Sans Mirror: Mirrorless to Outsell DSLRs ‘in three years’

Last week's headline-grabbing DPReview article entitled: CES 2015 Samsung Interview: Mirrorless to outsell DSLRs 'in three years is bubbling with market-baiting undercurrents.

In Thom Hogan's words: 

“However, the actual quote in the interview is “In the last year…market reports are predicting that in 2018/19 mirrorless cameras will outsell DSLRs.” In other words, Samsung was quoting one of those private, for-money-only market analyst reports. I say “one” and not “reports” because I only know of one that makes the prediction Samsung claims. Others that I’m aware of say something slightly different. Indeed, there’s great disagreement amongst analysts on where DSLR sales will eventually settle (if they don’t just decline into oblivion).

I’d also point out that, even if that analyst report quoted by Samsung turns out to be correct, that doesn’t necessarily mean great things for mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras peaked in sales two years ago and have been flat since. The report Samsung referenced assumes that significant current DSLR volume will become mirrorless volume, for example.

Oh, and did I point out that these expensive reports are targeted at…you guessed it…camera and camera accessory makers, companies like Samsung? Thus, in the case of Samsung you have them parroting something they paid money for that tells them what they wanted to hear. I note that Samsung didn’t mention other aspects of that report that might be unflattering to Samsung, or other reports that disagree entirely. In other words, Samsung was picking and choosing what to repeat.”

It's like paying a seer to give you good news, then telling your supporters that you and your descendants will be around for generations, enemies, and acts of god be damned.

A shallow review of the Sony A7 MKII

Beating search engine spiders in order to maintain traffic, and Google rank, requires verbosia. It requires cut-copy-insert-paste style reviews. Here's what I mean:

Here are some images taken by (name of camera) which just got released. It is so new and hot. And the (name of feature) is vastly improved. This review of the (name of camera) will show you how (name of city) looks like [sic] through the great (name of lens) and (name of camera) combination.

Do that as often as possible. You will beat Google. Your If you're an honest blog like the super-honest The Phoblographer, you'll even put out out a proviso:

“At the moment of initially publishing this review, we haven’t done a lot of in-depth testing for the reason that Adobe Lightroom doesn’t support the RAW files at the moment, so we’re going to update this section when that happens.”

Why thank you, The Phoblographer. And congrats. You have just beat Google. Later on, all you got to do is change the wording of the title from 'Impressions' to 'Review', paste in some Lightroom comparos, and voila! Review!

But I prefer to have my leek soup with leeks.

Source: Review: Sony A7 MK II

Summilux FLE 35 VS Nokton 35 VS Canon LTM 35/1,5

One of Rangefinder Forum's most helpful contributors, jonmanjiro, in 2013, posted a lovely comparison of four lenses:

Leica Summilux 35 FLE
Voigtländer M Nokton 35/1,4 MC
Voigtländer M Nokton 35/1,4 SC
Canono LTM 35/1,5

As you can see, although many decades newer, the Noktons appear to be cut from a very similar cloth to the classic -- and much more expensive -- Canon lens. The Summilux produces noticeably smoother bokeh. I am a long-time fan of the Canon LTM 35/2, about which I wrote at length. Later last year, I sold it to a collector because its aperture blades were in poor repair and I repairing them is costly, and difficult. 

In its stead I purchased the Canon LTM 35/1,5 about which I will be writing soon.

The above Rangefinder Forum link comes from a reader named Adam, with whom I've been communicating since October of last year. Thank you Adam.

Read more

Camera makers focusing on other camera makers, not on customers

According to Thom Hogan, camera makers look at other camera makers, not at customers, when designing new cameras.

“Further, it’s abundantly clear that the camera makers are all looking at each other, not at customers. Anything different (more pixels, different sensor size, lower light capability, different focus system, IS, you name it) tends to be quickly matched or reacted to in some way very quickly by most of the players (uh, Pentax, hello?). Sometimes it’s just marketing message or pricing that adjusts, but often we see things like the Canon EOS M putting a mirrorless stake in the ground, which has a FUD-like drag effect on the others. Short of a truly breakthrough technology that’s patent protected, none of the camera makers are going to manage to beat the others to the punch by more than a cycle or so. ”

By targeting other manufacturers, sales are netted on the slippery backs of system jumpers. Endemic to system jumping is dabbling, and its apparent market growth. This occurs only when a technology excites the enthusiast. When that technology ripens, enthusiasts move on.

