# Thom Hogan: Products fighting each other: OK



## Solarflare

Oh the irony.

I'm a programmer.

I avoid Apple products like the plague exactly because they treat the customer like an idiot that cannot be trusted with taking control of the computer.

Well, thats still true. However:



Thom Hogan: Products of the same company might fight each other, thats cool.


> Sunday’s episode of 60 Minutes contained this interchange regarding product management at Apple:
> _
> Charlie Rose: Is there danger of one product cannibalizing the other product?_
> 
> _Phil Schiller: It's not a danger, it's almost by design. You need each of these products to try to fight for their space, their time with you. The iPhone has to become so great that you don't know why you want an iPad. The iPad has to be so great that you don't know why you why you want a notebook. The notebook has to be so great, you don't know why you want a desktop. Each one's job is to compete with the other ones._


 Hu !

Looking at Canon EOS-M and even worse Nikon 1 - thats definitely not something Nikon or Canon would agree with.





> Consider Nikon’s product line of cameras: Coolpix, Nikon 1, DX DSLR, FX DSLR. Nikon carefully does the opposite of Apple: Nikon targets different customers for these devices and then carefully makes sure that the products don’t compete with each other. Really? Isn’t a camera a camera? Wouldn’t I want whatever camera I pick from Nikon to be as good as it can be? Why is it that Coolpix have one design style and feature set, but the Nikon 1 another? Why must I study the manual in detail every time I cross lines in Nikon’s products? Why does Product A feel completely different than Product B, C, D, E, and F? Why is the Nikon 1 the only product with Motion Snapshot if Motion Snapshot is a camera feature that customers might want? Talk about restricted targeting and keeping your products from competing with one another.


 Consider especially that only the D5x00 line has a fully articulated screen (excluding the original D5000 which has kind of more a monitor like the D750). And that only the D7x00, D6x0 and the D750 have U1, U2 modes.

I absolutely love the one handed operation of the D5x00 line, and the ability to TURN THE MONITOR AROUND to protect it (and make sure it NEVER ACTIVATES which my D750 does every single time I want to change ISO). So why cant I get the same in a full frame camera ?!?

Canon does this a bit better, since you get the equivalent of the U modes in the 5D line.





> Simple: it’s because Nikon first identifies a target customer and then pens them into very narrow and extremely arbitrary product definitions. They don’t design to customer problem solving (not even sure they talk to the customers they target), they design to what they think is a “different" customer, which isn’t the same thing. The customer doesn’t get to decide where they are in the mix of products because of this, and the customer better be careful that they don’t miss when deciding which category is right for them, as important things are missing in some of the categories (I’m looking at you, Nikon 1! And lenses in DX).


 Well, it worked for them with me. If the D5100 would have a more reasonable feature set and more lens choices, I might still be a happy D5100 user ... so Nikon convinced me to go for FX.





> Meanwhile, there’s that “great” part of Schiller’s quote. Are Coolpix truly “great”? Great enough that you might not need a Nikon 1?


 Well ... actually the Coolpix A is in many respects superior to the Nikon One system.





> Moreover, there’s the ecosystem thing. For Apple, this has worked marvelously: because I have an iPhone I’m not likely to buy an Android tablet if I also need a tablet, nor a Windows PC if I need a computer.


 ... not ? Well as I said before - I wouldnt touch a Mac PC with a long stick. Okay, thats not true. I might actually buy a Mac for the hardware (like the 5K screens) and install Windows on it (and/or Linux, depending upon what I want to do with that computer).





> We’re a couple of days away from Christmas, and deep into the biggest buying season for cameras. Let’s say you need a _great_ new camera. Does Nikon make one for you? Sure, if you’re in the market for something like a D810, maybe a D7200. Looking for a shirt pocket camera? Sorry, look elsewhere. Looking for an all-in-one compact type camera. Sorry look elsewhere, though if you don’t mind shooting JPEGs, maybe try the P900. Looking for a small interchangeable lens camera? Well, Nikon has one, but is it great? Indeed, is it as great as other choices?


 The winner for me is the D750. The D810 is okay for what it does, too, but the D750 offers me features I need more urgently and is the better generalist camera.

I have no clue why the D7200 would be such a great camera. The D7000 was a great all around camera. The D7100 added a better AF, but lacked fps and buffer for making a good camera for sports. The D7200 now fixed the buffer, but still doesnt have the fps. So even ignoring the issues with build etc, the D7200 is still no replacement for the D300s as a DX sports camera. So - why is the D7200 so great ? Its just the current crutch Nikon offers for wildlife shooters, really. Maybe the D7300 will be complete in that respect ? Or the D300sx/D310/D350/D400/D9000/D9300/whatever, if that ever comes.


----------



## Solarflare

Somehow I forgot my conclusion.

I'm just not holding my breath when it comes to Nikon or Canon making mirrorless systems that can compete with their DSLRs.

As much as I dont like them - Apple shows how to dominate a market successfully.


----------



## f/otographer

Solar, I fell much as you do. I stopped holding my breath a while back in regards to Canikon producing a competitive mirrorless system. My view has always been they fully understand that to properly exploit such a camera a new line of lenses will be required. And neither one of those giants want to in any way give up their lens dominance and start over. I think this is why they are hemming and hawing and have been resting on their laurels. But Sony (and Fuji, and the others) are selling cameras. Sony continues to just knock it out of the park by pushing innovation, making improvements and bringing those quickly to market. Canon and Nikon have been reluctant to, as you say, sell a camera that will steal their own DSLR sales. But its far better for a company to loose a sale to its own competing product then to loose that sale to a competitor. And if Canon and Nikon shooters currently want a full frame mirrorless the only thing these companies can sell those customers is a Sony camera. That is never a good position to be in. Ask Kodak. Or IBM. Or Blackberry. Or Polaroid. Or any number of other companies that ruled the roost and thought they were unassailable.


----------



## Derrel

Mirrorless cameras are the flying cars of the 1950's and 1960's..."Soon every house will have a flying car! No more traffic accidents on crowded freeways!" Soooooooooo much excitment and hype about flying cars and how they will soon take over the car busin...no wait, I mean how they'll soon take over the camera business, by totally replacing what we've had since the 1950's...an eye-level, single lens reflex type of camera in more or less the same size and the same shape as the Nikon F!

Mirrorless sales are small. Canon and Nikon are numbers one and two in the overall small camera business, and have been for decades in a row. The camera branches of Olympus, FujiFilm, and Panasonic are basically _*hobby businesses*_, and sell incredibly few units per year compared to what Canon and Nikon sell. It's astounding to me that Nikon, which has been producing 35mm-type cameras since 1948 (and in business since what was it? 1919?) has been able to stay in business without Thom Hogan's management genius. I mean how the hell does the world's second-leading camera maker find it possible to stay in business making small, compact still cameras for 67 years without Hogan's brilliant insights and his vast experience at running a big company? How is it that he's not an executive VP there, or even a division head?


----------



## f/otographer

Derrel, to be honest the flying car analogy is flawed is quite a few ways. Flying cars were never brought to mass market and your comparing a machine for transportation against an artistic tool. As I said in another post is isn't about MC's taking over DSLR's. Its more about Canon and Nikon not responding quickly to market changes due to A) having a completely moribund attitude that they are unassailable in the market place and B) believing its business as usual and they only have each other to compete with so a laid back innovation/release cycle is perfectly acceptable these days. Which its not. No greater example of this can be given other then Nikon reliance on Sony to provide a dangerous number of its sensors. You know, the very digital sensor that makes a DSLR a DSLR. I'm sorry, but if digital cameras are your bread and butter and you haven't made the business decisions to ensure your dominance in the most critical component of said product then mistakes were made along the way. Sony is dominating the sensor market now and all signs point to them continuing to do so for many years to come. I truly hope that the recent rumors concerning Nikon and Samsung involve a partnership between the two where they join forces in the camera world to play to each of their strengths. Nikon bodies and lenses with Samsungs sensors and EVF tech.

If you listen to podcasts and read articles on the web and watch video reviews you can see that there are indeed many people either swapping to mirrorless from other kinds of cameras or adding mirrorless to their existing gear. This includes enthusiasts and professionals. There are many people who want either the benefit of a smaller, lighter kit or simply the benefits that an EVF brings. Canon and Nikon, as serious photographic entities, should be designing a product to fill this exciting new market segment which has the potential to become a major part of future revenue. I know I will never buy another DSLR for my photography. My options now are Sony and Fuji for what I shoot. I really wish Canon was on that list but they obvious don't think they need to make a product for a photographer like me. But its not just me....there are many shooters out there who have made the switch and wont go back. Its really quite simple....successful businesses don't ignore market trends or potential customers.


----------



## Derrel

Canon and Nikon do not "need" to justify the products that hobby marketers like Panasonic, FujiFIlm, and Olympus have made with their tiny,tiny, tiny slices of the camera selling "pie"....ergo, the flying car analogy is dead on: a niche development can gather huge press, and die, never realizing all the hype that excited content providers spew forth. Podcast hosts are few and far between...families buying digital Rebels and Nikon D3200's number in the millions and millions and millions, world-over.

