# Mirrorless sales closing the gap on DSLR.



## fmw

The graph below is for the first quarter of 2017.  Green is DSLR.  Blue is MILC.


----------



## jaomul

It's bound to happen, they are getting so good, especially the smaller format models


----------



## astroNikon

With sony and fuji pushing the capabilities it's sooner or later now. 
Canon/Nikon is going to have to morph and Nikon's newest patents for a "hybrid" camera is interesting, and is the multi AF sensor and lenses.


----------



## fmw

Fuji had a 30% increase over the first quarter of last year for the camera product line.  Sony and Panasonic also had increases.  Nikon had 3 1/2% decline.  Canon had a small increase - pretty much flat.  If you extend the graph lines it looks like MILC will overtake DSLR next year, if not sooner.


----------



## fmw

astroNikon said:


> With sony and fuji pushing the capabilities it's sooner or later now.
> Canon/Nikon is going to have to morph and Nikon's newest patents for a "hybrid" camera is interesting, and is the multi AF sensor and lenses.



I think Nikon is just trying to extend the life of an aging technology.   I can understand clinging to a cash cow but the cash cow appears to be slowly starving.  I don't know what a hybrid camera is but I assume it is a combination DSLR and MILC -  live view through an EVF?  What is the point of putting mirrorless technology into bulky and heavy camera only to make it more bulky and heavy?  AF seems to me to be a fairly perfected technology.  Modern cameras all achieve focus in a fraction of a second.  A smaller fraction doesn't seem necessary.  They are allowing Sony and Fuji to eat their lunch.  Canon has a bigger base than Nikon but I would bet that cash cow will start a starvation diet as well.  I guess we will see what happens.  I know I'm not going back to the DSLR.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

Canon contributes to both sides.  Their M series is probably growing now with their two new models.


----------



## Gary A.

A couple of years ago I was shooting an event, a march. I ran into a LA Times photographer and we chatted.  I showed him my XT1's and he stated "That is the future.".


----------



## cgw

While the graph shows declining DSLR sales it doesn't contain enough time series data to show a trend for mirrorless that could be seen as transformative. I regularly visit a busy downtown Toronto camera store and see far more customers from the buying demographic at the mirrorless end of the counter. I bought into Fuji last year. Friends have too, as well as Sony. All of us are long-term Nikon junkies. None of us are likely to upgrade our 2 year-old DX/FX bodies. Anecdotal? Yup. Suggestive? Probably.


----------



## fmw

VidThreeNorth said:


> Canon contributes to both sides.  Their M series is probably growing now with their two new models.



Probably true.  If it is a meaningful part of Canon's business then it would indicate that DSLR's are down.


----------



## astroNikon

fmw said:


> The graph below is for the first quarter of 2017.  Green is DSLR.  Blue is MILC.
> View attachment 144667


That's interesting that chart.  Where did you get it?
because I see one similar, though with much larger numbers.  Is yours vendor specific?
from=> CIPA Releases Figures on Market Share of DSLRs vs. Mirrorless





To extrapolate on the chart in a bit more depth, this website may offer hints of the CIPA chart, which you can review the CIPA website for more details too

but what interesting is if DSLR sales are dropping so much, why are Mirrorless increasing by the same amount of DSLR loss?   CellPhones ...   people are using their cellphones as that technology ever increases.  And people are sticking to their cellphones then maybe upgraing.

Camera sales report for 2016: lowest sales ever on DSLRs and mirrorless

But I do think the Mirrorless technology, and subsequent hopefully lower prices for the same or better performance (for all features) will force DSLRs to morph into mirrorless.


----------



## fmw

No doubt about it.  Your chart shows significant gain in market share for MILC in a shrinking overall market.  DSLR's are dropping like rocks,  MILC are holding their own in market share while cell phones cause the entire market to decline.  The prices of mirrorless will drop as volume increases.  That's true of all electronic technology.  I'm not sure why you think mirrorless performance is inferior to DSLR.  I sure don't.  I consider it comparable in a smaller, lighter package.


----------



## SCraig

I hope they do!  Much like I hope electric vehicles become more popular.  Because when they do there will be more gasoline and DSLR bodies and lenses at lower prices for me.


----------



## tirediron

I'd be all over a nice Fuji if they had anything even remotely resembling a decent lens selection.


----------



## Gary A.

tirediron said:


> I'd be all over a nice Fuji if they had anything even remotely resembling a decent lens selection.


What would you call a decent lens selection, in particular?  I am waiting for prime F/2 or F/2.8 125mm or 150mm and a prime F4 200mm and I'd be pretty much all set.


----------



## tirediron

Fast super-teles, high-end, fast mid-range zooms, fast portrait primes, good UWAs, and PC lenses.


----------



## fmw

tirediron said:


> Fast super-teles, high-end, fast mid-range zooms, fast portrait primes, good UWAs, and PC lenses.



You can adapt any of these to a mirrorless body with inexpensive adapters.  The mirrorless cameras, so far, are designed for serious amateurs who don't use these kinds of lenses, not for pros.  If I really need a PC lens, I can rent it and adapt it to my mirrorless bodies.  Or I can even buy one and adapt it.  I already have a Nikon to Fuji adapter that works just fine.  No need to worry about extreme wide angles.  Fuji already has them in the regular lineup.  I assume the other manufacturers do also.

I moved to mirrorless to have a smaller, lighter system, not to use with fast super teles.  It gets down to what you need.  My guess is you don't need a mirrorless.  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## tirediron

fmw said:


> ...I moved to mirrorless to have a smaller, lighter system, not to use with fast super teles.  It gets down to what you need.  My guess is you don't need a mirrorless.  Nothing wrong with that.


I just need cameras.  To be honest, I don't care a whit what type it is ('though I really, really REALLY dislike the whole EVF thing) as long as it does the job.  Adapters are all well and good, but they're one more piece to complicate the puzzle and source of potential problems.  I think if say Fuji and Nikon got together and produced a series of bodies with all of the mirrorless features, and a full line of lenses with all of the Nikon (or Canon) quality and features, every other maker would be dead in the water in short order.


----------



## astroNikon

And even with adapters, most people want AutoFocus.  I know for some manual focus allows the most flexibility but I think in general most of the market prefers autofocus.

Mirrorless has certainly caught up in a lot of capabilities.  The latest Sony is proof of that.


----------



## Gary A.

tirediron said:


> Fast super-teles, high-end, fast mid-range zooms, fast portrait primes, good UWAs, and PC lenses.



