Why mirrorless sales are disapointing

[SFTPhotography]

Depends on the depth of focus what you have in focus and whats out with focus.

I mainly do landscapes/cityscapes and did consider the 36mp Sony job, the sensor being the reason, and the price, but the lack of lens choice killing it off. I tend to have full DoF's so the focusing being milimeter perfect won't kill the shot

 

[Laudrup]

It is perfect for landscapes, you can use almost any lens from the Canon 17mm TS-E to a £10k Leica zoom. Even the stitched Zeiss 55 shots I've seen look great from the A7R. It's deserving of a lot of praise.

 

[Laudrup]

So do you take 4000 shots in a single session? If not, you wouldnt require 9 batteries.

If I can have 4000+ shots on one battery or charge and carry 9 of them I'll take the one battery and a pro body every time. It doesn't seem the CSC cameras forte.

 

[twist]

If I can have 4000+ shots on one battery or charge and carry 9 of them I'll take the one battery and a pro body every time. It doesn't seem the CSC cameras forte.

But you wouldn't take 4000 shots in one session, would you? So you wouldn't need 9 batteries.

 

[inkiboo]

It is so funny reading people say the AF system in CSCs is better than that in a dSLR.

 

[Laudrup]

But you wouldn't take 4000 shots in one session, would you? So you wouldn't need 9 batteries.

If I want to use video or live view and still take a lot of shots I have that option that I don't with a CSC unless I want to carry about lots of batteries. They aren't really the tool for the job where you require long lasting battery power. I don't know why or in what situation a pro would want a CSC over a DSLR unless they were getting sponsored by them.

 

[twist]

If I want to use video or live view and still take a lot of shots I have that option that I don't with a CSC unless I want to carry about lots of batteries. They aren't really the tool for the job where you require long lasting battery power. I don't know why or in what situation a pro would want a CSC over a DSLR unless they were getting sponsored by them.

Is that because live view with dslrs works incredibly well. Oh, it doesn't actually, unlike mirrorless.

I never said a pro would rely on it as their only choice or it's the best choice for them, I said their are other things that would put them off even more than battery life!

People are carrying on about pros, hmmm let's think how many average joes are paid pros. For average Joe a csc will deliver, they don't have your requirements. Have a read through this thread, even people who have used cameras for a long time are misinformed regarding csc.

 

[Laudrup]

Is that because live view with dslrs works incredibly well. Oh, it doesn't actually, unlike mirrorless.

I never said a pro would rely on it as their only choice or it's the best choice for them, I said their are other things that would put them off even more than battery life!

People are carrying on about pros, hmmm let's think how many average joes are paid pros. For average Joe a csc will deliver, they don't have your requirements. Have a read through this thread, even people who have used cameras for a long time are misinformed regarding csc.

I can't see any compelling reason for a CSC over a DSLR other than maybe weight. My 200 f/2 with 2x TC on a CSC would be like a toy. Even the 70-200 f/2.8 would look stupid. Maybe as a back up, but not my main camera.

 

[MarkLG]

This is the reason why I changed from a 7D to a GX7:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#154,472

The lenses are similarly smaller, and I can get away with carrying a tripod which is half the size and weight if I'm doing night shots.
There is no noticeable difference in image quality so why would I want to load myself down with a DSLR and lenses, when I can get the same results in a much more manageable package??
If I was doing weddings, studio work or other fixed location stuff I'd get a FF DSLR, but nearly all my shooting is done in the outdoors travelling on foot, so size and weight are a big factor. My next body will probably be a GH3 (waiting for the price drop when the GH4 hits the shops), mainly because I want something a bit more rugged with some weather sealing, but I can't see me going back to a DSLR anytime soon.

 

[Phil Young]

Is that because live view with dslrs works incredibly well. Oh, it doesn't actually, unlike mirrorless.

70D.

Nuff' said.