Mirrorless cameras are still a drop in the bucket sales-wise in the serious camera market segment, which is where Canon and Nikon both sell nearly identical products with huge systems that have established their lens mounts since 1959 for Nikon, and since 1987 for the Canon EF mount. Olympus and Panasonic's camera divisions are *money-LOSERS *for their corporate parents. I expect the same is true for FujiFilm's camera division. Nikon and Canon OTOH, dominate the industry...and have huge customer bases and huge (70 to 90 million) legacy lenses in use, right now, today.

The "many people" switching to mirrorless, talking about it on podcasts, are not BUYING many cameras though. Look into the sales figures. What hipsters and dilettantes do is of little concern to Canon and Nikon; they have huuuuuuuuuge, decades-long leads in their industry...the mirrorless marketers like Oly, Panny, Sony, and Fuji have no such leads, and so the strategies divide along the lines of one strategy for the massive leaders, and a different strategy for the few companies whose products sell at from 3/4 of 1 percent to as much as perhaps 12 percent (Sony) of the cameras in the world every year.

Podcasts are GREAT! But...Canon and Nikon are actually in the camera business...and leading it, by huge, double-digit margins.

You seem to think that the leaders ought to employ the same strategies as the companies with the teeny-tiny market shares.Doesn't work that way. 

BMW is not after the same customers as Kia is. 

McDonald's is not after the same customers as my local $100-per-diner, reservations-only restaurant that has 12 tables. What the companies desperately trying to break in to a market do is of little concern to the established leaders over time, and across segments, and across decades. So...there's no incentive for Canon or Nikon to validate what the newbies in the business are trying to do; Nikon and Canon are not after podcast pieces, or excited Facebook posts, but they want to sell cameras. And the fact is, mirrorless sales are weak, so Canon and Nikon have little incentive to enter the market. But rest assured,,,if they DO, they will handily crush the _hobby businesss_ camera and lens makers, easily.


----------



## Derrel

Oh, rats! Only after I posted did I see that this thread is in the Mirrorless sub-forum. I read the forum via Active Topics, and seldom look at the sub-forum that posts are in. Solarflare's OP and Hogan's article were both kind of...scattershot..all over the place...

I apologize for not paying attention to where the OP was posted. *Mirrorless cameras are fantastic! *Thom Hogan ought to be brought in as Chief Strategist and Head of R&D, Head of Marketing, and Head of Product Development, and Executive VP for Quality Control at Nikon. God knows he harps about how awesome he would be at all those things.


----------



## f/otographer

Podcasts _are_ great, especially when they are hosted and guested by professional photographers currently shooting for clients. If you put your ear to the ground and your eye to the keyhole you can begin to ascertain that there is both interest and movement toward more people adopting mirrorless. As for sales, in a recent video put out by The Camera Store TV the two hosts commented that they are seeing people migrate to mirrorless 'in droves' and many pros are dumping all their DSLR gear for a lighter mirrorless kit. And these are guys that work in the trenches of one of the largest (if not the largest) camera stores in Calgary. It could be what is happening in their store is a fluke, but it is actually mirrored in my local camera store as well as I'm sure it is in stores around the country. This Week In Photo (a great podcast) is constantly discussing the trend they see in people either adopting or adding mirrorless cameras, and the noticeable lack of quality choices from Nikon and Canon. Another recent article discusses how the owner and CEO of Sigma Japan believes Sony will become the major player in the industry given several more years mainly because of their incredible sensor technology. This is a man who has kept his company private, in the hands of his family, and still produces most or all of their products in Japan with no outsourcing to cheaper Asian labor markets. He's no dummy. It really doesn't matter what type of camera you make if you consistently have the best sensor that everyone is going to want. Sony is in a position to make that happen more then anyone else. Canon can probably still keep up, but Nikon needs to figure its sensor plan out pretty quick.

The point of all this isn't where Canon and Nikon have been, but where both they and the photography market are going. Being the powerhouse in the industry for the last 30 years does not guarantee this will be the case for the next 30, or even 5. Mirrorless cameras are nothing more then mirrorless DSLR's, its an evolution of a product in just about the only way it could evolve. The clunky mechanical mirror box has been researched to death and by doing away with it you open up many new options for technological improvements. If history has taught us anything it is that once a technology is out of the bag it will be developed and used in ways not possible when it was conceived. The mirror box is at the end of its life and there isn't a lot you can do with an optical viewfinder. On sensor focus technology and EVF's have years of advancement ahead of them. Seriously, look at what Sony has done in only two years with the a7 line. Sony is hungry and it wants a share of the pie, a big share. It has shown it is willing to make the investments in both resources and technology to push boundaries and think outside the box. If Canon and Nikon honestly believe that they can just sit on DSLR technology for the next 30 years with nothing but gradual megapixel increases then they are fooling themselves.

Of course mirrorless sales are currently smaller then the established DSLR market. C'mon, its only been out a few years. As more technology is poured into these products by smaller, hungrier companies and the cameras are improving with every generation combined with an aging DSLR user base being replaced by younger photographers who aren't invested in Canon and Nikon....well, that's exactly how you turn a market around. Look at Blackberry. They were the undisputed leaders of Smartphones and they were convinced everyone wanted a physical keyboard on their phone while also ignoring the popularity of a fully stocked App store. Apple and Google chewed em up and spit em out. Kodak couldn't envision a future where photographs were not taken on film, even when they helped develop the first digital cameras. How did that work out for them? In a world of rapidly advancing technologies and a changing photography gestalt where professional images are devalued everyday Canon and Nikon thought everyone would _always_ want a big, bulky DSLR to...oh, wait...we aren't there _just quite yet_. But it could happen.


----------



## Dave442

I have yet to pick up a mirrorless camera.  I did move over to Apple, the last holdout in the family, a few years ago.
Sometimes I do miss the silence of my Sony P&S and I have looked at some of the mirrorless options just to have a camera for when I need to be silent.


----------



## tecboy

Sounds like raw vs dng debate.


----------



## tecboy

I'm converting to mirrorless and get into the 'hybrid photography'.






...,and his is right.


----------



## jaomul

Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?

If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.


----------



## tecboy

I think Marc is right about the autofocus in Canon.  I should have get mirrorless a long time ago.


----------



## f/otographer

Tecboy, I think your EOS 70D will be great for your new adventures in Hybrid photography. I wish you the best of luck with that. Can we expect to see a hybrid Avatar photo of you soon? Three little stills and then a short video maybe? Oh I know...on the video part you could say "Why so serious?" or even "Why so mirrorless?" 

Jaomul, as far as Canon doing a real mirrorless I for one am very interested in this. I shoot Sony because they make the camera I need for my photography, namely a FF mirrorless camera. I would prefer to own a Canon instead mainly because of their excellent service/repair system. Sony cant hold a candle to this and if they are in any way serious about capturing more of the pro market they need to do something about it. And to be completely honest Canon knows how to build a much more rugged camera then Sony. I would love a slimmed down MC/EVF version of the 1D series with high megapixel count. The icing on the cake would be for Canon to recognize its heritage and also release an official Canon FD adapter for it so that all of that wonderful old manual focus Canon goodness could instantly be mounted up and used to create beautiful art. So yeah, I want a serious MC from Canon.


----------



## Scatterbrained

jaomul said:


> Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?
> 
> If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.


When you have 20k+ invested in EF glass and speedlights you'll care.  

Personally, I picked up a Sony to shoot alongside my Canon system. Initially I just wanted that amazing sensor, but the more I shoot with it the more I think that it is the future.   There are times that the EVF is a hindrance, but those are the kind of specialized situations where a DSLR really shines anyway.   

As far as mirrorless cameras being a "tiny part" of the market.  I'd just point out that Sony now makes up 13% of all ILC sales.   They went from "fighting for scraps with Oly and Pentax" to having a very firm foothold in the market.  They are the only camera maker on an upward sales trajectory right now.  

Of course, a lot of the hype with the Sony is specifically with their sensors.   I think if Canon can come up with a sensor that competes with the Sony it may stem the tide of "switchers".


----------



## jaomul

Scatterbrained said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?
> 
> If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.
> 
> 
> 
> When you have 20k+ invested in EF glass and speedlights you'll care.
> 
> Personally, I picked up a Sony to shoot alongside my Canon system. Initially I just wanted that amazing sensor, but the more I shoot with it the more I think that it is the future.   There are times that the EVF is a hindrance, but those are the kind of specialized situations where a DSLR really shines anyway.
> 
> As far as mirrorless cameras being a "tiny part" of the market.  I'd just point out that Sony now makes up 13% of all ILC sales.   They went from "fighting for scraps with Oly and Pentax" to having a very firm foothold in the market.  They are the only camera maker on an upward sales trajectory right now.
> 
> Of course, a lot of the hype with the Sony is specifically with their sensors.   I think if Canon can come up with a sensor that competes with the Sony it may stem the tide of "switchers".
Click to expand...