In zooms:
10-24 F/4
16-55 F/2.8
50-140 F/2.8
100-400 F/4.5-5.6

You're well covered with fast primes from ultra wide to medium telephoto. It's the longer stuff where they are a bit deficient. No PC's either, but just get an adaptor for your PC.


----------



## fmw

tirediron said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I moved to mirrorless to have a smaller, lighter system, not to use with fast super teles.  It gets down to what you need.  My guess is you don't need a mirrorless.  Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> 
> 
> I just need cameras.  To be honest, I don't care a whit what type it is ('though I really, really REALLY dislike the whole EVF thing) as long as it does the job.  Adapters are all well and good, but they're one more piece to complicate the puzzle and source of potential problems.  I think if say Fuji and Nikon got together and produced a series of bodies with all of the mirrorless features, and a full line of lenses with all of the Nikon (or Canon) quality and features, every other maker would be dead in the water in short order.
Click to expand...


To me, viewing an EVF is no different than looking through a DSLR.  A couple of the Fuji models have both optical and electronic finders.  Yes, most people want AF.  It appears most people need AF.  Perhaps someone will develop an adapter to connect AF.  There are adapters that provide all the metering modes.  I'm not aware of one that do AF.  In my experience the Fuji lenses are better than the Nikon lenses but in a narrower line of products as you said.  I'm not sure they can do anything Fuji can't do for itself.

Sony has full frame mirrorless cameras now and seems to be releasing new lenses regularly.  Personally I think it defeats the purpose of mirrorless but it may be just the ticket for some DSLR users.


----------



## astroNikon

The speed of an EVF comes into play depending upon what you are photographing.
A faster moving object?  and a slow EVF can be a detriment.
I briefly looked at the costs, etc of moving to a Sony a9 with the lenses.  yikes.

fyi, SONY has had FF mirrorless for a few years now, since October 2013.

Before I bought my D7000 years ago I looked at Fuji as they were my actual favorite.  But the tech back then was very deficient. So I bought the D7000.

Now Sony with their latest FF a9 camera seems pretty awesome.  Also their lenses are expensive as they keep the quality high.  Nikon/Canon, has provide different level of quality of lenses from DX to different levels of FX lenses so their packages are less price sensitive.

But to me Sony with their hot pixel removal / long exposure software makes it a non-purchase for me right now.  So Fuji is my only option that I'm looking at for some point.


----------



## Gary A.

My Fujinon XF lenses, at a minimum are equal to my Canon 'L' lenses, in sharpness and build.


----------



## jcdeboever

23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 60mm 2.4, 56mm 1.2, 90mm f2, next year supposedl a 200mm. A lot of photogs are using the 50-140 2.8 for portrait stuff. My favorite lens is the 16mm 1.4 but the 50-140 is gaining ground the more I use it. The 10-20mm is popular with the landscape guys. Like Gary said they are like 1 or 2 slow coming. There is also a 80mm 1:1 2.8 macro coming soon. Rumor has it a 8-16 is coming too. Take a look at the x photograhers website and you can sort images by lens.


----------



## fmw

astroNikon said:


> The speed of an EVF comes into play depending upon what you are photographing.
> A faster moving object?  and a slow EVF can be a detriment.
> I briefly looked at the costs, etc of moving to a Sony a9 with the lenses.  yikes.
> 
> fyi, SONY has had FF mirrorless for a few years now, since October 2013.
> 
> Before I bought my D7000 years ago I looked at Fuji as they were my actual favorite.  But the tech back then was very deficient. So I bought the D7000.
> 
> Now Sony with their latest FF a9 camera seems pretty awesome.  Also their lenses are expensive as they keep the quality high.  Nikon/Canon, has provide different level of quality of lenses from DX to different levels of FX lenses so their packages are less price sensitive.
> 
> But to me Sony with their hot pixel removal / long exposure software makes it a non-purchase for me right now.  So Fuji is my only option that I'm looking at for some point.



My opinion is that moving to mirrorless just for the heck of it makes no sense.  Their advantage is small size and light weight.  That is big deal for an old timer like me.  They make great images but nothing you can't do with a DSLR.  So for me a full frame sensor makes no sense in mirrorless.  If you want a big mirrorless with heavy lenses you might as well stay with the DSLR.

I can go out with light, diminutive camera with a zoom lens on the camera and another one in my pocket and get 90% of the images I want to capture.  Or I can carry a small bag with a couple more lenses if I want to get 95%.  It isn't about the technology in my view.  It is about the ergonomics.


----------



## Gary A.

For me it was all about looks.  I purchased the XP1 based entirely on looks.


----------



## jaomul

I went through my honeymoon photos today from 3 yrs ago. All I brought was an olly Em5 and an underrated 12-50 f3.5-6.3 lens. I am very happy with these and even have a few taken by passers by, a lot of the time the shutter was quite slow, but the shots are still very good.

I sold this camera a while back, but boy I am sorry now. A grand small light and great imager. I wouldn't give up dslrs yet but the M4/3 cameras are a great small system. I'll likely be in the M4/3 stats soon enough again (recently purchased a second hand unit, but this 4k photo is intriguing)


----------



## beagle100

almost everyone has a mirrorless camera (cell phone)
soon most interchangeable lens cameras will be mirrorless
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## ac12

fmw said:


> My opinion is that moving to mirrorless just for the heck of it makes no sense.  Their advantage is small size and light weight.  That is big deal for an old timer like me.  They make great images but nothing you can't do with a DSLR.  So for me a full frame sensor makes no sense in mirrorless.  If you want a big mirrorless with heavy lenses you might as well stay with the DSLR.
> 
> I can go out with light, diminutive camera with a zoom lens on the camera and another one in my pocket and get 90% of the images I want to capture.  Or I can carry a small bag with a couple more lenses if I want to get 95%.  It isn't about the technology in my view.  It is about the ergonomics.



That is the reason (size and weight) that I got a m43 (Olympus OM-D E-M1) to use when I wanted something lighter than my D7200 to carry.  The Nikon 1 system had limited lenses, and I did not like the add-on EVF of the V3, so I jumped ship to Olympus.  The Olympus/Panasonic lenses are a GREAT line up to choose from.

I could have gotten even lighter with the E-M10 by about 90 grams, but I found a good deal on the E-M1 mk1 and went with the older top line camera.

My E-M1 + Panasonic 12-60 weighs about the same as a Nikon D3400 + 18-55 lens.  So I get a better body and wider zoom range lens for the same weight.  And that is 44% lighter than my D7200 + 18-40 lens.  The Olympus is is coming on vacation with this old man.


