Why mirrorless sales are disapointing

inkiboo said:
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!
Click to expand...

I don't normally look into people's kit choices particularly but your comment about only shooting for fun made me look and as far as I can see, you use/used a D4, D3S, D800 and 1DX. Whilst I agree that these are obviously the 'best tool for the job', can I ask what capacity you use them for? From your comments against CSC's I assume you shoot professionally?

I'm not passing comment either way, just interested in the actual use for these high-end systems in comparison to what a CSC could offer.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
I don't normally look into people's kit choices particularly but your comment about only shooting for fun made me look and as far as I can see, you use/used a D4, D3S and 1DX. Whilst I agree that these are obviously the 'best tool for the job', can I ask what capacity you use them for? From your comments against CSC's I assume you shoot professionally?

I'm not passing comment either way, just interested in the actual use for these high-end systems in comparison to what a CSC could offer.
Click to expand...

I don't shoot professionally; if I had to feed my family based on my photography then they would go hungry. I used to work at Getty Images but not as a photographer.

My cameras now are a D3, D4, D800 and an F5. Ignoring the F5, I could probably use a CSC based system for 75% of the photos I take but given that extra 25% and that I own a fairly extensive range of Nikon glass from 14mm to 400mm, continuing with the dSLR makes sense.
 
inkiboo said:
I don't shoot professionally; if I had to feed my family based on my photography then they would go hungry. I used to work at Getty Images but not as a photographer.

My cameras now are a D3, D4, D800 and an F5. Ignoring the F5, I could probably use a CSC based system for 75% of the photos I take but given that extra 25% and that I own a fairly extensive range of Nikon glass from 14mm to 400mm, continuing with the dSLR makes sense.
Click to expand...
Sell the D3 and buy every Fuji camera and lens in the range. Sell the rest off book a fab holiday, and enjoy a lighter life. I bet you would take more pictures not having to lug that lot around.:)
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Like I say, I'm not passing comment at all as we all purchase our own kit for our own needs just interesting to see why we shoot with what we do. I can see that you have a large stake in Nikon kit so can understand your reticence to move to anything other than a Nikon offering.

I used to be fully Canon and shot the usual Weddings/Portraits/Events and it always delivered excellent results consistently. However, I got bored of carrying even a reduced kit of one body/lens on family days out/holidays (and risk looking like a camera nerd in the process..) so bought a Sony NEX5 as my walkabout. Slowly, due to winding back the paid work over the last 12 months, I found myself using the Canon kit less and less so it made no sense to keep it. I also, found that even the early Sony sensor in the NEX5 killed my crop Canon kit (40D) in low light although the standard Sony kit lens did lose out on the widest apertures.

However, as per a lot of the comments in favour of CSCs, the flexibility they offer over DSLRs of using pretty much any lens does give them a big benefit over DSLRs but I still don't see why they should be (currently) seen as DSLR 'killers'. They're an alternative.

Just a couple of example shots using a mix of legacy kit, all of which cost less than £50 per lens;

OM Zuiko 50mm 3.5 macro


Crumbling fly by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr


DSC03181 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

OM Zuiko 28mm 2.8


The sun in a flower by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

OM Zuiko 50mm 1.4


Sony NEX - Tokina 80-200 F4 / OM Zuiko 50 F1.4 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

Tokina 80-200 F4


Sony NEX - Tokina 80-200 F4 / OM Zuiko 50 F1.4 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr
 
Just to give M4/3rds support too. When shot in 'ideal' conditions I've had equally excellent results. This was taken on a GF1 (early sensor) with the 14-45 kit lens at F8 and 2 flashguns fired remotely. I have this printed to A3 on my wall and can see detail in eyelashes and the denim at close range.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mamfuiq7mp2qegj/P1040200.jpg

I'm more than happy with that result so I imagine the newer M4/3rds sensors are much better again.
 
theurbanclown said:
Yeah, there are some. But with better battery life I'm sure there would be whole lot more (me included).
Click to expand...

my gripped omd can take well in excess of a thousand pictures without having to change batteries. considering a wedding photographer will have two or even three bodies, changing batteries will not be any problem.
 
inkiboo said:
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.
Click to expand...

If they did that, they would end up with something very similar to the pentax mirrorless brick. They cant get round the distance between lens and sensor slr lenses require.
 
I don't think inkiboo is saying cameras will get any smaller, rather that the concept of a moving mirror will become obsolete (eventually)
 
Just wondering how long the naysayers have actually used a CSC for. A quick fondle in the shop? A day or 2 shooting? Or they've read a few reviews?
 
Laudrup said:
I don't think you need to buy them to know they aren't what you are looking for.
Click to expand...
Indeed and IMO, only an idiot would buy something they think they wouldn't like, use it and then confirm their original thoughts.

