- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeed, thanks for the link.
Why mirrorless sales are disapointing
- Thread starter LongLensPhotography
- Start date
No problem, youre welcome.
Think thats small, check this out! AFAIK its the smallest CSC available. Also check out the top view.
http://camerasize.com/compare/#1,491
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
The cost-to-switch has been steadily dropping when you compare mid-range DSLRs to their CSC counterparts. I'll take Fuji as an example purely because I know it best and it's the system that I switched into, and because with an APS-C sensor it's the most comparable to mid-range DSLRs. A Fuji X-Pro1 with three prime lenses (18mm, 35mm, 60mm) worked out over the new year/christmas period at £1058 (it's now about £50 higher). Now an all-prime set-up won't suit everyone, but right now you could have the 18-55, 55-200 and an X-series body for about the same price. That's very competitive system buy-in price compared to a mid-range DSLR system from Canon or Nikon. Once you factor in the quality of the bodies and lenses it's competitive with entry-level DSLR system buy-in prices.
It's the sunk-cost investment price that's the killer - not the £1,000 you need to spend to buy the new system, but the £2,500 you've already spent on your current system. There's the false assumption that by switching you're admitting your previous system was a mistake that you made. People don't like even thinking that they may have made a mistake.
- Messages
- 3,656
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the IQ point has been sorted above.
We know about the af
As for lens line ups, well are comparing apples to apples here? How's the lens line up in this rumoured Nikon mirrorless camera? A rumour simply won't cut it against established 4th and 5th generation competition.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,675
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
To be fair it's the sunk cost I have in Nikon that's keeping me there. I did consider a canon switch for the 5d iii but I'd loose too much in the process.
However if I can try a m43 for a week or so it may replace the std zoom I am considering (price isn't miles different). However it's getting those 2 weeks hands on without just jumping in with both feet incase it turns out to be a bad fit.
However if I can try a m43 for a week or so it may replace the std zoom I am considering (price isn't miles different). However it's getting those 2 weeks hands on without just jumping in with both feet incase it turns out to be a bad fit.
You could always buy used and lose next to nothing if you decide to sell it.
- Messages
- 1,675
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I lost £200 on my 17-55 I bought used as the market changed in the 10 months I've owned it. And that's just one lens. You can't always assume minimal cost difference.
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Buy a used one, try it for 2 weeks and you can probably sell it for what you paid for it - bit of a hassle, but you shouldn't lose much if any money doing so - any small loss can be looked at as a 'hire' cost. You can also hire some Olympus m43 models (See http://e-group.uk.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44 ) and I think you can claim back the cost of a 3 day hire if you go on to make a purchase? Olympus also do quite a few demo days and the like: http://www.olympus-imagespace.co.uk/index.php/whats-on/events
But you were talking 2 weeks in your previous post, now youre talking 10 months?!
- Messages
- 613
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
In 10 months - but you wanted a 2 weeks hands on.
- Messages
- 1,675
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
When was that last time you said "2 weeks" and that's what happened. Whilst yes it wouldn't be 10 months it would probably round out to about 2 or 3 by the time you get round to selling it on again (it's a hassle). But no you're not going to loose loads, but its a large upfront cost doing it that way too.
I may however have a look at that hire linked.
I may however have a look at that hire linked.
- Messages
- 1,031
- Name
- Gerard
- Edit My Images
- No
I can't believe people who love mirrorless so much don't think Nikon and Canon will release a mirrorless pro grade camera that will work with their existing pro lens range. Really quite laughable.
As for the lack of decent AF, that's why mirrorless cameras are no use to me and many pro photographers. Couple that with zero decent long lens options and I'm very happy sticking with my dSLRs for the foreseeable.
As for the lack of decent AF, that's why mirrorless cameras are no use to me and many pro photographers. Couple that with zero decent long lens options and I'm very happy sticking with my dSLRs for the foreseeable.
- Messages
- 8,023
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well we are pleased that you are happy!!! Just because they don't meet your needs, doesn't mean they have to be given a pasting, they just don't suit your intended use. Many are happy with them. There is room in the camera world for both types, it's not them and us!!!!