When i have 20k invested in glass I wont be changing up my camera to save a few ounces.  

Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera. I'm not badgering, but interested in why everybody wants something that isn't there


----------



## Scatterbrained

jaomul said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?
> 
> If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.
> 
> 
> 
> When you have 20k+ invested in EF glass and speedlights you'll care.
> 
> Personally, I picked up a Sony to shoot alongside my Canon system. Initially I just wanted that amazing sensor, but the more I shoot with it the more I think that it is the future.   There are times that the EVF is a hindrance, but those are the kind of specialized situations where a DSLR really shines anyway.
> 
> As far as mirrorless cameras being a "tiny part" of the market.  I'd just point out that Sony now makes up 13% of all ILC sales.   They went from "fighting for scraps with Oly and Pentax" to having a very firm foothold in the market.  They are the only camera maker on an upward sales trajectory right now.
> 
> Of course, a lot of the hype with the Sony is specifically with their sensors.   I think if Canon can come up with a sensor that competes with the Sony it may stem the tide of "switchers".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When i have 20k invested in glass I wont be changing up my camera to save a few ounces.
> 
> Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera. I'm not badgering, but interested in why everybody wants something that isn't there
Click to expand...

If you find yourself in situations where the sensors limitations are showing up in your images, and there is a competing product that alleviates those issues, then it makes sense to look at the competing product, no?  The problem with photography is that the sensor is at the core of the system, yet the biggest investment is the glass.   In the case of Canon the sensors have issues and limitations in certain areas, picking up a Sony allows you to upgrade your sensor while keeping all of your glass.   With the right adapter the AF works quite well too.  

This guy's video pretty much sums up why I went with a Sony A7RII.   It's literally like having a MF digital back in terms of sharpness, resolution, color, etc. while costing 1/10th of the price.   I was looking at an older 40mp MFDB but just couldn't justify it when the Sony was still half the cost and performs better.     If you watch the video you'll see  that once the settings in capture one are equaled out, the Sony looks just the same as the Phase One, with the slight difference in resolution being the only difference.  Of course, once he starts pushing the file the Sony beats the Phase One handily.


----------



## f/otographer

jaomul said:


> Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera.



I don't think its a question of glass before camera. Investment in glass will always trump investment in bodies. But when Sony is putting out such an astounding product like the A7RII and then with a simple adapter you can use all of that 20k investment in glass with _almost_ native body functionality...well that becomes very tempting very quickly. But then the danger arises (for Canon) now that you have this sweet little body and you see how it performs you go ahead and pick up one of those tasty Ziess FE primes for it. Before you know it you are adapting the Sony system to your workflow and all that Canon gear goes up for sale and they have lost another customer.

This adaptability of mirrorless systems _cannot_ be stressed enough. Instead of purchasing a body and then being 'tied to' that manufacturers lens offering you now have the freedom to pick and choose among the finest lenses ever made to fill up your gear bag and fit your style of photography. Got a favorite lens in every focal length but they are from different makers, both old and new? No problem. Carry a few extra adapters and your gear bag can be filled with legendary lenses limited only by your budget. As an artist I found this to be a incredibly liberating experience to not be bound to only one companies offerings. For instance, here are the contents of my camera bag right now.

Yashica ML 28/2.8 (Tomioka made...oh yeah)
Minolta MD 35/2.8
Yashica ML Macro 55/4 (a sweet Tomioka Tessar)
Canon FL 55/1.2 (freaking dream lens)
Konica Hexanon AR 200/4
Makinon 500/8
Sony A7
NEX 7 with Holga Pinhole lens

That is all contained within a fairly small camera bag packed up and constantly ready to go. Now as you can see I only shoot old manual film lenses and of course that wont work for everyone. But Sony is fleshing out their lens lineup very nicely. To be honest though if I were to buy a mirrorless system for auto focus I would go with the Fuji XT1. Fuji has completely shamed Sony on bringing quality lenses to market in focal lengths that make sense and in a time frame that is consumer friendly. But this whole adaptability thing is completely foreign to Canon and Nikon way of thinking but I believe if they ignore it going forward then it will be to their own detriment.


----------



## jaomul

Scatterbrained said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?
> 
> If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.
> 
> 
> 
> When you have 20k+ invested in EF glass and speedlights you'll care.
> 
> Personally, I picked up a Sony to shoot alongside my Canon system. Initially I just wanted that amazing sensor, but the more I shoot with it the more I think that it is the future.   There are times that the EVF is a hindrance, but those are the kind of specialized situations where a DSLR really shines anyway.
> 
> As far as mirrorless cameras being a "tiny part" of the market.  I'd just point out that Sony now makes up 13% of all ILC sales.   They went from "fighting for scraps with Oly and Pentax" to having a very firm foothold in the market.  They are the only camera maker on an upward sales trajectory right now.
> 
> Of course, a lot of the hype with the Sony is specifically with their sensors.   I think if Canon can come up with a sensor that competes with the Sony it may stem the tide of "switchers".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When i have 20k invested in glass I wont be changing up my camera to save a few ounces.
> 
> Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera. I'm not badgering, but interested in why everybody wants something that isn't there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you find yourself in situations where the sensors limitations are showing up in your images, and there is a competing product that alleviates those issues, then it makes sense to look at the competing product, no?  The problem with photography is that the sensor is at the core of the system, yet the biggest investment is the glass.   In the case of Canon the sensors have issues and limitations in certain areas, picking up a Sony allows you to upgrade your sensor while keeping all of your glass.   With the right adapter the AF works quite well too.
> 
> This guy's video pretty much sums up why I went with a Sony A7RII.   It's literally like having a MF digital back in terms of sharpness, resolution, color, etc. while costing 1/10th of the price.   I was looking at an older 40mp MFDB but just couldn't justify it when the Sony was still half the cost and performs better.     If you watch the video you'll see  that once the settings in capture one are equaled out, the Sony looks just the same as the Phase One, with the slight difference in resolution being the only difference.  Of course, once he starts pushing the file the Sony beats the Phase One handily.
Click to expand...




f/otographer said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think its a question of glass before camera. Investment in glass will always trump investment in bodies. But when Sony is putting out such an astounding product like the A7RII and then with a simple adapter you can use all of that 20k investment in glass with _almost_ native body functionality...well that becomes very tempting very quickly. But then the danger arises (for Canon) now that you have this sweet little body and you see how it performs you go ahead and pick up one of those tasty Ziess FE primes for it. Before you know it you are adapting the Sony system to your workflow and all that Canon gear goes up for sale and they have lost another customer.
> 
> This adaptability of mirrorless systems _cannot_ be stressed enough. Instead of purchasing a body and then being 'tied to' that manufacturers lens offering you now have the freedom to pick and choose among the finest lenses ever made to fill up your gear bag and fit your style of photography. Got a favorite lens in every focal length but they are from different makers, both old and new? No problem. Carry a few extra adapters and your gear bag can be filled with legendary lenses limited only by your budget. As an artist I found this to be a incredibly liberating experience to not be bound to only one companies offerings. For instance, here are the contents of my camera bag right now.
> 
> Yashica ML 28/2.8 (Tomioka made...oh yeah)
> Minolta MD 35/2.8
> Yashica ML Macro 55/4 (a sweet Tomioka Tessar)
> Canon FL 55/1.2 (freaking dream lens)
> Konica Hexanon AR 200/4
> Makinon 500/8
> Sony A7
> NEX 7 with Holga Pinhole lens
> 
> That is all contained within a fairly small camera bag packed up and constantly ready to go. Now as you can see I only shoot old manual film lenses and of course that wont work for everyone. But Sony is fleshing out their lens lineup very nicely. To be honest though if I were to buy a mirrorless system for auto focus I would go with the Fuji XT1. Fuji has completely shamed Sony on bringing quality lenses to market in focal lengths that make sense and in a time frame that is consumer friendly. But this whole adaptability thing is completely foreign to Canon and Nikon way of thinking but I believe if they ignore it going forward then it will be to their own detriment.
Click to expand...


I agree for the most part with both you guys. Ye make points that are very relevant to yourselves so who am I to argue.

My point though is why do photographers need Nikon or Canon or anyone to make mirrorless systems when there are so many available already. As as said canon lenses can be used on sony cameras, so the sensor issue is solved with good glass. But if canon make a ff mirorless who is to say that they will use the same mount or indeed they will probably use existing tech senors (which are capable of fantastic photos despite what the internet says, albeit maybe have limitations for some people). The issue isn't for canon to make a mirrorless, its for canon to make that dynamic rangey chip that some want.Nikon on the other hand already us these sensors. When canon overtake sony in the chip stakes will everyone still want a mirrorless canon?