 

[twist]

I can't see any compelling reason for a CSC over a DSLR other than maybe weight. My 200 f/2 with 2x TC on a CSC would be like a toy. Even the 70-200 f/2.8 would look stupid. Maybe as a back up, but not my main camera.

It's a great thing we are all different then isn't it? Your criteria is not everyone else's. Benefits for me, weight, size, small fast primes, less intimidating.

 

[twist]

70D.

Nuff' said.

Sony did it ages ago Phil . Pretty much every mirrorless can do live view AF incredibly well, not all dslrs can. I don't believe the world is full of 70d or slt owners.

 

[woof woof]

It is so funny reading people say the AF system in CSCs is better than that in a dSLR.

Well, believe it, in some cases at least...

1. No front / back focus issues... CSC WINS!
2. Very fast focus... CSC WINS!
3. Tracking... DSLR WINS!

What else? I don't know... maybe a DSLR wins in low light, maybe CSC wins, I don't know but for focusing fast and accurately on a stationary subject in the good to ok light that most people shoot in most of the time I think I'm right in saying that the best CSC should beat the best DSLR. Yes?

Unless you know better? If so what DSLR and lens combo beats the current world record holder?

 

[boliston]

I think a time might come eventually when an EVF gives an image indistiguishable from an OVF and when and only then will be the time when Canon and Nikon use this on their top line cameras.

What I predict is that the "form factor" and weight will stay the same as the existing pro & semi pro bodies, but the mirror will simply be replaced with EVF. I don't think this will be anytime soon, but eventually technology will get there.

There will always be peple who want a smaller lighter body, but there will always be people who are more than happy with existing DSLR sizes and weights.

 

[f/otographer]

WHAT is this continued bashing of lens size on CSC cameras? I simply dont understand it. It seems to come mostly from DSLR users when they want to come up with another made up problem about CSC's to prove why they are silly cameras. Please observe...

OH NOES!!! Big ungainly lenses also show up on DSLR's!!! Real photographers are using whatever they need to get the shot without worrying about the way their camera looks or handles!!! Oh noes, who knew!!??

Put some of the bigger L zooms on a 5D III or 1DX or whatever...its not going to 'handle' well. Thats why you see the people shooting these lenses in the field using mono pods or tripods. The 'compact' in Compact System Camera in no way means that it is always going to be a nice tiny camera with a cute little lens that you can put in your pocket.

It means that, depending on the model, it is to a larger or smaller degree more compact then the existing system cameras, i.e. DSLR's. BUT....you can choose to make it bigger and less compact if that is what you need to do to get....the....shot.

With the grip off of my A7 and a tiny little prime attached (and a few more in a small bag) I have a wonderfully compact and light tool for cranking out images with stunning IQ. If I want to shoot some bigger telephoto primes or huge zooms I can pop on the grip for more balance and if things get to unweildy I can use a monopod. But the fact of the matter is that I always keep the grip on and always shoot with small old manual focus primes.

But I always have the option to make it tiny and compact no matter how I shoot it. Something you cant do with a 5D or 1DX.

And if I want to go uber tiny I use my NEX 7 with a metabones speedbooster and my Yashica ML 50/1.9. That package is crazy small and can fit in a loose jacket pocket while putting out wonderfull imagery. It handles like a snubnose .38 special.

The point of all this is the camera is nothing but the TOOL a photographer uses to (hopefully) make compelling imagery. Some photogs are embracing CSC's, some are on the fence, and some are against them. Big deal. This means absolutely nothing. Photography is about making images. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy these cameras. Yes, a lot of CSC users are shouting "Ah, the death of the DSLR!!". And you know what? For them it IS the death of the DSLR. I am one of those photographers. DSLR's and their primitive optical path prism arrangement are dead to me. The mirror stands in the way of me using the old manual focus lenses that I love and adore and use to capture images that I find to be very moving. So yes, DSLR's are dead.

But for many other photogs, this isnt the case. DSLR's are alive and well. Again, who cares? Medium Format is also alive and well. So is large format, and film. Hell even Polaroid is breathing again. Cell phones are doing just fine. Crap, they are even bringing back 110 format. 110!!??