One of big selling points of Mirrorless is size, so to have a mirrorless camera taking existing pro-glass probably defeats the object, if that sales model was so successful then the EOS M (and M2) would be a runaway success.
The camera is a tool,stick with the camera that is most suitable for the job you use that tool for 
I asked a dealer a little while back who the biggest market for ccs for them,and they said it was mainly middle aged gentlemen,and most were swapping over because they didn't want to carry a large DSLR kit around anymore.
I asked a dealer a little while back who the biggest market for ccs for them,and they said it was mainly middle aged gentlemen,and most were swapping over because they didn't want to carry a large DSLR kit around anymore.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,031
- Name
- Gerard
- Edit My Images
- No
I believe I have already said exactly that. I only questioned the "quality" claim of current mirrorless cameras. I don't believe any camera that is trying to compete with dSLRs and has a poor AF system can be described as quality.
- Messages
- 1,116
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm off to Hong Kong soon and my camera kit fits nicely into a small pouch. I'll be able to carry the camera and lens round all day and night. The thought of a Nikon D700 and 24-70 lens hanging from my neck fills me with dread and that is one of the main reasons I switched. I no longer have to go out with a rucksack full of camera equipment. It makes me happy, it makes my wife happy and my X Pro 1 produces photographs which are indistinguishable from my pro Nikon stuff, and the AF is just as good (don't listen to the hype about AF, it extremely fast, and very accurate).
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,713
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
AFAIK several CSC actually focus faster than eny DSLR and with a greater degree of accuracy with no front / back focus issues. The only advantage AF wise to DSLR's is AFAIK tracking, but I believe that CSC will get there too.
On price, at the moment the spec of many CSC probably exceeds that of entry level DLSR's so why shouldn't they cost more?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,713
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
What do you mean by a poor AF system?
Some CSC focus very quickly and the world record for the fastest focusing body and lens combo is usually held by the latest CSC. Plus CSC's don't suffer the front and back focus issues that seem to affect many DSLR+lens combo's. AFAIK the only advantage DSLR's hold is in tracking so maybe that's your point?
This is another biggy for me, got tired of test charts, MA bull every time I bought a lens.
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
It's because of Canon's track record that we doubt the two big guns will wade into the market seriously any time soon.
They dabbled with the EOS-M, and now won't even be marketing the follow-up EOS-M2 globally (it won't be available in the US, for example). I suspect Canon and Nikon have two main worries:
- If they produce a serious mirror-less camera it may damage their DSLR sales and they've a big chunk of their resources invested in servicing the DSLR market. They've optimised all the business processes to work with this one style of camera body. They're brands are both heavily identified with "the big black camera".
- All the serious mirror-less manufacturers have gone back to the drawing board and produced lens mounts, lens systems, etc. optimised for the CSC format. The cock-eyed approach that Sony have taken with their lens mounts shows the risks and costs associated with fart-ar$ing around trying to maintain some degree of semi-compatibility with existing lens ecologies. Do Canon and Nikon really want to invest in new lens mounts and new lens line-ups when not only will this be more expensive for any new system it may also hit economies of scale benefits to their current systems?
But maybe the original AP article is already out of date. In today's issue Olympus are reporting 19% growth in mirror-less sales, and Fujifilm have already reported that mirror-less sales are responsible for a significant improvement on the losses posted in the last few years.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree with you. I thought long and hard about making the jump to Fuji this year. The reasons I didn't had nothing to do with IQ AF or AF speed. I think the small size is fantastic. The image quality is such that printed in an album, I can't tell the difference between my Fuji and my D800. (That may change at very big sizes) I also believe for the social photographer AF is more then good enough. The reasons I didn't are
- Lack of TTL triggers. I know when I'm working TTL is a bit of a godsend and I wouldn't want to lose that.
- Perception. I struggle with how people perceive them. The like having big black boxes pointed at them.
- The lack of decent, longish, primes (portrait length so 85-135 mm FF equiv)
Also worldwide their was a drop in DSLR sales last year,Nikon are at a kind of crossroad at the moment,as a company as a whole they are out of all the camera manufacture out their, that most reliant on cameras sales 76% Canon 29%,so any lost in cameras sales overall hits them the hardest.