----------



## Scatterbrained

jaomul said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really sure why anyone cares if Canon or Nikon do mirrorless in a serious way. Are there not enough companies doing them now?
> 
> If you can't find a system that suits you now with all the options I'm not sure you ever will. Choice is nice, and there's lots of choice now.
> 
> 
> 
> When you have 20k+ invested in EF glass and speedlights you'll care.
> 
> Personally, I picked up a Sony to shoot alongside my Canon system. Initially I just wanted that amazing sensor, but the more I shoot with it the more I think that it is the future.   There are times that the EVF is a hindrance, but those are the kind of specialized situations where a DSLR really shines anyway.
> 
> As far as mirrorless cameras being a "tiny part" of the market.  I'd just point out that Sony now makes up 13% of all ILC sales.   They went from "fighting for scraps with Oly and Pentax" to having a very firm foothold in the market.  They are the only camera maker on an upward sales trajectory right now.
> 
> Of course, a lot of the hype with the Sony is specifically with their sensors.   I think if Canon can come up with a sensor that competes with the Sony it may stem the tide of "switchers".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When i have 20k invested in glass I wont be changing up my camera to save a few ounces.
> 
> Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera. I'm not badgering, but interested in why everybody wants something that isn't there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you find yourself in situations where the sensors limitations are showing up in your images, and there is a competing product that alleviates those issues, then it makes sense to look at the competing product, no?  The problem with photography is that the sensor is at the core of the system, yet the biggest investment is the glass.   In the case of Canon the sensors have issues and limitations in certain areas, picking up a Sony allows you to upgrade your sensor while keeping all of your glass.   With the right adapter the AF works quite well too.
> 
> This guy's video pretty much sums up why I went with a Sony A7RII.   It's literally like having a MF digital back in terms of sharpness, resolution, color, etc. while costing 1/10th of the price.   I was looking at an older 40mp MFDB but just couldn't justify it when the Sony was still half the cost and performs better.     If you watch the video you'll see  that once the settings in capture one are equaled out, the Sony looks just the same as the Phase One, with the slight difference in resolution being the only difference.  Of course, once he starts pushing the file the Sony beats the Phase One handily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f/otographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sony is good for canon users who want to change because of the fab sensor, but what about the millions of posts that say glass before camera, if you've 20k glass then obviously it's good glass so whats the massive deal about a new camera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think its a question of glass before camera. Investment in glass will always trump investment in bodies. But when Sony is putting out such an astounding product like the A7RII and then with a simple adapter you can use all of that 20k investment in glass with _almost_ native body functionality...well that becomes very tempting very quickly. But then the danger arises (for Canon) now that you have this sweet little body and you see how it performs you go ahead and pick up one of those tasty Ziess FE primes for it. Before you know it you are adapting the Sony system to your workflow and all that Canon gear goes up for sale and they have lost another customer.
> 
> This adaptability of mirrorless systems _cannot_ be stressed enough. Instead of purchasing a body and then being 'tied to' that manufacturers lens offering you now have the freedom to pick and choose among the finest lenses ever made to fill up your gear bag and fit your style of photography. Got a favorite lens in every focal length but they are from different makers, both old and new? No problem. Carry a few extra adapters and your gear bag can be filled with legendary lenses limited only by your budget. As an artist I found this to be a incredibly liberating experience to not be bound to only one companies offerings. For instance, here are the contents of my camera bag right now.
> 
> Yashica ML 28/2.8 (Tomioka made...oh yeah)
> Minolta MD 35/2.8
> Yashica ML Macro 55/4 (a sweet Tomioka Tessar)
> Canon FL 55/1.2 (freaking dream lens)
> Konica Hexanon AR 200/4
> Makinon 500/8
> Sony A7
> NEX 7 with Holga Pinhole lens
> 
> That is all contained within a fairly small camera bag packed up and constantly ready to go. Now as you can see I only shoot old manual film lenses and of course that wont work for everyone. But Sony is fleshing out their lens lineup very nicely. To be honest though if I were to buy a mirrorless system for auto focus I would go with the Fuji XT1. Fuji has completely shamed Sony on bringing quality lenses to market in focal lengths that make sense and in a time frame that is consumer friendly. But this whole adaptability thing is completely foreign to Canon and Nikon way of thinking but I believe if they ignore it going forward then it will be to their own detriment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree for the most part with both you guys. Ye make points that are very relevant to yourselves so who am I to argue.
> 
> My point though is why do photographers need Nikon or Canon or anyone to make mirrorless systems when there are so many available already. As as said canon lenses can be used on sony cameras, so the sensor issue is solved with good glass. But if canon make a ff mirorless who is to say that they will use the same mount or indeed they will probably use existing tech senors (which are capable of fantastic photos despite what the internet says, albeit maybe have limitations for some people). The issue isn't for canon to make a mirrorless, its for canon to make that dynamic rangey chip that some want.Nikon on the other hand already us these sensors. When canon overtake sony in the chip stakes will everyone still want a mirrorless canon?
Click to expand...

For many people the temptation of Sony will go away when Canon comes out with a competitive sensor.   On the other hand, the WYSIWYG nature of EVFs will become more and more of a draw for beginners and casual amateurs.   As far as wanting a Canon made mirrorless, I'd like it for two very specific and selfish reasons.   One is the overall ecosystem that surrounds the Canon products.  I like to shoot tethered via DSLRController, wirelessly to a tablet.   With Sony that isn't available.   Sony has a wireless app but it forces you to shoot jpeg, and it only lets you trip the shutter on the A7RII.   There are a lot of aftermarket software apps for camera control, but with Sony you're stuck with what they provide.  
  The other issue is the shorter registry distance.  I use an adapted large format camera for macro studio shots.   The shorter registry distance gets the sensor closer to where the film plane used to be, allowing a wider range of focus for the lenses.  
  Outside of that, I just think Canon does a better job at building an ergonomic, easy to use camera than Sony does.


----------



## sashbar

Derrel said:


> Olympus and Panasonic's camera divisions are *money-LOSERS *for their corporate parents. I expect the same is true for FujiFilm's camera division.



FUJI recorded a substantial profit, but if you look closer, it is not as straightforward.
Fujifilm’s Instax, X-series sales shine, pulling in 2.7x the profits of last year


----------



## tecboy

If Sony comes up the ergonomic grip for ff mirrorless, I will considering buying it to shoot sport.


----------



## cherylynne1

I just wanted to mention a couple of updates: 

You can now shoot Raw via the Sony Smart Remote app, and it also lets you adjust shutter speed, aperture, etc as well as select focus points. 

Sony Smart Remote Control Update 3.10

They also have a battery grip for the A7 series: Sony Vertical Battery Grip for Alpha a7 II Digital Camera VGC2EM

I'm not in any way trying to say that the other points made aren't valid, just wanted to let you guys know in case you weren't aware.


----------



## f/otographer

tecboy said:


> If Sony comes up the ergonomic grip for ff mirrorless, I will considering buying it to shoot sport.


-

Oddly enough tecboy but sports is the one area I would not recommend getting a mirrorless for. Any type of shooting requiring super fast, accurate auto focus is still the one place DSLR's hold an advantage over mirrorless. Hopefully this will change as on sensor focusing improves. There _are_ pro photographers out there using mirrorless to shoot sports and it is possible to do so, but you will most likely have a higher keeper percentage with a DSLR. Here is a good article that list some of the pros and their cameras.


10 Amazing Sports Photographers Who Use Mirrorless Cameras on the Job


----------



## Scatterbrained

f/otographer said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sony comes up the ergonomic grip for ff mirrorless, I will considering buying it to shoot sport.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> Oddly enough tecboy but sports is the one area I would not recommend getting a mirrorless for. Any type of shooting requiring super fast, accurate auto focus is still the one place DSLR's hold an advantage over mirrorless. Hopefully this will change as on sensor focusing improves. There _are_ pro photographers out there using mirrorless to shoot sports and it is possible to do so, but you will most likely have a higher keeper percentage with a DSLR. Here is a good article that list some of the pros and their cameras.
> 
> 
> 10 Amazing Sports Photographers Who Use Mirrorless Cameras on the Job
Click to expand...

The speed of the focusing isn't an issue (at least with the Sony A7RII).  The tracking isn't really an issue either.  The issues are  with the EVF. 

1) Viewfinder lag.  What you are seeing already happened.  The lag isn't huge, but it's there and can be frustrating when trying to capture peak action of a movement only to just miss it.  Especially if you're used to nailing it.   

2) Viewfinder refresh after a shot.  Each time you take an image the viewfinder blacks out, then comes back.  Not a big deal most of the time, but a major issue when trying to track and photograph people or things moving quickly and erratically.


----------



## Scatterbrained

cherylynne1 said:


> I just wanted to mention a couple of updates:
> 
> You can now shoot Raw via the Sony Smart Remote app, and it also lets you adjust shutter speed, aperture, etc as well as select focus points.
> 
> Sony Smart Remote Control Update 3.10
> 
> They also have a battery grip for the A7 series: Sony Vertical Battery Grip for Alpha a7 II Digital Camera VGC2EM
> 
> I'm not in any way trying to say that the other points made aren't valid, just wanted to let you guys know in case you weren't aware.