I personally believe mirrorless is the future. If only for the single fact that producing a camera without a complex mirror box assembly is cheaper then producing one with a complex mirror box assembly. When the economics of this hit the tipping point for Nikon and Canon you can believe they will drop DSLR's like a dead cat. But that day isnt here, and probably wont be for a while. They are gonna milk old Bessie for ever drop of creamy DSLR goodness that they can. And rightly so. They are companies trying to make a profit.

 

[Amp34]

But you wouldn't take 4000 shots in one session, would you? So you wouldn't need 9 batteries.

To but in to this conversation with a real world example...

Many people do not do just "sessions", whether they be a family day trip or in a shoot in a studio. I for example go away for a week at a time and have intermittent power throughout that time so charging is an issue. For example I have an AW1 and took it, along with my D7000 away on holiday. I took just over 1000 shots on the AW1 in a week, certainly not spray and pray. I took 5 batteries with me and drained all of them*... I took a similar number of photos on the D7000 (and took 3 batteries with me for that, just in case) but only drained one battery. When you're shooting landscape or kayaking around an island for a week, camping every night battery life is important. I'm guessing the same would be an issue for sports togs and motorsports togs, not to mention people going to air shows or even out for a day shooting wildlife in a hide.

200 shots a battery is fine if you're shooting around town for a day and then heading back to a hotel/your house but not if you're doing other things.

*AND I was lucky enough to be able to charge one of the batteries up after the first day as we decided to stay in a hotel that night, one of the few we kayaked past on the trip.

Personally I love my little AW1, IQ is almost as good as the D7000 (although the DoF is annoying) but the biggest issue I have is the lack of viewfinder. That leads to the next problem, all EVFs I've tried have been poor. pixellation, flickering and the biggest issue, lag. It's very odd seeing a delayed image through the viewfinder and I'm sure it would be an issue for anything active. Until they sort that out I won't be replacing my DSLR any time soon. It's a shame because aside from the battery life and EVF I love the idea of them. I'm active so as small a camera/lens combo the better (within reason, with good IQ), the insistence of companies making higher end cameras bigger to be more "ergonomic" is annoying. I want a 7D (with weather sealing) in a 700D sized body. It's doable, but people would complain it was too small!

EDIT: As for handling well, I agree with f/otographer, it's rubbish. If you have a heavy lens then most of the weight of the combo is going to be rested on the lens hand. Whether it's a CSC or a 1D a big lens is still going to be heavier and as such your camera hand is only going to be holding the camera against the eye, not keeping the weight of the lens steady.

 

[Invertigo]

Having had a play with the Fuji X-T1 and 18mm lens today, I'm half tempted to shift over to a system like that from my Canon kit... Fair enough it might not be totally on par optically, but the portability factor is a huge benefit! With the 18mm lens, it was quite easily pocketable in a jacket pocket, and with bigger primes like the 23mm or 35mm it would still be significantly lighter

 

[TomB]

I love how upset some people get about what cameras other people on the internet are buying.

Interesting perspective on things in this article (mirrorless as disruptive innovation) - http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-of-photography-roger-cicala-reads-tea-leaves

 

[arad85]

It is so funny reading people say the AF system in CSCs is better than that in a dSLR.

Why? It is in quite a lot of uses.

 

[applemint]

Interesting read and summary of the main advantages and disadvantages: http://www.43rumors.com/from-canon-to-mft-the-truth-behind-the-migration-by-mohammad-shafik/

Also worth a read: http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-of-photography-roger-cicala-reads-tea-leaves

 

[Moreorless]

This is the reason why I changed from a 7D to a GX7:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#154,472

The lenses are similarly smaller, and I can get away with carrying a tripod which is half the size and weight if I'm doing night shots.
There is no noticeable difference in image quality so why would I want to load myself down with a DSLR and lenses, when I can get the same results in a much more manageable package??
If I was doing weddings, studio work or other fixed location stuff I'd get a FF DSLR, but nearly all my shooting is done in the outdoors travelling on foot, so size and weight are a big factor. My next body will probably be a GH3 (waiting for the price drop when the GH4 hits the shops), mainly because I want something a bit more rugged with some weather sealing, but I can't see me going back to a DSLR anytime soon.