----------



## pixmedic

the performance gap between mirrorless and DSLR's is getting smaller and smaller every year. 

i know im usually a little bit of a Nikon fanboy (having shot nikon for so long) but if they dont step it up a notch and get with the mirrorless program (you know, more seriously than the nikon 1) they are going to be seriously behind the curve if DSLR sales continue waning. they are losing out on a growing segment of the camera buying populace.


----------



## Fujidave

I think that in maybe ten years time it will all be Mirrorless, glad I moved from Canon to Fuji but I did always know Fuji colours were and are great.


----------



## Jeff15

It does not surprise me. There must be lots of people like me who got tired of lugging all the DSLR gear around.


----------



## astroNikon

I’ve been waiting and waiting and waiting for Nikon to enter the segment and not protect their DSLR sales.   Their high end fixed lens mirror less that they do have is lacking.

The rumors are still out here but rumors don’t equate to sales.


----------



## ac12

pixmedic said:


> the performance gap between mirrorless and DSLR's is getting smaller and smaller every year.
> 
> i know im usually a little bit of a Nikon fanboy (having shot nikon for so long) but if they dont step it up a notch and get with the mirrorless program (you know, more seriously than the nikon 1) they are going to be seriously behind the curve if DSLR sales continue waning. they are losing out on a growing segment of the camera buying populace.



They just lost me.
I jumped ship to the Olympus for mirrorless.
Though for now, I am shooting both DX and m43.


----------



## astroNikon

ac12 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the performance gap between mirrorless and DSLR's is getting smaller and smaller every year.
> 
> i know im usually a little bit of a Nikon fanboy (having shot nikon for so long) but if they dont step it up a notch and get with the mirrorless program (you know, more seriously than the nikon 1) they are going to be seriously behind the curve if DSLR sales continue waning. they are losing out on a growing segment of the camera buying populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just lost me.
> I jumped ship to the Olympus for mirrorless.
> Though for now, I am shooting both DX and m43.
Click to expand...

If I had the spare cash and energy I would have swapped over to Fuji already.  Was originally going to go to SONY but their star eater thing stopped me in my tracks then other priorities cropped up.


----------



## pixmedic

astroNikon said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the performance gap between mirrorless and DSLR's is getting smaller and smaller every year.
> 
> i know im usually a little bit of a Nikon fanboy (having shot nikon for so long) but if they dont step it up a notch and get with the mirrorless program (you know, more seriously than the nikon 1) they are going to be seriously behind the curve if DSLR sales continue waning. they are losing out on a growing segment of the camera buying populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just lost me.
> I jumped ship to the Olympus for mirrorless.
> Though for now, I am shooting both DX and m43.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I had the spare cash and energy I would have swapped over to Fuji already.  Was originally going to go to SONY but their star eater thing stopped me in my tracks then other priorities cropped up.
Click to expand...


we sold all our nikon gear when we stopped shooting weddings. when we decided to go mirrorless it came down to fuji or sony. i liked the sony option because i could go mirrorless and stay with a full frame camera but....i absolutely hated dragging the nikons around with the big lenses so it didnt make much sense to go FX again and have to deal with FX glass. plus...sony is expensive!
I considered going olympus but i was soooo underwhelmed with the PEN5 i had that i just couldn't seriously consider them...however, given that the PEN5/kit lens was a cheap setup i shouldnt have been surprised the low light performance was craptastic at best. 
ive been reasonably impressed with fujis low light performance, even on their super low tier cameras like my A1. 
i eventually want to upgrade my x-e2 and get rid of the A1.


----------



## Destin

pixmedic said:


> the performance gap between mirrorless and DSLR's is getting smaller and smaller every year.
> 
> i know im usually a little bit of a Nikon fanboy (having shot nikon for so long) but if they dont step it up a notch and get with the mirrorless program (you know, more seriously than the nikon 1) they are going to be seriously behind the curve if DSLR sales continue waning. they are losing out on a growing segment of the camera buying populace.



This. Exactly this. 

And I fear that Nikon will end up defunct and eventually go the way of Kodak. This would cause my expensive Nikon lens collection to lose value very rapidly. 

This combined with my desire to have a lighter kit for hiking/backpacking to landscape photo spots has me *seriously* considering selling off my entire Nikon kit and jumping to Fuji X series. As it stands my Nikon kit is worth enough to find a pretty inpressive Fuji kit, but I’m worried I won’t like it.. I’m not sold on EVF and I really love my D810. 

I’m planning to rent and X-T2 in the very near future to help make the decision.


----------



## pixmedic

Destin said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the performance gap between mirrorless and DSLR's is getting smaller and smaller every year.
> 
> i know im usually a little bit of a Nikon fanboy (having shot nikon for so long) but if they dont step it up a notch and get with the mirrorless program (you know, more seriously than the nikon 1) they are going to be seriously behind the curve if DSLR sales continue waning. they are losing out on a growing segment of the camera buying populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This. Exactly this.
> 
> And I fear that Nikon will end up defunct and eventually go the way of Kodak. This would cause my expensive Nikon lens collection to lose value very rapidly.
> 
> This combined with my desire to have a lighter kit for hiking/backpacking to landscape photo spots has me *seriously* considering selling off my entire Nikon kit and jumping to Fuji X series. As it stands my Nikon kit is worth enough to find a pretty inpressive Fuji kit, but I’m worried I won’t like it.. I’m not sold on EVF and I really love my D810.
> 
> I’m planning to rent and X-T2 in the very near future to help make the decision.
Click to expand...


we have the x-e2, which is not even close to their top tier line, and it has the option of using EVF or optical viewfinder. 
i really do like evf. its nice seeing the changes immediately in camera when changing ISO or aperture.


----------



## beagle100

astroNikon said:


> I’ve been waiting and waiting and waiting for Nikon to enter the segment and not protect their DSLR sales.   Their high end fixed lens mirror less that they do have is lacking.
> 
> The rumors are still out here but rumors don’t equate to sales.




right, there's plenty of rumors on Canikon full frame mirrorless  
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## ac12

Destin said:


> This. Exactly this.
> 
> And I fear that Nikon will end up defunct and eventually go the way of Kodak. This would cause my expensive Nikon lens collection to lose value very rapidly.
> 
> This combined with my desire to have a lighter kit for hiking/backpacking to landscape photo spots has me *seriously* considering selling off my entire Nikon kit and jumping to Fuji X series. As it stands my Nikon kit is worth enough to find a pretty inpressive Fuji kit, but I’m worried I won’t like it.. I’m not sold on EVF and I really love my D810.
> 
> I’m planning to rent and X-T2 in the very near future to help make the decision.