I'll have to try the latest version of the app.  I tried the original and found it to be more trouble than it was worth.   

The battery grip isn't going to solve the ergonomic issues the camera has.  Try moving an AF point on a camera that has a dedicated AF joystick then go back to the A7 with it's button and wheel.  Then accidentally rotate the wheel while moving the AF point (which puts you in AF mode selection).   Try being left eye dominant and using back button AF on an A7.  It's like poking yourself in the eye with your thumb every time you focus.  

Right now the A7 cameras are good cameras with great sensors.   A bit of tweaking on the menu systems and the bodies and they'd be great cameras all around.


----------



## pixmedic

Personally, I think the main reason nikon and canon have not seriously jumped on the mirrorless  bandwagon is mostly because it would interfere with their entry level DSLR sales. Nikon has the nikon 1 (which I own and love) but it's really just a point and shoot with changeable lenses. (For what it is though, it's a great camera. I've had one since the original j1)

Mirrorless is still a very evolving market in terms of hardware and software. It wouldn't surprise me if nikon and canon WERE secretly developing mirrorless cameras, but part of me thinks they just don't want to develop yet another camera system just to have it compete with a line they are already producing, whereas Sony and Fuji (and other mirrorless options) NEED a different product that does not directly compete with canon\nikon. 

I can however, see where someone who would like a mirrorless camera in ADDITION to their DSLR would like to stay with the system they are already invested in with lenses and accessories.


----------



## f/otographer

pixmedic said:


> Personally, I think the main reason nikon and canon have not seriously jumped on the mirrorless bandwagon is mostly because it would interfere with their entry level DSLR sales.



This is to an extant exactly why they haven't done so already. Seriously though, how are Canikon supposed to view the development of such a camera and how it fits into their lineup? This is somewhat black and white, but I believe they are really only three ways to look at this.

1) Their new mirrorless will be an eventual replacement for their DSLR's if the technology pans out and the market begins to shift that way. Such a camera as this will require several things to be successful, most notably a new mount with new lenses and all the newest technologies inside so it shines brighter then the DSLR offerings. Things like class leading ergonomics, weather sealing, dual card slots, fastest buffer rates and any number of things that pros need when on the job. The way the market is right now it is not certain if mirrorless will indeed overtake DSLR's in popularity so this type of investment is a gamble.

2) Design the new mirrorless to work side by side with the existing DSLR lines with no forward thinking being given to them ever replacing them. This camera will not have to shine as brightly since it is a companion camera. You want it to look good next to the competition, but no so good that nobody buys your DSLR's anymore. A camera such as this will have different design requirements then the one above. A new mount will most likely be needed, but more decisions will be made to adapt existing DSLR lenses and some of these choices may effectively gimp the design and keep it from fully maturing on its own. So many of the bells and whistles can be left out.

3) The last possibility is to make the new camera completely subservient to the existing DSLR's. This is sort of what they have done so far with their current EOS M and Nikon 1 models. Sure, its a mirrorless, but in now way does it challenge their bread and butter models. They could still choose to go this route even with a new more 'serious' model by gimping the mount decisions (such as staying with the M mount) and keeping the ergonomics in the realm of compact camera designs while also neglecting such things as EVF's and weather sealing.

Which one of these options the two big companies choose will, I believe, have far reaching ramifications for the next decade or two of their camera production. My personal belief is that if choices are made to in _any way_ tie the new design to a 30 year old ecosystem then the new camera will loose potential right from the get go. Canon made a clean break in the 80's when it moved from the wonderful FD lenses (which were used by many pros at the time) to the new autofocus EOS line. No consideration was given to the old lenses or cameras and Canon started with a clean slate. That fresh design and forward thinking has allowed them to be a dominant player for over 30 years now. I hope they see mirrorless cameras the same way (although not as disruptive as auto focus was) and approach the project with the same clean slate mindset.


----------



## tecboy

I hang around the photography community a lot, and it is rare, but at least one or two photogs shoot mirrorless.  Everyone else shoots dslrs.  If Sony mirrorless can beats 5D mark 3, then I'm convinced Sony mirrorless is the future.


----------



## Derrel

Scatterbrained said:


> f/otographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sony comes up the ergonomic grip for ff mirrorless, I will considering buying it to shoot sport.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> You are right, Scatterbrained, sports or action photography is an area where the d-slr cameras have a signifiant lead. Oddly enough tecboy but sports is the one area I would not recommend getting a mirrorless for. Any type of shooting requiring super fast, accurate auto focus is still the one place DSLR's hold an advantage over mirrorless. Hopefully this will change as on sensor focusing improves. There _are_ pro photographers out there using mirrorless to shoot sports and it is possible to do so, but you will most likely have a higher keeper percentage with a DSLR. Here is a good article that list some of the pros and their cameras.
> 
> 
> 10 Amazing Sports Photographers Who Use Mirrorless Cameras on the Job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The speed of the focusing isn't an issue (at least with the Sony A7RII).  The tracking isn't really an issue either.  The issues are  with the EVF.
> 
> 1) Viewfinder lag.  What you are seeing already happened.  The lag isn't huge, but it's there and can be frustrating when trying to capture peak action of a movement only to just miss it.  Especially if you're used to nailing it.
> 
> 2) Viewfinder refresh after a shot.  Each time you take an image the viewfinder blacks out, then comes back.  Not a big deal most of the time, but a major issue when trying to track and photograph people or things moving quickly and erratically.
Click to expand...



You forgot to include the absolutely HORRIBLE battery life that an EVF camera has--due to the EVF sucking juice to perform the most basic task a camera does: showing what the lens sees. Check out the dPreview review of shooting a Seattle Seahwaks game with theSony A7R-II series camera, a camera which required THREE fully charged batteries to eke out 700 frames over the course of a football game!That is simply pathetic battery life, and it's why virtually all sports shooters who cover major league sports use Canon and Nikon d-slr cameras.

Keeping up with the big boys? Shooting pro sports with the Sony a7R II

I loved this quote: "*Would I rely on it for a second or third body at a sporting event with a client and money on the line? No, not yet, but I'm looking forward to the day that I would.*"

"*In practical use at a nighttime NFL football game, the camera struggled.*"

Yeah....impressive as hell. NOT! THREE batteries, to eke out 700 frames? My God, that is pathetic! Focus that let him down. EVF refresh rate lag that made following action challenging. A camera he'd not consider as a second body, and even worse, one he would not even consider as a THIRD body?

Switching to the lower end, check out the comparison on soccer of a Nikon D5500 versus a Sony RX10 II on NCAA women's soccer.Can a Sony RX10 II keep up with a Nikon D5500 on the soccer field?

I loved this one: "*The Nikon D5500 outperformed the Sony RX10 II in every way possible, when it came to shooting soccer*."

As the author wrote,"*1/10th of the images I shot with the RX10 11 were marked as selects*," yet two-thirds of the Nikon d-lsr images his partner shot, at the same game, were marked as selects. So...ten percent success versus 66 percent success rate?


----------



## pixmedic

I think people get tunnel vision when it comes to new tech.
We get so focused on things like image quality, ISO,  AF, and lenses....you know, the "important things", and we kinda forget about the more subtle features that aren't always headlined in a review, yet affect how and what we shoot in actual use. Things like viewfinder coverage, button placement, battery life. ... 

For me, it's dual command wheels and built in focus motors.
Those are  my biggest "must haves" on a dslr since I got my first D100 back in 2004. For other people though,  those things are just a minor feature.

I think it's the same thing for mirrorless cameras. They are reletively new to the game and there's always going to be people excited over the new technology. 
It's certainly progressed pretty fast, so maybe it's just a matter of time before the performance of the mirrorless cameras catch up to DSLR's.  It wasn't THAT long ago when full frame mirrorless was just a dream...now sensor tech has caught up. 
It will be interesting to see just how far the mirrorless envelope can be pushed,  and what it does to the dslr market in the long run.