To be fair your also talking a shift in sensor size and camera type there, the 7D isn't exactly the smallest DSLR relative to sensor size.

I actually think the bigger shift from 4/3rds DSLR's to micro 4/3rds wasn't losing the mirror but rather looking to focus much more on size. The DSLR's were really sold on the idea that sensors were so expensive that it was better to go smaller and get performance from the lens, they failed because sensor costs came down whilst lens costs remained high.

Personally I think an obvious gap in the market at the moment is for a DSLR the size of an entry level body but with a higher quality build and controls geared to higher level use.

 

[Nod]

CSCs don't look much sillier with big lenses on than SLRs do...


DSCF3760 by gpn63, on Flickr

They give great results with them too...


DSC_0235 by gpn63, on Flickr

Noisy? Yes but ISO 6400 tends to do that (but was necessary to get a vaguely useable shutter speed.)

Someone above mentioned that it felt odd supporting most of the weight of a rig on the left hand but that's where the balance should be! I use a CSC and an SLR lens quite a bit and while there may be times I would prefer to have an SLR, I know there are times when I've cursed the weight of the full kit.

It's all horses for courses. If you want to carry the full kit, do but if you would rather not, grab a CSC and a few lenses in a bag that weighs less than the SLR and standard lens!

 

[MikeM]

Have you ever sat at that cosy table on a Greek Island on holiday waiting for the sun to set over the horizon with your Canon/Nikon and zoom so you can get that special shot, and felt a complete twerp because of the size of your kit? Then where do you put it? On the table, under the table? back of the chair, or perhaps that trendy rucksack you are lugging around for your evening stroll? You have all been there.

 

[Moreorless]

Have you ever sat at that cosy table on a Greek Island on holiday waiting for the sun to set over the horizon with your Canon/Nikon and zoom so you can get that special shot, and felt a complete twerp because of the size of your kit? Then where do you put it? On the table, under the table? back of the chair, or perhaps that trendy rucksack you are lugging around for your evening stroll? You have all been there.

So basically mirror less is the choice of the poser?

 

[MartynK]

Have you ever sat at that cosy table on a Greek Island on holiday waiting for the sun to set over the horizon with your Canon/Nikon and zoom so you can get that special shot, and felt a complete twerp because of the size of your kit? Then where do you put it? On the table, under the table? back of the chair, or perhaps that trendy rucksack you are lugging around for your evening stroll? You have all been there.

I've never been to the Greek Islands but I know exactly what you mean, and it's been the same since the film days. The "big" camera and lenses give you more versatility, but there's a price to pay in terms of carrying the gear and security. I suppose it depends on how important photography - in the serious amateur sense - is to you in a particular context, relative to whatever else you're doing.

Personally, I stopped carrying an SLR or a DSLR, unless I knew that I was going to use it, a long time ago. I'm still rather undecided about carrying a truly compact camera, that slips into a pocket, or something a bit larger like a Fuji X100 or X-Pro 1. For the moment it's going to be the compact, because I can't afford either of the Fujis, and I suspect that I'd also start finding them too big/heavy.

 

[Alastair]

So basically mirror less is the choice of the poser?

There are two types of posers with cameras..

• Posers pretending to be fashionable - Mirror-less "retro"cameras
• Posers pretending to be photographers - Nikon D800/Canon 5Diii

Please note, my tongue is firmly in cheek..
(and my X-Pro1 is fashionably retro)

 

[Spiritflier]

There are two types of posers with cameras..

