "to the eye" viewfinder to using a rear screen and used to dislike EVFs but having used more modern implementations than my old Minolta Dimage 5's rather poor one, I'm slowly coming round to them.
Looking forward to 3rd party lenses for the Fuji mount becoming available. Not holding my breath since they're still a bit "niche" but it might happen - in the meantime, I believe there are adaptors so I can use the F mount lenses on it.
 
After noting some of the remarks above, I'm curious that self-image (which is a kind of fiction) should impinge at all on an individual's choice of what is a tool to do a job.
 
To be fair though, in the global market for cameras I'd say that those people who purchase a camera as a 'tool for the job' are in the minority. The large majority of the market are either photographers looking for a smaller second camera or families looking for better quality photos without 'lugging' a DSLR (I use that term towards non-photographers!).

I would also guess that anyone who buys a camera for non-professional use will be swayed by styling and cost and, in a lot of cases, what the salesman in the shop tells them.

Marketing for most modern cameras (and electronics in general) is as much about gadgets and style as the performance itself. I say that as both a lover of tech and medium format film :0)
 
Last edited:
The a7 evf is fantastic in low light, making it easier to manual focus. But outside it's pretty horrible.

I would imagine the biggest reason mirror less sales haven't impressed is because up until now the only thing they have on DSLRs is size and weight. Every time I've stepped down to a mirrorless body, I've grown tired of the compromises and sold it on. The a7 is different so far, but I still much prefer my Canon 6D (other than size and weight).

The other thing to remember is that people tend to associate DSLRs with great image quality I.e. bigger is better.
 
droj said:
After noting some of the remarks above, I'm curious that self-image (which is a kind of fiction) should impinge at all on an individual's choice of what is a tool to do a job.
Click to expand...

It would be a strange world where self image doesn't matter, I think. I presume you comb your hair, brush your teeth, choose clothes that fit and/or suit you or at least don't make you look like a tramp. The camera is just a tool to take photos but once it is the tool we choose to take our photos with, self image is going to matter
 
Bit confused with your comments re the X-T1 viewfinder, I'm fairly sure it's bigger than on any DSLR currently available, including the 1DX.
 
I thought long and hard about a fuji x-pro 1 but held back due to the reported poor AF.
 
How long does it take to change a battery?
 
Who are they aiming the CSC at? People stepping down from a heavy and large DSLR or moving up from a point and shoot?
 
Last edited:
theurbanclown said:
But for a pro to consider using one (from a wedding point of view), you'd need around 8-9. It's not so much the cost, it's the hassle to do it within very short windows of time.
Click to expand...

But there are pro's using mirror-less CSCs for weddings. So any perceived battery issue is perhaps more personal than professional.
 
ukaskew said:
Bit confused with your comments re the X-T1 viewfinder, I'm fairly sure it's bigger than on any DSLR currently available, including the 1DX.
Click to expand...

It felt like tunnel vision to be more precise. Don't forget that it is 1.5x crop at 0.77x mag so the area must be a lot smaller (~0.51x equiv) than 1DX/5DIII VF at 0.76x. It felt really dark as well at any other aperture except f/1.2 on the lens. The flicker from flourescent lights was horrible, and even NX30 was better in that respect. 5DIII VF is so much better that it is not even funny any more. I'd rather buy a Leica if I wanted and could afford to spend on a 2nd system.
 
Laudrup said:
Who are they aiming the CSC at? People stepping down from a heavy and large DSLR or moving up from a point and shoot?
Click to expand...

Both and neither.

And it would be wrong to assume that anyone moving from a DSLR to a CSC is automatically stepping down. The quiet majority are happy to use the same camera for 5+ years, so comparing any given model only against the other most current models is to miss half-the-point. The bit that gets forgotten is that comparison against the camera you already have (or wish to move on from) is equally (if not more) important.
 
daugirdas said:
enough to miss one important sequence of shots.
Click to expand...

But the battery is a red herring in this debate, I doubt any pro shoots till the camera dies, they shoot and then if the notice the battery getting low they change it in a lull in the action just the same as they would any other bit of kit bet that camera, flash gun, light metre whatever
 
Alastair said:
Both and neither.

And it would be wrong to assume that anyone moving from a DSLR to a CSC is automatically stepping down. The quiet majority are happy to use the same camera for 5+ years, so comparing any given model only against the other most current models is to miss half-the-point. The bit that gets forgotten is that comparison against the camera you already have (or wish to move on from) is equally (if not more) important.
Click to expand...

Stepping down in terms of size and weight, not IQ. CSCs don't feel intuitive to me but the menus seem overly complex to change simple things plus the size of them is too large and would only fit in the coat pocket of Andre the Giant. With phone cameras getting better and DSLRs still screaming 'pro' the CSC looks a bit like the point and shoot being squeezed out.
 
Buy loads of batteries and enjoy !

The ultra-highly regarded Canon 1dsII had a dog of a battery but what beautiful images !
 
gary43 said:
Buy loads of batteries and enjoy !

The ultra-highly regarded Canon 1dsII had a dog of a battery but what beautiful images !
Click to expand...

Agreed, I was just trying to figure out if he had some prototype full frame camera with a miniature fusion reactor that it had some advantage of never needing to charge its battery :rolleyes:

;)
 
Dave1 said:
So how do you get that sequence on your full frame camera when the battery dies?

It can happen to any camera ;).
Click to expand...

At least on fujis the difference between a full battery reading (3 bars) and completely dead is a handful of shots. The batteries are a lot less sophisticated than those in canons where you get a lot of warning the problem is coming. I don't find it an issue but then I don't shoot many weddings.
 
Laudrup said:
Stepping down in terms of size and weight, not IQ. CSCs don't feel intuitive to me but the menus seem overly complex to change simple things plus the size of them is too large and would only fit in the coat pocket of Andre the Giant. With phone cameras getting better and DSLRs still screaming 'pro' the CSC looks a bit like the point and shoot being squeezed out.
Click to expand...

Sony has been heavily criticised for the menus on their CSCs, but they're not the only manufacturer in the market. Compared to most entry-level DSLRs it's far easier changing exposures settings on a CSC.
 
daugirdas said:
It felt really dark as well at any other aperture except f/1.2 on the lens. The flicker from flourescent lights was horrible, and even NX30 was better in that respect.
Click to expand...

This I find odd, because a camera with EVF automatically gains up the image when there's not enough light entering the lens. I can see through my Sony viewfinder even when there is a 10 stop ND filter fitted. Flickering can happen under fluorescent light in theory, but it's not been noticeable so far: I sometimes take pictures of gels on a lightbox, and while there was a problem with flickering on the rear screen of my old Samsung S850, the flickering wasn't present with the SLT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top