----------



## Scatterbrained

Derrel said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f/otographer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sony comes up the ergonomic grip for ff mirrorless, I will considering buying it to shoot sport.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> You are right, Scatterbrained, sports or action photography is an area where the d-slr cameras have a signifiant lead. Oddly enough tecboy but sports is the one area I would not recommend getting a mirrorless for. Any type of shooting requiring super fast, accurate auto focus is still the one place DSLR's hold an advantage over mirrorless. Hopefully this will change as on sensor focusing improves. There _are_ pro photographers out there using mirrorless to shoot sports and it is possible to do so, but you will most likely have a higher keeper percentage with a DSLR. Here is a good article that list some of the pros and their cameras.
> 
> 
> 10 Amazing Sports Photographers Who Use Mirrorless Cameras on the Job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The speed of the focusing isn't an issue (at least with the Sony A7RII).  The tracking isn't really an issue either.  The issues are  with the EVF.
> 
> 1) Viewfinder lag.  What you are seeing already happened.  The lag isn't huge, but it's there and can be frustrating when trying to capture peak action of a movement only to just miss it.  Especially if you're used to nailing it.
> 
> 2) Viewfinder refresh after a shot.  Each time you take an image the viewfinder blacks out, then comes back.  Not a big deal most of the time, but a major issue when trying to track and photograph people or things moving quickly and erratically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to include the absolutely HORRIBLE battery life that an EVF camera has--due to the EVF sucking juice to perform the most basic task a camera does: showing what the lens sees. Check out the dPreview review of shooting a Seattle Seahwaks game with theSony A7R-II series camera, a camera which required THREE fully charged batteries to eke out 700 frames over the course of a football game!That is simply pathetic battery life, and it's why virtually all sports shooters who cover major league sports use Canon and Nikon d-slr cameras.
> 
> Keeping up with the big boys? Shooting pro sports with the Sony a7R II
> 
> I loved this quote: "*Would I rely on it for a second or third body at a sporting event with a client and money on the line? No, not yet, but I'm looking forward to the day that I would.*"
> 
> "*In practical use at a nighttime NFL football game, the camera struggled.*"
> 
> Yeah....impressive as hell. NOT! THREE batteries, to eke out 700 frames? My God, that is pathetic! Focus that let him down. EVF refresh rate lag that made following action challenging. A camera he'd not consider as a second body, and even worse, one he would not even consider as a THIRD body?
> 
> Switching to the lower end, check out the comparison on soccer of a Nikon D5500 versus a Sony RX10 II on NCAA women's soccer.Can a Sony RX10 II keep up with a Nikon D5500 on the soccer field?
> 
> I loved this one: "*The Nikon D5500 outperformed the Sony RX10 II in every way possible, when it came to shooting soccer*."
> 
> As the author wrote,"*1/10th of the images I shot with the RX10 11 were marked as selects*," yet two-thirds of the Nikon d-lsr images his partner shot, at the same game, were marked as selects. So...ten percent success versus 66 percent success rate?
Click to expand...

They must have been doing a lot of chimping to only get 700 shots out of 3 batteries.  Granted the battery life isn't great, but batteries are small, light, and cheap.   The number of people sitting on the sidelines of an NFL game shooting for pay is a rather small percentage of us, and with 42mp of resolution they aren't the people the A7RII is targeting.  That he was able to shoot an NFL game at all is really saying something.    Beyond that, it seems that the reviewer rather fond of the camera to even be willing to try it at an NFL game.     To play the quote game with the same article


> The a7R II is a highly-specc’d piece of photographic technology, with some new and exciting abilities. It's the first camera of its kind to ever even attempt to use its native phase-detect AF system to focus non-native, even off-brand lenses. And to do so, technically, with potentially more accuracy than those off-branded lenses might focus on their native DLSR bodies*. And with a wider spread of phase-detect AF points than any DSLR too, which allows for more creative framing while maintaining continuous AF.


   That certainly doesn't sound bad to me. 


> Let's be fair though. For portrait shooters, wedding, event, and newborn photographers shooting moving subjects with fast, shorter primes, the a7R II is a gem, leading to typically higher 'hit' or 'keeper' rates than DSLRs even. Eye and face tracking autofocus options can ultimately lead to a superior way of focusing that doesn't require you to keep your selected AF point over your subject, which would otherwise drastically reduce compositional freedom and creativity.


Doesn't sound like he's condemning it here to me either.   The overall tone of his conclusions mirrors my own feelings, that the A7RII is a camera that, while not exactly the best for sports, is quite competent everywhere else.  


  Have you ever shot one?  I have both an A7RII (shooting adapted Canon glass with a Metabones adapter) and a Canon 1Dx.   Even with adapted glass the camera performs amazingly well.    I've shot both cameras side by side in demanding situations.   The Sony may not be able to compete AF wise with the Canon in the most demanding situations, but it's pretty damned good in most other situations.  

     Is it the right camera for shooting NFL or NBA? No.  It'll handle everything else with aplomb though.   All while delivering amazing files to boot.


----------



## Solarflare

jaomul said:


> Are there not enough companies doing them now?


 Why does it matter if there are many offers if not a single one of the offers is good enough ?





pixmedic said:


> Personally, I think the main reason nikon and canon have not seriously jumped on the mirrorless  bandwagon is mostly because it would interfere with their entry level DSLR sales. [...]


 ... you dont say ! That was my point in the OP. Thats what this thread is supposed to discuss.


----------



## Derrel

You own a Sony, so I'd expect you to vigorously defend it and ignore its deficiencies, even for demanding users. Seems like you did not actually bother to ready the article which discusses the real problems Sony still has in its new camera series.


"Overall, though, the a7R II’s Flexible Point setting proved to be the most effective way to target, track and focus on a subject in a sporting environment during my shooting with the a7R II. Which makes it all the more unfortunate that *its practical use is hindered by the lack of direct AF point selection.* It is also worth noting that *the a7R II seems to have a strange bug when used in any continuous focus mode*: when holding down AF ON and switching between subjects that are more than several meters apart in depth, all of the lenses that I tested on *the camera occasionally refused to refocus*. The only remedy was to let off pressure of the AF ON button and re-press to 'reboot' continuous focus when framing up a new subject."

Shi++y design it would seem...

"Lock-on AF didn't prove reliable enough in my testing to track my intended subject. I found myself re-designating my subject constantly – which was frustrating and distracting. Lock-on AF also tends to fall apart in continuous drive - as soon as you actually start shooting, the camera often reverts to depth-based subject tracking only which, as we witnessed in WIDE mode, isn't reliable either."

GREAT!!! NOT....

"*The alpha-series is missing a major, physical control point that is indispensable for sports (and arguably all) photographers: a multi-controller direct toggle for dedicated focus point relocation *while shooting on the fly. In the era of shrinking cameras, the a7R II inhabits a middle ground that feels great when equipped with short glass, yet awkward when paired with longer lenses. The Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM is especially uncomfortable. The coupling of a long 'throw' for moving from 70mm to 400mm and a stiffly-damped zoom ring pushes the lower right corner of the a7R II’s body design into your palm's pressure point."

OUCH-! A basic AF tool that is missing--an AF focus point toggle button, Jeebus Chrimeny..is this a poiint and shoot for wealthy middle aged men who cannot figure out how to use an AF area controller?


" Three frames per second is so slow that it's not really useable – and certainly no fun – for fast action. The seconds tick by when buffering (while the a7R II is set to Raw + JPEG), even when using a 1000x SD card. In addition, the buffer must completely clear before viewing images in playback mode. It is also worth noting that as of late 2015, long lens availability on the a7R II is minimal, with the most importantly absent being the sports action standard field of view offered by a 400m F2.8. Adapted glass is an option, but you'll lose Zone AF, Expand Flexible Point, Eye AF, and Lock-on AF.  "

CLEARLY, Sony's mirrorless flagship lacks a number lof BASIC stuff that Canon and Nikon figured out a decade ago...

I demo's the A7 when it came out...sluggish, noisy shutter, crappy viewfinder...it sounded great! I went in ready to buy one.  Within a 15 minute demo, it was clear, the A7 series has been designed for tripod mounted work, not portraiture, not fashion, not action, not sports. Sony has a ways to go to catch up to FUji in terms of viewfinder EVF quality. THe A7 series is clearly well below the D3x I shoot...it's just an inferior machine...with almost no lenses for the system. I have a big system from 400,300,200 primes, down to 20mm...I have no need for an upstart system when the Nikon system is juts so vastly more mature and developed.


----------



## pixmedic

Solarflare said:


> Somehow I forgot my conclusion.
> 
> I'm just not holding my breath when it comes to Nikon or Canon making mirrorless systems that can compete with their DSLRs.
> 
> As much as I dont like them - Apple shows how to dominate a market successfully.



If the market is photography, and more specifically, digital photography. ....
How are Canon and Nikon NOT dominating the market successfully? 
Who has a bigger digital share of the camera market than Canon and Nikon?
Maybe they just feel that they don't NEED mirrorless options...maybe they are leaving something for the small fish in the pond.


----------



## f/otographer

Derrel said:


> the A7 series has been designed for tripod mounted work, not portraiture, not fashion, not action, not sports



Derrel, this is patently wrong. The only place an a7 cant keep up with top of the line DSLR's is sports due to the current Auto focus tech of doing it on the sensor, along with the EVF refresh rate. But as it has been stated, pro sports photographers are a _tiny, tiny part_ of the pro shooters in the world. So to damn the camera outright for something it really isn't designed for is silly. For any other type of photography the a7's are top notch tools. There are many pros using the a7 for all sorts of photography. Here is a great article showcasing the work of just _some_ of the phenomenal photographers who made the switch to the a7 series.