If low light shooting (like your astro photography) is your thing, going crop sensor will not help.
For a given level of technology, the larger FX sensors will always be better than the smaller DX or m43 sensors, because the pixel is larger, and can gather more light.

One option is to selectively use 2 system, to get the best of both systems.
This can be expensive because there will be a certain amount of duplication between the systems.  Especially if you go with pro glass on the mirrorless.
I decided to go this way with my DX D7200 and m43 Olympus OM-D E-M1.  At some point in the future, I may switch over to m43, but right now it is my secondary system, when I don't want to carry the bulk/heavy DX kit.


----------



## astroNikon

With Astro one has to think of how it's being used.
yes a FX sensor gathers more light than a DX sensor
If you are running a fixed camera/lens scenario then time is your limit, and FX gives you more time.

But if you are attaching your camera to a tracking telescope the scope itself also garners much attention here.

For example, if you are running a 5 inch scope it's gathering far less light than a 12 inch scope.
To me a FX on a 5 inch is more valuable than on a 12 inch.  I'm running a 12 inch and finding a 24mp DX is more valuable for distant nebula photography than the cropped 24mp FX image, which was better than a 16mp DX.   For general sky/star stuff on a tracking scope I guess it really doesn't matter except for the focal view width you need.


----------



## The Barbarian

For a lot of things, viewfinders work better than LCD displays.   For me, that matters.   I've got a couple of mirrorless cameras, and they are great for things they do well.   

But when I put on a long telephoto on a sunny day, it just works better with a viewfinder.


----------



## photoflyer

I find this discussion of mirrorless and DSLR interesting.  I am sure at some point I will get a mirrorless but for now I just like the feel of a DSLR better...it has nothing to do with perfomance.

To me it is like a the comparison of a traditional newspaper and the digital edition.   Technically the digital edition is much better.  I get the Wall Street Journal everyday this way.  My mother gets it in print and when I am visiting her I often grab a cup of coffee and page through an edition I have already read digitally.... and find items I had not seen previously.  And, there is something about the act of having a cup of coffee while paging through a real newspaper.  

Let's not forget that photography is still in large part art and while the technical aspects of the equipment are important, how the photographer "binds' with the equipment is perhaps more important.


----------



## Destin

photoflyer said:


> I find this discussion of mirrorless and DSLR interesting.  I am sure at some point I will get a mirrorless but for now I just like the feel of a DSLR better...it has nothing to do with perfomance.
> 
> To me it is like a the comparison of a traditional newspaper and the digital edition.   Technically the digital edition is much better.  I get the Wall Street Journal everyday this way.  My mother gets it in print and when I am visiting her I often grab a cup of coffee and page through an edition I have already read digitally.... and find items I had not seen previously.  And, there is something about the act of having a cup of coffee while paging through a real newspaper.
> 
> Let's not forget that photography is still in large part art and while the technical aspects of the equipment are important, how the photographer "binds' with the equipment is perhaps more important.



Building on that, I don’t think any mirrorless manufacturer has found a way to match the incredible ergonomics that the popular high end DSLRs are offering. 

I get that this is subjective, but most mirrorless cameras seem much less comfortable to hold and use. The form factor isn’t where it needs to be yet for many people to switch.


----------



## photoflyer

photoflyer said:


> Let's not forget that photography is still in large part art and while the technical aspects of the equipment are important, how the photographer "binds' with the equipment is perhaps more important.


 
I should also be clear in that I am in no way suggesting that an individual can only "bind" with a DSLR.  I know photographers who have gone mirrorless and prefer it.  Also, there are some in our ranks who still prefer film.   It really come done to whatever gives you the most enjoyment and the results you want to achieve.


----------



## smoke665

Not many remember but Pentax not only debuted a mirroless K-01 in 2012, but it was compatible with all Pentax lenses, so you didn't have to completely start over. It lasted less than a year before it was discontinued. Not knocking Fuji or Sony but at my age I'll stay with what I know.


----------



## smoke665

Expanding on my earlier comment. Here's a side by side comparison of the K-01 vs the XT2, Pentax K-01 vs Fujifilm X-T2  Now admittedly the XT2 is more advanced on some levels, but you have to consider that the 01 was released 6 years prior. In technology 6 years is an eternity. Check out the physical size and weight comparison, only 4 ounces difference. 

I can't really explain why it failed, whether it was ahead of its time,  it's appearance,  lack of features compared to dslrs at the time, or typical Pentax run & gun marketing.


----------



## cgw

Destin said:


> photoflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this discussion of mirrorless and DSLR interesting.  I am sure at some point I will get a mirrorless but for now I just like the feel of a DSLR better...it has nothing to do with perfomance.
> 
> To me it is like a the comparison of a traditional newspaper and the digital edition.   Technically the digital edition is much better.  I get the Wall Street Journal everyday this way.  My mother gets it in print and when I am visiting her I often grab a cup of coffee and page through an edition I have already read digitally.... and find items I had not seen previously.  And, there is something about the act of having a cup of coffee while paging through a real newspaper.
> 
> Let's not forget that photography is still in large part art and while the technical aspects of the equipment are important, how the photographer "binds' with the equipment is perhaps more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building on that, I don’t think any mirrorless manufacturer has found a way to match the incredible ergonomics that the popular high end DSLRs are offering.
> 
> I get that this is subjective, but most mirrorless cameras seem much less comfortable to hold and use. The form factor isn’t where it needs to be yet for many people to switch.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, let's see. Weight,  physically bulky, noisy, non-stealthy, heavy-weight lenses, price. Funny how those considerations seem to be offsetting DSLRs' "incredible ergonomics" in prompting the switch to MILC systems.


----------



## Destin

cgw said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photoflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this discussion of mirrorless and DSLR interesting.  I am sure at some point I will get a mirrorless but for now I just like the feel of a DSLR better...it has nothing to do with perfomance.
> 
> To me it is like a the comparison of a traditional newspaper and the digital edition.   Technically the digital edition is much better.  I get the Wall Street Journal everyday this way.  My mother gets it in print and when I am visiting her I often grab a cup of coffee and page through an edition I have already read digitally.... and find items I had not seen previously.  And, there is something about the act of having a cup of coffee while paging through a real newspaper.
> 
> Let's not forget that photography is still in large part art and while the technical aspects of the equipment are important, how the photographer "binds' with the equipment is perhaps more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building on that, I don’t think any mirrorless manufacturer has found a way to match the incredible ergonomics that the popular high end DSLRs are offering.
> 
> I get that this is subjective, but most mirrorless cameras seem much less comfortable to hold and use. The form factor isn’t where it needs to be yet for many people to switch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, let's see. Weight,  physically bulky, noisy, non-stealthy, heavy-weight lenses, price. Funny how those considerations seem to be offsetting DSLRs' "incredible ergonomics" in prompting the switch to MILC systems.
Click to expand...