It's smaller than I'd like, most of them habe a weird rectangle shape and just looking at someone opposite me with a NEX and a walkabout lens that clearly outweighs it is enough for me.
 
Whilst agree that the NEX 'looks' unbalanced with the original 18-55 kit lens (and others of similar size), in use the balance is actually spot on. When using it I just have a wrist strap off a Wii remote attached to it for security and balance it on the tips of my fingers around the grip. Combined with being very light and the grip being large enough to hold it's actually really comfortable. When I shoot, it's just a matter of lifting it to my eyeline with one hand and zooming with my left.

Contrary to this, it's much harder to hold a medium sized SLR with one hand without gripping it more tightly due to the increased weight.

Again, I think actually using a CSC is preferable to looking at one and assuming it's unbalanced.
 
No, you don't have to buy one but have they actually held or used one?
 
Phil Young said:
Indeed and IMO, only an idiot would buy something they think they wouldn't like, use it and then confirm their original thoughts.
Click to expand...

I recently bought a new Sony SLT body to try it out thinking I probably wouldn't like the EVF and proved that while it had some advantages I just didn't like it. I would have the same problem with a CSC, so back to my DSLR.

So you could class me as an idiot (most already have) Luckily I sold it for more that I paid for it so I am a lucky idiot...
 
stevelmx5 said:
Whilst agree that the NEX 'looks' unbalanced with the original 18-55 kit lens (and others of similar size), in use the balance is actually spot on. When using it I just have a wrist strap off a Wii remote attached to it for security and balance it on the tips of my fingers around the grip. Combined with being very light and the grip being large enough to hold it's actually really comfortable. When I shoot, it's just a matter of lifting it to my eyeline with one hand and zooming with my left.

Contrary to this, it's much harder to hold a medium sized SLR with one hand without gripping it more tightly due to the increased weight.

Again, I think actually using a CSC is preferable to looking at one and assuming it's unbalanced.
Click to expand...

My 5D lives on a similar wrist strap these days and I hold it in exactly the same fashion - it just kind of hangs from my fingertips rather than needing gripping at all.

I don't find a DSLR (even a large one) to be the hassle that CSC users make it out to be. Equally I know that CSCs are not as far behind DSLRs as they are made out to be. I fail to see why there is this big war between the two camps.
 
I know that this will have Alan and the rest of the m4/3 evangelists reaching for their ducking stools and rose-tinted glasses but I really couldn't get on with micro-four thirds in any kind of meaningful way despite owning one for a while... With the exception of the OM-D, they've all felt cheap and plasticky (although I'll admit that there are plenty of APS-C DSLR's that are similar). The image quality hasn't been up to a standard I find acceptable and the AF performance has been woeful for some of the photography that I engage in.

I do however believe that mirrorless systems in general are the way forward. You've only got to look at the new Fuji X-T1 to see that they're becoming a force to be reckoned with. For me, mirrorless systems with large sensors are appealing... Micro four-thirds isn't.

Could I see myself ditching full-frame cameras with mirror assemblies in favour of a CSC? Yes, probably but the replacement would have to be as good in EVERY respect!

At present, mirrorless systems are good but not quite there yet... I can see the potential benefits but I'm not blinded by them. Let's see what the future holds. :)
 
Mr Will said:
I fail to see why there is this big war between the two camps.
Click to expand...

It's human nature and playground psychology..

.. my dad is bigger than your dad .. .. my camera is better than your camera ..

And no one wants to think they might have made a mistake and bought the wrong camera, absolutely no regrets permitted (anyone saying that a DSLR/CSC is the only tool for them generally comes across as a touch insecure).

And then the real "tools" turn-up for an argument. Making the indefensible absolutes, i.e. "No pro would ever use a CSC" or "A CSC can do anything a DSLR can" or some-such nonsense (which are both foolish statements anyway because they can only be disproven), and then the playground taunts step up a notch into tantrums. But that's forums for you. Keeps things interesting and maintains the bandwidth.
 
Spiritflier said:
I know that this will have Alan and the rest of the m4/3 evangelists reaching for their ducking stools and rose-tinted glasses but I really couldn't get on with micro-four thirds in any kind of meaningful way despite owning one for a while... With the exception of the OM-D, they've all felt cheap and plasticky (although I'll admit that there are plenty of APS-C DSLR's that are similar). The image quality hasn't been up to a standard I find acceptable and the AF performance has been woeful for some of the photography that I engage in.

I do however believe that mirrorless systems in general are the way forward. You've only got to look at the new Fuji X-T1 to see that they're becoming a force to be reckoned with. For me, mirrorless systems with large sensors are appealing... Micro four-thirds isn't.