• Posers pretending to be fashionable - Mirror-less "retro"cameras
• Posers pretending to be photographers - Nikon D800/Canon 5Diii

Please note, my tongue is firmly in cheek..
(and my X-Pro1 is fashionably retro)

I'm screwed then 'cos I've got the D800 AND the Fuji X-Pro1

 

[MikeM]

So basically mirror less is the choice of the poser?

No, it's the choice of the person who wants the same IQ as an SLR, but doesn't want to lug 2 feet of real estate around with him.

 

[arad85]

I'm screwed then 'cos I've got the D800 AND the Fuji X-Pro1

No... just schizophrenic....

 

[boyfalldown]

I'm screwed then 'cos I've got the D800 AND the Fuji X-Pro1

Me too, x100s & d800 - I'm in right trouble

 

[inkiboo]

Well, believe it, in some cases at least...

1. No front / back focus issues... CSC WINS!
2. Very fast focus... CSC WINS!
3. Tracking... DSLR WINS!

What else? I don't know... maybe a DSLR wins in low light, maybe CSC wins, I don't know but for focusing fast and accurately on a stationary subject in the good to ok light that most people shoot in most of the time I think I'm right in saying that the best CSC should beat the best DSLR. Yes?

Unless you know better? If so what DSLR and lens combo beats the current world record holder?

I guess that must be why all the top photo agencies around the world have started to switch to CSCs? After all, they offer so many benefits.

Oh wait, they aren't? Maybe you should start educating the world's best editorial photographers about where they have gone wrong?

One day mirrorless cameras will be better than SLRs. The very concept of a mirror is somewhat backward but they were designed way before people even considered what we do from cameras today. But right now CSCs lack so much as to still be a compromise, especially when we talk about anything beyond 200mm and for tracking moving objects.

But what I find utterly amazing is anyone who thinks Canon and Nikon are sitting there not contemplating releasing a mirrorless pro-grade dSLR replacement.

 

[woof woof]

I guess that must be why all the top photo agencies around the world have started to switch to CSCs? After all, they offer so many benefits.

Oh wait, they aren't? Maybe you should start educating the world's best editorial photographers about where they have gone wrong?

50 years ago all the top agency togs were using manual focus cameras and shooting film. The world moves on mate... stop sticking your head in the sand and start to live with it Maybe we should freeze all development if you feel worried and frightened by it?

Maybe you could make a start by substantiating your comment about focus? I doubt it though, why should you involve facts when you can make sweeping and unsupported statements?

It's not up to me to try and change the world but even someone like you should be able to see that making informed decisions is better than relying on assumptions, prejudice and half baked third hand stories of poor focus performance, noise and front to back DoF which seems to be the norm for DSLR die hards who have never tried a CSC to trot out on the net whenever threads like this crop up.

So, instead of worrying about my role in life and how I may fulfil it could I respectfully ask you to consider that some may have open minds and may think about what's best for them and after researching the options then go on to make the informed choice that what is best for them is a mirrorless camera. DSLR's may be better for some, even most, but lets consider the choices with an open mind... Radical idea eh?

 

[jakeblu]

I guess that must be why all the top photo agencies around the world have started to switch to CSCs? After all, they offer so many benefits.

Oh wait, they aren't? Maybe you should start educating the world's best editorial photographers about where they have gone wrong?

It may come as a surprise to you Gerard but 99% of the worlds photographers do not shoot for top agencies, actually probably 90% of photographers don't shoot for any agencies whatsoever, and to be fair I fancy a number of those that do don't use digital anyway, well certainly not a DSLR.

Personally I am impressed with my CSC, Fuji is my spiritual home because the first serious digital camera I bought was a 602, EVF btw and that was over 12 years ago . The IQ is as good as most of the canons I had using L glass with perhaps the exception of the 5D its also a lot more convenient and I have found I do shoot a lot more now than I did. No, there not suitable for everyone clearly there are issues with tracking focus and very long lenses, but to be honest they really are probably suitable for many photographers walking around with a DSLR simply because they believe that's the only accepted professional class standard.