Yes and no.

I just bought into the Fuji mirrorless system because it’s so light and compact. And for certain uses that outweighs ergonomics, especially if you plan to have it on a tripod most of the time.

But for me at least, I don’t know that a camera that small is something I’d ever want to use for weddings/events. While my Nikon gear is heavier, it also fits my hand like a well worn in glove. There are no hard edges, no pressure points, etc. 

Holding a Fuji (or Sony) camera for more than 5 minutes just feels uncomfortable in my hand. They have hard edges that dig in after a few minutes and no real hand grip to speak of.

For something where I’ll be shooting handheld for an extended time, my D810 isn’t going anywhere. And I’ve spoken to or read of many other photographers who have this same issue with the smaller mirrorless cameras.

Again, this is all subjective. There’s no wrong answer. For some, the smaller body may be more comfortable. But from what I’ve seen from many reviewers, this isn’t actually the case.

Also, price is comparable between DSLR and mirrorless at this point if you’re comparing the same sensor sizes against one another. Mirrorless actually may be more expensive, especially Sony stuff.


----------



## cgw

Destin said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photoflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this discussion of mirrorless and DSLR interesting.  I am sure at some point I will get a mirrorless but for now I just like the feel of a DSLR better...it has nothing to do with perfomance.
> 
> To me it is like a the comparison of a traditional newspaper and the digital edition.   Technically the digital edition is much better.  I get the Wall Street Journal everyday this way.  My mother gets it in print and when I am visiting her I often grab a cup of coffee and page through an edition I have already read digitally.... and find items I had not seen previously.  And, there is something about the act of having a cup of coffee while paging through a real newspaper.
> 
> Let's not forget that photography is still in large part art and while the technical aspects of the equipment are important, how the photographer "binds' with the equipment is perhaps more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building on that, I don’t think any mirrorless manufacturer has found a way to match the incredible ergonomics that the popular high end DSLRs are offering.
> 
> I get that this is subjective, but most mirrorless cameras seem much less comfortable to hold and use. The form factor isn’t where it needs to be yet for many people to switch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, let's see. Weight,  physically bulky, noisy, non-stealthy, heavy-weight lenses, price. Funny how those considerations seem to be offsetting DSLRs' "incredible ergonomics" in prompting the switch to MILC systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> I just bought into the Fuji mirrorless system because it’s so light and compact. And for certain uses that outweighs ergonomics, especially if you plan to have it on a tripod most of the time.
> 
> But for me at least, I don’t know that a camera that small is something I’d ever want to use for weddings/events. While my Nikon gear is heavier, it also fits my hand like a well worn in glove. There are no hard edges, no pressure points, etc.
> 
> Holding a Fuji (or Sony) camera for more than 5 minutes just feels uncomfortable in my hand. They have hard edges that dig in after a few minutes and no real hand grip to speak of.
> 
> For something where I’ll be shooting handheld for an extended time, my D810 isn’t going anywhere. And I’ve spoken to or read of many other photographers who have this same issue with the smaller mirrorless cameras.
> 
> Again, this is all subjective. There’s no wrong answer. For some, the smaller body may be more comfortable. But from what I’ve seen from many reviewers, this isn’t actually the case.
> 
> Also, price is comparable between DSLR and mirrorless at this point if you’re comparing the same sensor sizes against one another. Mirrorless actually may be more expensive, especially Sony stuff.
Click to expand...


Battery grips for the Fuji XT models even things up, making them Nikon FE/FM size and very comfortable for all-day shooting. My X100T needed the Fuji metal grip for my large hands but then that's why they make 'em. BTW, I rarely see a Nikon prosumer+ body that's not bulked-up  with a battery grip.

Several busy wedding shooters I know happily bought into Fuji. They don't miss the Nikon tonnage around their necks or over their shoulders. They don't seem worried that clients might consider the Fujis less than adequate simply for not looking "pro" enough. They're not getting complaints about IQ, either.

Should be fun to see if Nikon's upcoming MILC proves to be as disruptive as Fuji's MILCs. They're asking for trouble IMHO with a new lens mount and an F-mount adapter that will have to work perfectly straight from the box. Lots riding on their next roll of the dice.


----------



## beagle100

Destin said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photoflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this discussion of mirrorless and DSLR interesting.  I am sure at some point I will get a mirrorless but for now I just like the feel of a DSLR better...it has nothing to do with perfomance.
> 
> To me it is like a the comparison of a traditional newspaper and the digital edition.   Technically the digital edition is much better.  I get the Wall Street Journal everyday this way.  My mother gets it in print and when I am visiting her I often grab a cup of coffee and page through an edition I have already read digitally.... and find items I had not seen previously.  And, there is something about the act of having a cup of coffee while paging through a real newspaper.
> 
> Let's not forget that photography is still in large part art and while the technical aspects of the equipment are important, how the photographer "binds' with the equipment is perhaps more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building on that, I don’t think any mirrorless manufacturer has found a way to match the incredible ergonomics that the popular high end DSLRs are offering.
> 
> I get that this is subjective, but most mirrorless cameras seem much less comfortable to hold and use. The form factor isn’t where it needs to be yet for many people to switch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, let's see. Weight,  physically bulky, noisy, non-stealthy, heavy-weight lenses, price. Funny how those considerations seem to be offsetting DSLRs' "incredible ergonomics" in prompting the switch to MILC systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> I just bought into the Fuji mirrorless system because it’s so light and compact. And for certain uses that outweighs ergonomics, especially if you plan to have it on a tripod most of the time.
> 
> But for me at least, I don’t know that a camera that small is something I’d ever want to use for weddings/events. While my Nikon gear is heavier, it also fits my hand like a well worn in glove. There are no hard edges, no pressure points, etc.
> 
> Holding a Fuji (or Sony) camera for more than 5 minutes just feels uncomfortable in my hand. They have hard edges that dig in after a few minutes and no real hand grip to speak of.
> 
> For something where I’ll be shooting handheld for an extended time, my D810 isn’t going anywhere. And I’ve spoken to or read of many other photographers who have this same issue with the smaller mirrorless cameras.
> Again, this is all subjective. There’s no wrong answer. For some, the smaller body may be more comfortable. But from what I’ve seen from many reviewers, this isn’t actually the case.
> 
> Also, price is comparable between DSLR and mirrorless at this point if you’re comparing the same sensor sizes against one another. Mirrorless actually may be more expensive, especially Sony stuff.
Click to expand...