Most of the ccs company are lower ranging from about 15% to 4%,making it very hard to predict which cameras will be around in a few years time
Most of the ccs company are lower ranging from about 15% to 4%,making it very hard to predict which cameras will be around in a few years time
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Most of the ccs company are lower ranging from about 15% to 4%,making it very hard to predict which cameras will be around in a few years time
I'll hazard a guess that the Sony E mount will be around for a while, as will Panasonic/Olympus MFT and Fuji X. However unless Sony decides to make more lenses available quickly the Sony FE mount is looking vulnerable, and Samsung is looking a bit too niche to be truly secure long-term.
I may be on my own with this opinion, but I genuinely think that Sony have fluffed it with the A7 and A7r as full-frame mirror-less CSCs - focussing on the bodies and failing to provide a complete system.
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I get more in-focus shots with my CSC than I ever did with my DSLR - why - because focus is done by the sensor,not by some phase detect system with mechanical tolerances and different lenses that may or may not get it quite right.
In fact, I consider DSLR focus systems to be very poor these days.
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The reason I moved to CSCs was lens size and quality, not body size (I have a gripped GH3 which replaced a gripped 5D2 - much more compact)
I agree with you about Sony,the problem with Sony is the company is split over so many division,and at the moment they have some other big fish to fry 4K tv PS-4 & Blu-ray
They did that with the NEX system, I was an early adopter (as I was with the A7 and quickly returned to Fuji). Theyve now rebranded NEX to A, seriously wtf are they thinking?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,713
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Only time will tell but at the moment the lenses that would interest me the most seem to be high quality. Personally I'd have been happy with something of the performance of a Sigma 50mm f1.4 which is a cracking lens IMVHO and I doubt I'd ever need anything better... but Sony seem to be aiming for better.
Personally the lack of FE lenses doesn't really bother me because I bought an A7 to use my manual Minolta and Olympus lenses on and for that it's pretty much perfect.
It's not really the naming that's the problem it's the lenses!
It must be ruinously expensive to bring out a new FF model (or two) and develop a lot of glass for it when there aren't many users. Sony as a whole is losing money hand over fist each year too...
Chicken and egg though, no glass = no users etc.
It must be ruinously expensive to bring out a new FF model (or two) and develop a lot of glass for it when there aren't many users. Sony as a whole is losing money hand over fist each year too...
Chicken and egg though, no glass = no users etc.
I think the problem is the roadmap removes the 'time will tell' equation. Because it does just that. Sony has never produced the glass people want for its cameras (or it takes ages for them to do so), in the meantime they will release body after body after body, devaluing previous models.
Thats why he referred to it as a complete system, not a camera body. I would say for users of average legacy like yourself though the A7 is a dream come true, unless you want to use certain lenses and then youll have problems especially if you bought it as a Leica replacement.
Last edited:
The A7/R look the way forward for a CSC in that the user can basically mount any lens via an adapter and have high quality FE mount glass for autofocus. I can't really understand the small CSC body with a huge lens on the front though, makes me wonder why bother? I could see myself picking up an A7R and the Zeiss 55.
- Messages
- 7,931
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We used to change films every twelve shots with a Rollieflex which was much more complex.
All my suit jackets had two over sized inside pockets, one for used and the other for new films, out of their wrappers ready to go.
did not used 12/20's they were too prone to scratches.
Its not difficult is it, job coming up, charge batteries, surely the same again applies to DSLR batteries. Bags have more than one 'pocket'. And 9 batteries is what he would use as an extreme, most will get away with far less.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,713
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Or just use less power.
I use the EVF not the rear screen and I also turn the camera off if I'm not going to use it for a couple of minutes or more and I find that the battery power is adequate in my G1 and A7. I carry a spare for my A7 but have not yet needed to use it whilst out.
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
And that's the one appeal of the A7/r - a very niche market of old lens users. There's very little in the system to appeal to the average buyer also looking at a Canon or Nikon full-frame DSLR. There's nothing mid-range or affordable in the native mount.
I dread all the on-line posts calling for Fujifilm to produce a full-frame X-series - can they not see what a disaster it would be to "do a Sony" and try and support too many systems?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,713
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
They seem to have gone for quality, Look at the two primes available and see what similar quality lenses would cost from Nikon and Canon.