Could I see myself ditching full-frame cameras with mirror assemblies in favour of a CSC? Yes, probably but the replacement would have to be as good in EVERY respect!

At present, mirrorless systems are good but not quite there yet... I can see the potential benefits but I'm not blinded by them. Let's see what the future holds. :)
Click to expand...

If the Alain is me...

I am most definately not a MFT evangalist and indeed I've ranted long and often on this very forum about the faults of MFT.

I'm no format or brand follower and I'll buy what's best for me regardless of brand, sensor size or format (as in DSLR or CSC) and at the mo what's best for me is a Sony A7 and a Panasonic G1 although the latter may make way for something newer at some point. My 5D + lenses are all sold and for the first time in knocking on 30 years I have no SLR kit. That's me, YMMV.

In all this debate what surprises me is the brand snobbishness, prejudice and sweeping generalisations some people make. We see it on this forum.

A particular irk of mine are the often vague criticisms of CSC relating to focus, noise, DoF control and possibly general image quality and / or build quality. Why these sweeping generalisations appear so often I simply don't know when we have so many CSC models now from so many manufacturers ranging in sensor size from sub MFT, MFT and APS-C to FF, from point and shoot equivalent up to full metal jacket high end enthusiast kit and kit lens up to very good and cutting edge wide aperture primes. It's as if people still think there are only Panasonic and Olympus in the game with the same first generation camera and lens line up. News Flash... That was several years ago. Surely now it's time to stop being so vage and wooley and to instead start talking about specifics?

As far as I can see the only sweeping generalisation that can still be made of the CSC as a species is that focus tracking generally isn't as good as that of some DSLR's. Other than that and the EVF v OVF issue what other sweeping generalisations can be made?

As to the original question... personally I think that prejudice and ignorance (and of course camera phones) of what is actually available and what it's capable of are very probably significant reasons why CSC sales aren't in the stratosphere and if nothing else this thread has reinforced that view for me.
 
Rapscallion said:
If they did that, they would end up with something very similar to the pentax mirrorless brick. They cant get round the distance between lens and sensor slr lenses require.
Click to expand...

The K-01 was just a terrible design from the start, more of a gimmick that an attempt to find a serious solution. Your never going to get an ultra compact design from an SLR flange distance and I think a lot of the ASPC market might well move towards a smaller one but I see much less of a need with either ASPC use of longer lenses or FF.

With FF your looking at significantly larger lens sizes(remember M mount lenses lack AF and camera aperture control) and users who generally want a high degree of manual control. Is a smaller flange distance really going to have much gain in usability? you take away the mirror and you'll probably making a shorter camera(EVF taking up less space than a prism, no AF sensor below) but if there a great need for a narrower one? indeed with the recent Sony FE lenses is actually seems like the short flange distance causes problems with digital sensors potentially leading to longer lenses, so you may just be looking at deeper body vs longer lens.

Again I think its notable that both Canon and Nikon have put most of their focus on developing FF lenses over the past 2-3 years.
 
Last edited:
Moreorless said:
The K-01 was just a terrible design from the start, more of a gimmick that an attempt to find a serious solution. Your never going to get an ultra compact design from an SLR flange distance and I think a lot of the ASPC market might well move towards a smaller one but I see much less of a need with either ASPC use of longer lenses or FF.

With FF your looking at significantly larger lens sizes(remember M mount lenses lack AF and camera aperture control) and users who generally want a high degree of manual control. Is a smaller flange distance really going to have much gain in usability? you take away the mirror and you'll probably making a shorter camera(EVF taking up less space than a prism, no AF sensor below) but if there a great need for a narrower one? indeed with the recent Sony FE lenses is actually seems like the short flange distance causes problems with digital sensors potentially leading to longer lenses, so you may just be looking at deeper body vs longer lens.

Again I think its notable that both Canon and Nikon have put most of their focus on developing FF lenses over the past 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

Flange distance is very important in wide angle lens design. all DSLR's need to use large inverted telephoto designs ( retro focus) simply because the the back focus is far too short otherwise. This is neither efficient nor the best way to achieve high quality short focus lens designs. Even fisheyes become massive.
 
The biggest PITA with the SLR is taking kit on holiday - the weight restrictions mean I have to either slim the kit right down or play the pocket swap game to get the bag past the weight check (and yes, they do weigh hand baggage. Maybe not every time but would you risk your kit in the hold?) but I reckon the XPro kit will leave me a few kg to play with, even with a compact or 2 in there too. The 1AW will be going in the hold (batteries in hand baggage though) - it's insured and rugged enough to take whatever the baggage handlers can throw it from!
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Flange distance is very important in wide angle lens design. all DSLR's need to use large inverted telephoto designs ( retro focus) simply because the the back focus is far too short otherwise. This is neither efficient nor the best way to achieve high quality short focus lens designs. Even fisheyes become massive.
Click to expand...