perhaps -  but that  "mirrorless stuff" may be less expensive
but yes, it won't do anything for those who think the small and light mirrorless cameras are uncomfortable
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Gary A.

cgw said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photoflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this discussion of mirrorless and DSLR interesting.  I am sure at some point I will get a mirrorless but for now I just like the feel of a DSLR better...it has nothing to do with perfomance.
> 
> To me it is like a the comparison of a traditional newspaper and the digital edition.   Technically the digital edition is much better.  I get the Wall Street Journal everyday this way.  My mother gets it in print and when I am visiting her I often grab a cup of coffee and page through an edition I have already read digitally.... and find items I had not seen previously.  And, there is something about the act of having a cup of coffee while paging through a real newspaper.
> 
> Let's not forget that photography is still in large part art and while the technical aspects of the equipment are important, how the photographer "binds' with the equipment is perhaps more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building on that, I don’t think any mirrorless manufacturer has found a way to match the incredible ergonomics that the popular high end DSLRs are offering.
> 
> I get that this is subjective, but most mirrorless cameras seem much less comfortable to hold and use. The form factor isn’t where it needs to be yet for many people to switch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, let's see. Weight,  physically bulky, noisy, non-stealthy, heavy-weight lenses, price. Funny how those considerations seem to be offsetting DSLRs' "incredible ergonomics" in prompting the switch to MILC systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> I just bought into the Fuji mirrorless system because it’s so light and compact. And for certain uses that outweighs ergonomics, especially if you plan to have it on a tripod most of the time.
> 
> But for me at least, I don’t know that a camera that small is something I’d ever want to use for weddings/events. While my Nikon gear is heavier, it also fits my hand like a well worn in glove. There are no hard edges, no pressure points, etc.
> 
> Holding a Fuji (or Sony) camera for more than 5 minutes just feels uncomfortable in my hand. They have hard edges that dig in after a few minutes and no real hand grip to speak of.
> 
> For something where I’ll be shooting handheld for an extended time, my D810 isn’t going anywhere. And I’ve spoken to or read of many other photographers who have this same issue with the smaller mirrorless cameras.
> 
> Again, this is all subjective. There’s no wrong answer. For some, the smaller body may be more comfortable. But from what I’ve seen from many reviewers, this isn’t actually the case.
> 
> Also, price is comparable between DSLR and mirrorless at this point if you’re comparing the same sensor sizes against one another. Mirrorless actually may be more expensive, especially Sony stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Battery grips for the Fuji XT models even things up, making them Nikon FE/FM size and very comfortable for all-day shooting. My X100T needed the Fuji metal grip for my large hands but then that's why they make 'em. BTW, I rarely see a Nikon prosumer+ body that's not bulked-up  with a battery grip.
> 
> Several busy wedding shooters I know happily bought into Fuji. They don't miss the Nikon tonnage around their necks or over their shoulders. They don't seem worried that clients might consider the Fujis less than adequate simply for not looking "pro" enough. They're not getting complaints about IQ, either.
> 
> Should be fun to see if Nikon's upcoming MILC proves to be as disruptive as Fuji's MILCs. They're asking for trouble IMHO with a new lens mount and an F-mount adapter that will have to work perfectly straight from the box. Lots riding on their next roll of the dice.
Click to expand...

"Feel" should be the last thing one considers when choosing a camera. But then I am speaking as a former professional, which most likely, has a much different mindset than a hobbyist. I think that most all modern interchangeable lens digital cameras are all similarly designed for the average and basic human hand.  Personally, while I tend to favor some control placements ... I know that over time I will be able to adapt to new and different camera bodies and configurations.  It is much more a mental thing than a physical thing. (If the photog has extremely large hands it will be difficult to adapt to a very small camera.  Conversely those with very small hands will find it difficult to adapt to a big camera.  But those types of considerations are the exceptions. There are always exceptions.)  

But, (the big but), for most of us to optimize our equipment, (tripod use notwithstanding), we need to 'harmonize' with our equipment.  The lenses become an extension of our eyes and the camera synergies into our hands.  The photog knows where every 'common' control lays without having to remove their eye from the viewfinder. The technical part becomes automatic or semi-automatic and the photog uses most of his energy and brain power focusing on visualization of the final image, the image in the viewfinder and anticipating the next image and what is required to capture the next and anticipated image as it has appeared in their mind. Harmonizing with one's equipment requires a lot of time behind the viewfinder, shooting and shooting and shooting.  The more hardware you have, the longer it will take to harmonize with all your lenses and stuff. (Speaking from personal experience, when one has limited brain power, harmonizing with the equipment is useful.)


----------



## The Barbarian

photoflyer said:


> Building on that, I don’t think any mirrorless manufacturer has found a way to match the incredible ergonomics that the popular high end DSLRs are offering.
> 
> I get that this is subjective, but most mirrorless cameras seem much less comfortable to hold and use. The form factor isn’t where it needs to be yet for many people to switch.



I find my Pentax K-01 to be rather comfortable.   Of course, the damn thing is almost as large and bulky as a DSLR; had to be, to use the same lens mount.   Ugly as sin, but for a medium tele-wide angle lens, it works pretty well.


----------



## Gary A.

The Barbarian said:


> photoflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Building on that, I don’t think any mirrorless manufacturer has found a way to match the incredible ergonomics that the popular high end DSLRs are offering.
> 
> I get that this is subjective, but most mirrorless cameras seem much less comfortable to hold and use. The form factor isn’t where it needs to be yet for many people to switch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find my Pentax K-01 to be rather comfortable.   Of course, the damn thing is almost as large and bulky as a DSLR; had to be, to use the same lens mount.   Ugly as sin, but for a medium tele-wide angle lens, it works pretty well.
Click to expand...

I find my Fuji’s to be sexy ... especially the XP2.


----------



## photoflyer

Gary A. said:


> "Feel" should be the last thing one considers when choosing a camera. But then I am speaking as a former professional, which most likely, has a much different mindset than a hobbyist.



Agreed.  I do think that in any endevour, how one interacts with equipment does influence results.  I was flying a glass cockpit airplane recently.  My airplane has a more traditional layout.  I mentioned this in passing to the instructor as I was looking away from the panel to clear a turn.  By the time my eyes return to the panel she had configure it to what I was accustomed too but all I noticed at first was how at home I felt.  It took a while to register that the layout had changed.  The  more modern layout is far superior and I would use it if I had a choice but like everything it takes a while to adjust and in that adjustment period results will invariably suffer before they improve.  Professionals have an incentive to adjust to change.