It is an unsustainable market. Camera companies gaining market share in a dwindling market will result in the death of numerous mounts, the wholesale liquidation of lenses, accessories, and cameras, and the alienation of investing customers. 

Mirrorless or not, everyone is making a wannabe dSLR. Everyone is making fantastic lenses. And yes, there are some cool technologies underpinning today's latest mirrorless cameras. But apart from smartphones, nothing new, nothing that revolutionises the way the user interacts with their camera, or the world they are shooting, has hit market.

It was never the camera that we wanted: it was us. And the easiest way for us to get more of what we want is the smartphone. 

Sans Mirror: DSLRs are the new medium format

Thom doesn't see dSLRs going the way of the dodo. Cameras of all types have their uses, and niches. As mirrorless establishes a larger foothold in the dwindling camera market, the dSLR will become, in Thom's words: 

“the new Medium Format. In other words, the ones who are truly serious about extracting all they can from their imaging will still use DSLRs, while the rest will use mirrorless cameras. ”

Many FF 35mm photographers stepping down to smaller sensors notice that lens parity doesn't exist. A m43 sensor attached to a 150mm f/2,8 lens may achieve a similar angle of view as a FF 300mm lens, but its DOF will be closer to a hypothetical and compact 300mm f/5,6 lens.

Size advantages exist only when taking DOF out of the picture. In Thom's words:

“Mirrorless cameras are turning into smaller, lighter, excellent performers that do well in a limited range of focal lengths, typically 16-105mm. It’s when the subject starts moving fast and/or you need lots of reach that those three adjectives (smaller, lighter, excellent) tend to disappear.

I’m not convinced that those three things will be “fixed” in the near term, if ever. Once you get into longer telephoto lenses, the lens size and weight tends to be dictated by focal length and aperture and less by sensor size. A 300mm f/2.8 lens will be at or near 300mm in length and the front element will be over 100mm wide. Sure, m4/3, with it’s crop length, can produce a 150mm f/2.8 lens that’s “equivalent,” but it will still be 150mm in length and feature a 58mm front element or larger, and technically it has a two stop disadvantage to a full frame 300mm f/2.8, so we really should be comparing to a 300mm f/5.6. An APS system will need a 200mm lens, and it’ll have a 72mm front element at f/2.8 and just over a one stop disadvantage. In other words, there’s some scaling, but the size/weight of telephoto options tends to start creeping beyond the small, light category and aren’t delivering the same subject isolation at f/2.8.”

I'm assuming that by 16-105mm, Thom is referring to 35mm FF equivalent focal lengths, as 16mm on 1", on m43, on APS-C frames quite different images. Extrapolating on the above, lenses for smaller sensors returning FF-equivalent framing and DOF to a 300mm f/2,8 would be just as large, if not larger, than the lens they were designed to emulate. Which is why compromises exist.

All systems are limited by two pillars: size and performance. Small-sensor mirrorless cameras have certain advantages. Equating FF DOF and angles of view limit much of their utility and every size advantage they boast. And yet, dSLRs grew up to be beasts. Even Nikon's compact D5000 is a beast next to a typical film-era SLR.

Which is one reason Thom concludes thusly:

“Maybe there isn’t one [be-all, end-all product] any more, and you simply use mirrorless for one set of tasks and DSLRs for another.”

l-camera forum: Should the next M have a Hybrid viewfinder?

While Fujifilm X fans debate endlessly whether or not the hybrid OVF should be completely replaced by an EVF, Leica fans are staunch in their support of the integrated rangefinder/focusing window. 

The few dissenters raise suggestions such as the following:

“Perhaps they could replace the Frame Line device with a transparent EVF screen. It would be in the optical path of the RF mechanism, so the RF would still be mechanical, but the Frame lines would be via the EVF. They could then overly all kinds of focus assist solutions.

A lot of people would not like that, however it would allow for the display of a single Frame-line based on the 6-bit coding, and perhaps autofocus capabilities for a new generation of lenses. If we look at the changes between the M9 and M240 then we have to assume then next M will offer a similar step up.

I like the film cameras more and more (3 dials and one button), would be happy with an affordable M60 to complement a _more_ digital M380.”

But speculation rises every three or four years in Leica camp as current products reach ostensible end-of-life cycles. Near Consensus is possible among Leica fans because the M system itself is much better targeted toward the best customers for the M.

Fujifilm makes do with people coming up from P&S cameras and down, from dSLRs; users that want everything all the time, and are ready and willing to jump ship at the drop of a hat. 

Source: Should the next M have a Hybrid Viewfinder? - Leica User Forum