The problem is that digital sensors don't behave the same way film does, if light hits a sensor at took extreme an angle then you get colour shifts and smearing. The wider the lens, the larger the aperture or the sensor and the more extreme this problem becomes, Leica actually needed to redesign a lot of their wide angles.

Even looking at ASPC and m43 its clear that UWA lenses include some kind of retrofocal design, they might have a "folded away" position that looks smaller but in use their all pretty long.

I look at the Sony FE lenses and to me they actually look longer than similar SLR lenses, the 28-70mm kit lens for example is about the same length as a Nikon 24-85mm dispite having less range and a smaller aperture at the long end. I suspect whats actually happening here is that your just trading a smaller flange distance for a longer lens needed to correct light angles.
 
i think you could end up with something that has that thin "someone stuck a vacuum on my camera" nex look, with abit bigger grip and mirrorbox/flange gap for a slr lens on mirrorless style camera.
or it goes even bigger as they replace mirror with optional slot in behind filters
 
Does anyone really wait until he battery dies on them before changing to a fresh one? Do you need to look to see what you're doing when you swap them out? (I mean really look rather than a quick glance.) How long does it actually take to swap a battery out? 5 seconds or so? If that causes you to miss a sequence of shots, you need to plan better!
 
daugirdas said:
Both with identical lenses perhaps? And we all love primes, don't we?
Click to expand...

I would suggest it's a distinct advantage to have two different focal lenses. Prime or variable focus depending on what your subject or AWD is.

Returning to the subject of batteries, I have shot literally thousands of frames throughout my life and never missed a shot through a battery going down, even as a photographer in the forces in some very demanding situations and extremes of temperature some below freezing.

Adopting the 5Ps maxim is always a good choice. Prior Planning Preparation Prevent P*** Poor Performance. This starts long before the job.
 
Last edited:
I like my little G3 and 14 prime combo. Best of all, I'm enjoying my photography and producing great images with a camera and lens that secondhand cost me under £250, and size and weight-wise as small as some compacts I've owned.

They're not for everyone, but they fit my lifestyle well. Too cheap to sell, inexpensive primes and zooms aplenty on the radar. I'm especially interested in the 300/4 announced for next year by olympus - as long as it's pitched at a similar price to existing 300/4's rather than existing 600/4's!
 
Out of interest I just ran a survey on another forum I'm a member of. All full-time pros, mainly weddings with some commercial, some portrait and a couple of specialist children photographers.

50 replies.

88% are using only DSLR's. 8% are using mainly DSLR and occasionally a CSC and 4% are solely using CSC (all Fuji).

Reasons given for not yet moving were:

OVF (or only having an EVF which is still seen as an issue in low light and bright sunlight, X-T1 included)
Battery life
AF not yet at the level of a D600 level body (let alone a D3/4/1Dx etc), especially in low light
Legacy lens options
Flash system (or lack of)

There is a lot of feeling that carrying a set of smaller, lighter, less costly bodies has a huge appeal, and that can also be beneficial in terms of being discreet, but the overwhelming feeling is that it's currently not quite there. 18 months+ might have very different answers...the X-Pro2 (should it appear) is interesting to lot. I should stress that many of us have tried Fuji and Olympus CSC's.
 
Radiohead said:
Out of interest I just ran a survey on another forum I'm a member of. All full-time pros, mainly weddings with some commercial, some portrait and a couple of specialist children photographers.

50 replies.

88% are using only DSLR's. 8% are using mainly DSLR and occasionally a CSC and 4% are solely using CSC (all Fuji).

Reasons given for not yet moving were:

OVF (or only having an EVF which is still seen as an issue in low light and bright sunlight, X-T1 included)
Battery life
AF not yet at the level of a D600 level body (let alone a D3/4/1Dx etc), especially in low light
Legacy lens options
Flash system (or lack of)

There is a lot of feeling that carrying a set of smaller, lighter, less costly bodies has a huge appeal, and that can also be beneficial in terms of being discreet, but the overwhelming feeling is that it's currently not quite there. 18 months+ might have very different answers...the X-Pro2 (should it appear) is interesting to lot. I should stress that many of us have tried Fuji and Olympus CSC's.
Click to expand...
But have these pros USED a csc and given it a fair chance!?!?!

I'm just kidding and being sarcastic :)

That's nice work - good on you for conducting the research.
 
:D

I have to admit I was surprised that the mirrorless was so low. There's a huge amount of online noise about these cameras at the moment but not the wholesale move from the pro world that you might think.

I suspect that will change though.
 
But it isn't the pros who make up 95% (or whatever the actual value is) of the camera buying public....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top