Who are the Professional Photographers who Switched to the Sony A7 Series?


Somehow these guys manage to work with a camera you describe as having a "Shi++y design" while being "sluggish", with a" noisy shutter and crappy viewfinder". Looks like they are able to create incredible works of world class art with it. Take a look at the work of Will Chao, Christian Marcel or Trey Ratcliff and then tell me again how they are shooting with an inferior camera. The a7 might not be the camera for _*you*_, but to spew such vitriol about a camera that others are producing such beauty with is ridiculous.


----------



## f/otographer

And I'm sorry, but that comment about the a7 having a crappy viewfinder is wrong....just wrong. I shoot with the original a7 and have done so for 2 years with no reason to upgrade because the camera still rocks. The EVF in my a7 is freaking awesome and blows away any optical VF I ever had in my Canons, the 5d and 40D both. If anyone would like to view my work with the a7 then you may do so here on flickr in my a7 folder.


α7


----------



## tecboy

Well, the good thing about the evf is protecting your eye against the harmful UV ray during the day.  In dslr, you have to see through the lens.  That can be harmful.


----------



## thereyougo!

I don't think that the A7RII is ready for sport.  Whether they will be able to do anything about this via firmware I don't know.  I still feel that there is too much latent snobbery amongst some against mirrorless.  I've stopped shooting with DSLR, and am shooting with the A7RII and the medium format Pentax 645Z.  

Sure, the results from my Pentax are better, but I'd be niffed if they weren't.  It cost more than twice what the Sony did.  Is it good enough for most of my uses?  Sure.  I don't shoot action very much and if I did, the refresh in the EVF would bother me, I'm sure.  But for the rare time that I do shoot fast, I just have as good an idea as I can where the subject is in the frame.  

The simple fact is that you always try to pick the best tool for the job, and do the best you can with it.  You won't always be able to get the best out of it, and it won't always be the limitations of the camera that hold you back.  If my main genre was sport and action I would not have the equipment I have.  

Those that suggest that professionals do not use mirrorless need to take their dark glasses from their faces.  Many do.  Including this guy:  Joe Cornish.  He shoots with a few different cameras including film.  One of them is the A7R

Welcome | Joe Cornish Gallery


----------



## Derrel

A TOP NOTCH TOOL that has perhaps less than 1 percent of the serious camera market? Riiiight.... Sony as an entire camera-selling company has what, 12 percent of the camera sales market over the last two years, has three lens lines, and a handful of optics. What i SOny's installed user base? it is teeny-tiny. Sony is like the Prius of the auto industry. Prius owners remind me of Sony fanboys.

Sorry, but there are many reasons Canon and Nikon are #1 and #2 in the camera sales market, and why they are a solid 1 and 2 in installed user base, and why d-slr cameras sell in hugely higher numbers than new mirrorless cameras that have limited lenses and tiny, brand-new, limited distribution, mini-systems.

I would LOVE to see Sony's tilt-shift lineup.

I would love to see Sony's multi-focal length macro lineup.

I would love to see Sony's Defocus Control Lenses.

I would love to see local availablity of RENTAL gear in Sony mount, anywhere in the world, but it's almost totally absent at walk-in retail level, so one can just go, rent,use, and return without a 30-day lead time to a 10-day lead time.

I have to say, the Sony fanboys seem willing to talk a lotta' sh*+ about how awesome their 2-year-old camera system is.it  becomes pretty easy to delude yourself into thinking that one's lastest new acquisition is the be-all, end-all, and then to *name four or five people for whom such a camera is adequate.* You know, while  ignoring the millions of people who went with the actual, leading, established, mature products from the world-wide leaders.

Seriously....you want to call an upstart system a "*top-notch tool*"? Go right ahead.


----------



## f/otographer

Derrel, your fail post is fail. The only fanboyism is see is you foaming at the mouth wanting to convince everyone how bad the a7 is. Can you please point to the doll and show us where the a7 touched you?

I am really curious though. Why is it so important for you to downtalk what other photographers choose to use as their tool? The a7 system is a top notch tool for me and many other photographers. Oh, and Sonys tilt-shift line up? How about every tilt shift lens every made. Sonys macro lineup? Every macro ever made. Defocus lenses? Yep, you guessed it. Every one ever made. Unless of course you are such a crappy photographer that you cant shoot without auto focus then some manual focus lenses might give you trouble, but there are plenty of EOS lenses that can be adapted if you must have auto focus. But seriously, who uses AF for macro or tilt shift work. Lol. Lol. Lol.

And I have no idea where you live, but just a few months ago I rented an a7 II in Sacramento for a job I did in San Francisco. It was easy peasy lemon squeezy.

And Derrel, seriously....do you think the scope of a single article covered every professional photographer using mirrorless? Hahhhahahah! Literally, tears in my eyes.


----------



## f/otographer

You know Derrel, I have been sitting here trying to wrap my head around your post in an attempt to understand your position so we can have some type of reasoned discourse on this. You seem to be coming from a position of belief that Canon and Nikons positions as market leaders and #1 and #2 in the industry is somehow an immutable truth that can never change. I would like to ask you a question...do you honestly believe that Canon and Nikon will always be the top two companies from now until the end of time, with no chance that market trends can be missed or missteps can be made or that some competitors may one day get an upper hand? If so then I don't see how we can continue a discussion because this idea is absolutely ridiculous and for someone to seriously believe it shows a complete lack of understanding in both the most basic of business acumens as well as the free market/capitalism system we operate in.

For example, Sony has just designed and brought to market a 100mp sensor for the new Phase One full frame Medium Format digital back. This files coming from this thing are absolutely gorgeous and the detail is astounding. Keep in mind, this is in a camera that is shipping _right now._


_Phase One announce world’s first medium format camera with 100 Megapixel Sony sensor! |  sonyalpharumors_

Could Canon have produced this sensor right now? Doubtful, but its possible. They are working on a high mp sensor for both DSLR's and surveillance cameras but I dont think they are close to production. Furthermore I dont believe that if they could they would do it for somebody else. More likely they would have kept their grubby little hands on it, slapped it in a DSLR and proceeded to launch it with much fanfare. Sony, on the other hand, designed this and gave it to somebody else.

How about Nikon? Could they produce such a sensor? Not a snowballs chance in Hades. Nikon is having enough trouble trying to get other people to put sensors in Nikon DSLR's. This doesn't bode well for them....at all.

Sony is flexing its sensor production muscle right now and kicking sand in Canikons face at the beach. How will this play out in the future? Who knows. But Canon and Nikon better not just sit back and think Sony isn't a threat. That's what Blackberry and Palm thought about Apple and Google. Where is Blackberry now? Oh yeah, they are making an Android phone. And Palm....lol.


----------



## Braineack

Pro competition capitalist pigs.

using tapatalk.


----------



## Derrel

I love Sony fanboys. Their brand-new system is already sooooooooo supoerior to ANYthing on the market. The two-year R&D period Sony did has made thew world's most-amazing camera.*     " Evar! " *Unfortunately, the system aspect of it is lacking. As is the resale market, the rental market, and the customer confidence in anything Sony makes.

Again, feel free to *list four or five people, or heck, even SIX people,* who recently switched to Sony's new, little A7 system , but IGNORE the few million working professionals who shoot Canon or Nikon d-slr systems. Seriously, dude? Get an argument.

F-tographer...look through a Nikon D3x and see what a FANTASTIC viewfinder looks like. Seriously pally, do it, then get back to me. You are utterly clueless as to what the term "top notch" actually means.


----------



## Derrel

THE ENTIRE CAMERA-MAKING WORLD MUST GO TO MIRRORLESS NOW!!!!!


















(Just ask anybody who recently bought a new Sony or Fuji.)


----------



## Braineack

My brand new Sony mirrorless is convenient.

using tapatalk.


----------



## Derrel

Braineack said:
			
		

> My brand new Sony mirrorless is convenient.



Ergo,the mirroless compact camera design and form factor must become the new paradigm--for the entiiiiiiiiire camera-making industry! EVERY, single company must emulate it! (Also, you might just as well throw that full-frame Nikon you have into the junk bin. It's crap. Utter crap.)


----------



## pixmedic

Braineack said:


> My brand new Sony mirrorless is convenient.
> 
> using tapatalk.



My nikon1 is convenient


----------



## Derrel

Braineack said:
			
		

> My brand new Sony mirrorless is convenient.
> 
> using tapatalk.





			
				pixmedic said:
			
		

> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> My brand new Sony mirrorless is convenient.
> 
> using tapatalk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My nikon1 is convenient
Click to expand...


My iPhone is convenient. It even lets me play games! I can check the weather on it! I can send e-mail on it! I can browse the web on it! I can shoot motion video with it! I can make telephone calls on it! I can order pizza with the press of a fricking button using it! it has voice-activated capabilities! I can do my Facebook stuff on it! It can get my amazing Instagram stuff on-line, almost like magic! My iPhone can allow me to live-tweet anything I do!