----------



## Fujidave

5,10 or 15 yrs folk will wonder what a DSLR was


----------



## Derrel

So, apparently, "feel" is meaningless and worthless. Try an Argus C3, a.k.a. The Brick, and then try another camera of its era (which was from 1938 to 1968). The Brick felt like crap, and had absolutely shitty ergonomics. The most successful cameras of the era, the Rolleiflex models, the Leica M3, and the Nikon F, had by comparison, a "feel" that was extraordinarily good.

 When I talk about feel, and when most people talk about feel, they're talking about ergonomics --not the tactile sensation of the leather,or the Bakelite, or the metals used. When we talk about feel, what we really mean is usability, and the actual ergonomics. Let's use words accurately. Feel is another word for ergonomics, and not tactile hand feel of soft leather, or polished metals,etc., etc.

But apparently ergonomics are absolutely the last thing one needs to concern oneself with. It has been written.

Mirrorless sales are on the increase, in an already flat camera market, where the majority of people already have a DSLR,and/or a smart phone camera. Apparently minuscule sales numbers in North America and South America mean that they're closing the gap though. It has been written.


----------



## Fujidave

Every time before I have got any camera, I have gone to our local Jessops to hold and feel to make sure I can get my hands and fingers just how I want.  As they know I will buy they let you the buyer even try it out too.


----------



## DarkShadow

I should buy another battery less  oops I mean mirrorless Camera.Not I like shooting for a couple days or a 1000 shot give or take on a single charge which ever occurs first.


----------



## Fujidave

Hello says Jessops, can I help you
Hi I say, yes I am looking for a good all round DSLR
Jessops, hang on a moment please Sir
Me, well officer I came in to buy a DSLR
Police, ok your nicked..lol


----------



## smoke665

Derrel said:


> Mirrorless sales are on the increase, in an already flat camera market, where the majority of people already have a DSLR,and/or a smart phone camera.apparently minuscule sales numbers in North America and South America mean that they're closing the gap though.



When I looked at the chart presented, my first thought was that for a product to be on the increase over another, you have to have one going up an equal amount to the other's decrease, but that wasn't the case. It appears more a case of mirrorless showing moderate increases in an overall declining market brought on by the popularity of cell phones. 

I also have to agree with Derrel that ergonomics is important. There was an earlier comment by Barbarian on his K-01 "_Of course, the damn thing is almost as large and bulky as a DSLR; had to be, to use the same lens mount. Ugly as sin_" As I noted earlier the mirrorless K-01 has been on the market for years, eliminated the starting over on lenses problem, and still didn't take off. Maybe the "Ugly as Sin" and "bulky" does have something to do with it.


----------



## beagle100

smoke665 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless sales are on the increase, in an already flat camera market, where the majority of people already have a DSLR,and/or a smart phone camera.apparently minuscule sales numbers in North America and South America mean that they're closing the gap though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I looked at the chart presented, my first thought was that for a product to be on the increase over another, you have to have one going up an equal amount to the other's decrease, but that wasn't the case. It appears more a case of mirrorless showing moderate increases in an overall declining market brought on by the popularity of cell phones.
> 
> I also have to agree with Derrel that ergonomics is important. There was an earlier comment by Barbarian on his K-01 "_Of course, the damn thing is almost as large and bulky as a DSLR; had to be, to use the same lens mount. Ugly as sin_" As I noted earlier the mirrorless K-01 has been on the market for years, eliminated the starting over on lenses problem, and still didn't take off. Maybe the "Ugly as Sin" and "bulky" does have something to do with it.
Click to expand...


or perhaps it's the smaller size or weight and the ability to use every and all lens 
..........  could be
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Derrel

beagle100 said:
			
		

> or perhaps it's the smaller size or weight and the ability to use every and all lens
> ..........  could be
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*



That tired cannard, yet again? Give it a rest. Most people buying a mirrorless want a better camera than a smartphone camera, and could give a rat's patootie about lenses.

The lie you keep promoting is the ability to "use every and all lens". That's not really much of a concern or desire for the majority of mirrorless buyers who are, as most of us know, gearheads who just want a cheap,light,small camera that can be worn as a nice necklace. Not concerned about quality, but just size.


----------



## RyanLilly

I'd be interested to see WHO is buying mirrorless cameras. I would guess that a lot of people who own DSLRs and a ton of lenses, have also bought a mirrorless camera just for vacation, or to have a camera that is easy to carry around without all the hassle of a bulky system; something you can keep at the office or in your car. I have not done much photography in the last few years, but am dusting off the old kit. I go on vacation next week, and rather than take my 60D and a pelican case full of lenses, I ordered a 20mm 1.7 for my old Pen E-PL1. It's an old camera, but its small and light and will still take better photos than my iPhone. If I did not have the Pen, I would probably not even bring a camera with me; its too much hassle.

I would also guess that the majority of people who buy a mirrorless with a kit lens,  never buy another lens. They just want something better than a cell phone, and less Bulk/hassle than an SLR.

Also, to bring up quality, I've taken concert photos at 800-1600 iso with an 8mp Canon 20D that print just dandy at 20x30, and that's an 8 year old model. The quality of sensors and their low light ability has long surpassed the needs of an average consumer. I know people will still get hung up on megapixels, and high iso detail charts, but it is kind of a moot point. Buy a camera for the size, weight, and convenience. 

Camera sales, in general, are steeply declining. If someone made these mirrorless systems connect directly to Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook accounts, then maybe we would see and an uptick in sales. This is how people share photos now; we are not making an album or sitting around the livingroom digging through shoeboxes full of vacation photos anymore.