Steve

 

[inkiboo]

I'm not sure who are worse; the people who constantly bang on about CSCs or those who do the same about Apple.

 

[inkiboo]

It may come as a surprise to you Gerard but 99% of the worlds photographers do not shoot for top agencies, actually probably 90% of photographers don't shoot for any agencies whatsoever, and to be fair I fancy a number of those that do don't use digital anyway, well certainly not a DSLR.

Personally I am impressed with my CSC, Fuji is my spiritual home because the first serious digital camera I bought was a 602, EVF btw and that was over 12 years ago . The IQ is as good as most of the canons I had using L glass with perhaps the exception of the 5D its also a lot more convenient and I have found I do shoot a lot more now than I did. No, there not suitable for everyone clearly there are issues with tracking focus and very long lenses, but to be honest they really are probably suitable for many photographers walking around with a DSLR simply because they believe that's the only accepted professional class standard.

Steve

Steve, I don't think you will find me saying that CSCs are not great. They serve a particular market very well and certainly provide most people with everything they could need from a camera. Your point about people thinking they NEED a dSLR to create great photos is spot on. If you notice, I think the dSLR is dying and it will eventually be replaced by a mirrorless version; it makes total sense.

But I maintain, and will debate with anyone, that there is no CSC that offers a decent replacement for a D4, D800 or any pro camera offered by Canon. That is what annoys me about CSC nutters; they seem to think it is the answer for everything. In the same way the dSLR is not the answer to everything, nor is a CSC. By the way, that point is not aimed at you and a more general comment on a minority who push CSC for everything.

As soon as there is a CSC competitor for a D4/D800 I will jump on board because of the benefits mirrorless can bring. Until then, I will carry on using the best tool for the job.

 

[woof woof]

But I maintain, and will debate with anyone, that there is no CSC that offers a decent replacement for a D4, D800 or any pro camera offered by Canon. That is what annoys me about CSC nutters; they seem to think it is the answer for everything. In the same way the dSLR is not the answer to everything, nor is a CSC. By the way, that point is not aimed at you and a more general comment on a minority who push CSC for everything.

As soon as there is a CSC competitor for a D4/D800 I will jump on board because of the benefits mirrorless can bring. Until then, I will carry on using the best tool for the job.

Well there's progress.

You moved on from sweeping statements that can't be supported to what could be described as a reasoned argument.

All you have to do now is drop the silly dismissiveness.

Well done.

 

[inkiboo]

MOD EDIT : Post removed due to breaking forum rules.

 

[simonblue]

Steve, I don't think you will find me saying that CSCs are not great. They serve a particular market very well and certainly provide most people with everything they could need from a camera. Your point about people thinking they NEED a dSLR to create great photos is spot on. If you notice, I think the dSLR is dying and it will eventually be replaced by a mirrorless version; it makes total sense.

But I maintain, and will debate with anyone, that there is no CSC that offers a decent replacement for a D4, D800 or any pro camera offered by Canon. That is what annoys me about CSC nutters; they seem to think it is the answer for everything. In the same way the dSLR is not the answer to everything, nor is a CSC. By the way, that point is not aimed at you and a more general comment on a minority who push CSC for everything.

As soon as there is a CSC competitor for a D4/D800 I will jump on board because of the benefits mirrorless can bring. Until then, I will carry on using the best tool for the job.

Thats what i have been saying,use the best tool for the job,its a simple as that,for me its an ccs system,by the way have you been looking to upgrade your D4 to the D4s

 

[ernesto]

I'm not sure who are worse; the people who constantly bang on about CSCs or those who do the same about Apple.

It is definitely those who bang on about CSC's.



(I love Apple)

 

[inkiboo]

Thats what i have been saying,use the best tool for the job,its a simple as that,for me its an ccs system,by the way have you been looking to upgrade your D4 to the D4s

As much as I would love to, I can't justify the upgrade. I only shoot for fun so spending a few thousand isn't on the cards just yet!