The iPhone is the form factor Canon and Nikon MUST transition to, immediately. The iPhone is a mirrorless design, and it is therfore, by default, friggin amazeballs-good! Unless Canon and Nikon follow the iPhone's mirrorless brilliance, Canon and Nikon will be dead as camera makers within three years.


----------



## f/otographer

I'm very sorry Derrel. I had assumed I was having a discussion with a reasonable individual. I see now I was horribly wrong in that.



Derrel said:


> THE ENTIRE CAMERA-MAKING WORLD MUST GO TO MIRRORLESS NOW!!!!!



Well if you say so.


----------



## f/otographer

Derrel said:


> Also, you might just as well throw that full-frame Nikon you have into the junk bin.



Which one, the D800? Doesn't that have a Sony sensor?


----------



## Derrel

F-tographer, before I put you on ignore and raise the quality of the feed I see here on TPF, I just thought you might want to take a little course in REALITY, to help you get over your Sony delusions. So...here ya go F. *Buh-bye!

Debunking The Mirrorless Hype
Debunking The Mirrorless Hype
*
"I put in my order for a custom flying car back in 1985, but so far…it just hasn't shown up. Everybody says flying cars will take over the market very soon."


----------



## Derrel

Thom Hogan: The Dreaded Battery Life of Mirrorless Cameras | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan

*The Dreaded Battery Life of Mirrorless Cameras*


----------



## f/otographer

And now we have the fundamental difference between you and I Derrel. No matter how unpleasant a situation or adversary you don't put it on ignore and run away. But I take it as the highest compliment that in only a short time I have made a poster like you ignore me. 

If you haven't yet tucked tail and run yet and are still reading this then I would like to point out that I am familiar with the article you shared. There are many good points in it, not all of them accurate but this describes any article on the web. I still don't understand this 'us or them' mentality you have concerning mirrorless. These cameras are just another tool to get the job done, no different then Holga toy cameras, DSLR's, View cameras, large format and any other device an photographer uses to create art.

So what if the people who are using them are excited about their chosen tool? The simple fact is my a7 allows me to shoot in a way and frees my creativity in a way that no Canon, Nikon, Pentax or even Sony DSLR will allow me to do. Mirrorless cameras enrich my photography in ways that DSLR's don't.

So what? Does this bother you? I mean, obviously it does. I just don't understand why.


----------



## thereyougo!

f/otographer said:


> And now we have the fundamental difference between you and I Derrel. No matter how unpleasant a situation or adversary you don't put it on ignore and run away. But I take it as the highest compliment that in only a short time I have made a poster like you ignore me.
> 
> If you haven't yet tucked tail and run yet and are still reading this then I would like to point out that I am familiar with the article you shared. There are many good points in it, not all of them accurate but this describes any article on the web. I still don't understand this 'us or them' mentality you have concerning mirrorless. These cameras are just another tool to get the job done, no different then Holga toy cameras, DSLR's, View cameras, large format and any other device an photographer uses to create art.
> 
> So what if the people who are using them are excited about their chosen tool? The simple fact is my a7 allows me to shoot in a way and frees my creativity in a way that no Canon, Nikon, Pentax or even Sony DSLR will allow me to do. Mirrorless cameras enrich my photography in ways that DSLR's don't.
> 
> So what? Does this bother you? I mean, obviously it does. I just don't understand why.



I also found part of the first article useful, but have come across this a while ago.

The graphs in the article are all very well, but the points could have been made without them - why do you need graphs to show that the A7II is a similar weight and size to a base model DSLR?  You can say all of that in a sentence or two.  Graphs give an impression of scientific competency and I suspect that was the author's intention.

For my part as a non brand fanboy, I bought into mirrorless for size reasons.  But I wasn't shooting with a D5500, I was shooting with a D800E.  Comparing the A7II to a D5500 isn't IMHO a fair comparison.  One is mid ranged the other base model.  For me, I have one very large camera - the Pentax 645Z, and the D800E was a size not too dissimilar.  I wanted a more compact set that would still have all the manual elements that I had with the D800E.  So I bought the A7R.  Then replaced it with the A7RII.

With my Zeiss Loxia attached my A7RII will fit into the chest pocket of my main coat.  It is a large pocket, granted, but it will fit comfortably.  With the zooms, it wouldn't fit.  But I only need a small bag (a thinktank waist bag - what people from US call fannypacks) to carry the camera and 4 lenses.  That meant I could take a full system to Norway with me as luggage was limited on that trip.

Like I say, the A7RII isn't as good as my Pentax.  How does it compare to my D800E?  I don't know - I haven't tested it, and test shots bore me along with graphs and MTF tables.  If I wanted to do science, I would have paid attention in school.  Battery life?  I don't have a huge issue with it.  I can get 400 shots from each battery and 2 batteries came with the camera.  I can charge the camera from my laptop or from a battery pack which fits in a pocket.  Sure it would be great if it would do 800 shots, but I very rarely take more than 400 with it in a day - and yes my 645Z batteries do last quite a lot longer.

If you want the best tool for action, then at the moment, mirrorless ain't it.  You can do it, but battery life and EVF refresh will stand in your way of doing it easily.  It's all about finding the best tool for your task.  My best tool is my Pentax, but there are times when it is more practical to use the Sony.  Backpack v 'fannypacnk' climbing a mountain?  Depends what I think I will find there.  If I get something really good will I wish I had my Pentax with me?  Sure.  Will the Sony get me a good result.  Sure.

If you want to find fault with something, it's easy if you pick its weak point.  For some the battery life on the Sony will be fatal to it being their choice of camera.  For landscapers, 2 batteries and 800 shots will for the most part be two or three days shooting.  Unless you are a sprayandprayer.  If you consider yourself to be a decent shooter and you aren't carrying backup power for your camera, then you aren't sufficiently prepared.


----------



## Tinstafl

The bottom line is Nikon and canon sales are falling and Sony is growing. I was going to get another lens and decided to get the a6000 kit and see what the fuss was all about. I love it and have been using Nikon since 1972.  I have shot for newspapers and even have a few shots in trade magazines.  I am seriously thinking of getting the a7r2 and some lens and shot it along with my nikons for a bit and then let the grand kids use them. I have been looking at getting a medium format as well and then use mirrorless and MF in the studio and mirrorless outside.


----------



## Braineack

Samsung's market share was actually growing in the market...

My a6000 has _a lot_ of benefits/features, but most of the time I'm shooting it, I wish I was just shooting the DSLR.  Mainly the viewfinder and focusing and changing settings quickly.


----------



## jaomul

If all these camera types were not compared with each other on judged on there own merits it would be obvious that there are many types and many great cameras, some having strengths and weaknesses like every form of tech


----------



## Braineack

for example, every mirrorless ever does a better job at focusing in corners than a dslr.


----------



## elemental

Solarflare said:


> As much as I dont like them - Apple shows how to dominate a market successfully.



Automakers once (probably) scoffed at flying cars, and they were right. But railroads once scoffed at cars, and they were wrong. 

As it's happening, it's hard to say whether a new technology is one that will upend an industry or quietly fade away. But it is safe to say that firms that focus on building a better buggy whip more efficiently are in danger of entirely missing the next big move. Whether or not established camera makers are currently in this position is, of course, debatable, but it does seem to me like it's too early to draw a definitive conclusion on mirrorless. What we can see is where existing camera makers have placed their bets.


----------



## f/otographer

*thereyougo!,* I agree about the article. It really did seem to go out of its way to seem legit. Which wasn't neccesarry since as I said there are some valid points in it. I just don't get the whole battery argument tho. I reckon it back to bicycling in a way. Riders will spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to buy carbon fiber or aluminum parts for their bike to shave off a few ounces here or there. But one of the easiest ways to get the bike/rider package down is to loose a few pounds yourself. Same thing with batteries. People argue that you need 3 or 4 extra batteries for mirrorless to equal a DSLR. Really? So what? But that's extra weight they say. Really? Its only a few ounces. Heres an idea...lay off the Twinkies and loose a single pound and then you can carry probably 5 batteries with no extra weight gain. Or better yet, just take the twinkies out of your camera bag and replace them with batteries. Problem solved. 

*elemental*, you hit it right on the head with the buggy whip. That really seems to be where Canon and Nikon are right now. I don't think mirrorless will ever replace DSLR's to exclusion, but I think they will eventually occupy a position of dominance over DSLR's. Especially after Canikon gets serious about them. None of it really matters though. Its all about the image, not really how you get there. But it will be interesting to see how the new technology plays out in ways that we cant even imagine right now. Fun times ahead.


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> Thom Hogan: The Dreaded Battery Life of Mirrorless Cameras | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan
> 
> *The Dreaded Battery Life of Mirrorless Cameras*



So my other mirrorless cameras which batteries never run out are better than any Nikon or Canon DSLR ?


----------