----------



## ac12

RL, 
I guess I am not in your majority of people, base lens + 2 lenses.
Olympus E-M1
lenses:  Panasonic 12-60/3.5-56, Olympus 17/1.8 and 40-150/4-5.6​


----------



## stapo49

Another one not in the majority.  Panasonic GX9, Olympus 25 1.8, Panasonic 12-60 3.5 to 5.6 and Panasonic 45-150. Also I try to wear it over my shoulder not over my neck.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic

i switched to fuji because when we stopped doing weddings, we stopped NEEDING multiple FX DSLR's. 
we went mirrorless because we NEVER carried the nikons outside of work...too damn big and heavy. 
i can grab the tiny fuji x-a1 or x-e2 and the 18-55 f2.8-4 kit lens and do everything i want to do now. 
we dont give a rats ass about being able to adapt every lens ever made, because im never going to use anything on these cameras except actual fuji lenses...i stopped using manual focus lenses when i stopped shooting film cameras. ive bought a few interesting manual lenses that i THOUGHT i might use....turns out i just dont want to mess with manual focus and/or adapted lenses that make you lose AF. 
we went with fuji because sony was too damn expensive, and we liked the fuji ergonomics. i really wanted to consider olympus, but we had a somewhat bad experience with olympus and the wife didnt want to go another round with them. we have both been very pleased with fuji, and it suits the portrait work we still do just fine. 

my overall opinion (realizing of course that it isnt worth much) is that the companies producing mirrorless cameras have not yet produced a* true* professional model. 
i feel they are close though. in the same way that the D8xx series from nikon is *close* to their PRO models, but not quite the same as a D4 or D5. 
i think this is by design mostly. make consumer and prosumer cameras, add in some pro spec glass, and cater to the tech savy crowd that has to have the latest and greatest as well as the photo enthusiast who doesnt *need* a high burst rate, super weather sealing, and built in grip but still wants a competitive camera setup.
just my thoughts tho. your mileage may vary.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs

pixmedic said:


> i switched to fuji because when we stopped doing weddings, we stopped NEEDING multiple FX DSLR's.
> we went mirrorless because we NEVER carried the nikons outside of work...too damn big and heavy.
> i can grab the tiny fuji x-a1 or x-e2 and the 18-55 f2.8-4 kit lens and do everything i want to do now.
> we dont give a rats ass about being able to adapt every lens ever made, because im never going to use anything on these cameras except actual fuji lenses...i stopped using manual focus lenses when i stopped shooting film cameras. ive bought a few interesting manual lenses that i THOUGHT i might use....turns out i just dont want to mess with manual focus and/or adapted lenses that make you lose AF.
> we went with fuji because sony was too damn expensive, and we liked the fuji ergonomics. i really wanted to consider olympus, but we had a somewhat bad experience with olympus and the wife didnt want to go another round with them. we have both been very pleased with fuji, and it suits the portrait work we still do just fine.
> 
> my overall opinion (realizing of course that it isnt worth much) is that the companies producing mirrorless cameras have not yet produced a* true* professional model.
> i feel they are close though. in the same way that the D8xx series from nikon is *close* to their PRO models, but not quite the same as a D4 or D5.
> i think this is by design mostly. make consumer and prosumer cameras, add in some pro spec glass, and cater to the tech savy crowd that has to have the latest and greatest as well as the photo enthusiast who doesnt *need* a high burst rate, super weather sealing, and built in grip but still wants a competitive camera setup.
> just my thoughts tho. your mileage may vary.



The Sony a9 is pretty pro. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## waday

RyanLilly said:


> I go on vacation next week, and rather than take my 60D and a pelican case full of lenses, I ordered a 20mm 1.7 for my old Pen E-PL1. It's an old camera, but its small and light and will still take better photos than my iPhone.


That'll be great for travel! Be sure to share your photos! 



RyanLilly said:


> I would also guess that the majority of people who buy a mirrorless with a kit lens, never buy another lens. They just want something better than a cell phone, and less Bulk/hassle than an SLR.


Like @ac12 and @stapo49 , I am not in the majority you are guesstimating. I'd be interested in learning your references for this.

Olympus OMD EM1 owner here with 6 lenses



RyanLilly said:


> Camera sales, in general, are steeply declining. If someone made these mirrorless systems connect directly to Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook accounts, then maybe we would see and an uptick in sales.


A lot of newer cameras are very close to this, where you can transfer the pictures from camera to phone wirelessly within a minute. While I personally like to take my pictures back and edit them, when requested by my wife, I'll often send a photo to my phone, give it a once over, and have an edited picture to her within 5 minutes (from camera to wife's phone).


----------



## SquarePeg

RyanLilly said:


> I'd be interested to see WHO is buying mirrorless cameras. I would guess that a lot of people who own DSLRs and a ton of lenses, have also bought a mirrorless camera just for vacation, or to have a camera that is easy to carry around without all the hassle of a bulky system; something you can keep at the office or in your car. I have not done much photography in the last few years, but am dusting off the old kit. I go on vacation next week, and rather than take my 60D and a pelican case full of lenses, I ordered a 20mm 1.7 for my old Pen E-PL1. It's an old camera, but its small and light and will still take better photos than my iPhone. If I did not have the Pen, I would probably not even bring a camera with me; its too much hassle.
> 
> _I originally bought a mirrorless to use as a vacation/walk around camera.  I ended up liking it so much more that I sold all my Nikon gear and made a full switch._
> 
> I would also guess that the majority of people who buy a mirrorless with a kit lens,  never buy another lens. They just want something better than a cell phone, and less Bulk/hassle than an SLR.
> 
> _Again I thought that would be me but now I have 4 Fuji lenses and 4 adapted lenses...  _
> 
> Also, to bring up quality, I've taken concert photos at 800-1600 iso with an 8mp Canon 20D that print just dandy at 20x30, and that's an 8 year old model. The quality of sensors and their low light ability has long surpassed the needs of an average consumer. I know people will still get hung up on megapixels, and high iso detail charts, but it is kind of a moot point. Buy a camera for the size, weight, and convenience.
> 
> _This is the reason I originally wanted the mirrorless - smaller, lighter body and lens.  I do think that low light quality is more important than you're giving credit for.  _
> 
> Camera sales, in general, are steeply declining. If someone made these mirrorless systems connect directly to Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook accounts, then maybe we would see and an uptick in sales. This is how people share photos now; we are not making an album or sitting around the livingroom digging through shoeboxes full of vacation photos anymore.





_
_


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs

I never had a dslr. I went straight from a slr film camera (Nikon) to a mirrorless years ago. I’ve always had multiple lenses for it. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## RyanLilly

waday said:


> RyanLilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I go on vacation next week, and rather than take my 60D and a pelican case full of lenses, I ordered a 20mm 1.7 for my old Pen E-PL1. It's an old camera, but its small and light and will still take better photos than my iPhone.
> 
> 
> 
> That'll be great for travel! Be sure to share your photos!
> 
> 
> 
> RyanLilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also guess that the majority of people who buy a mirrorless with a kit lens, never buy another lens. They just want something better than a cell phone, and less Bulk/hassle than an SLR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like @ac12 and @stapo49 , I am not in the majority you are guesstimating. I'd be interested in learning your references for this.
> 
> Olympus OMD EM1 owner here with 6 lenses
> 
> 
> 
> RyanLilly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Camera sales, in general, are steeply declining. If someone made these mirrorless systems connect directly to Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook accounts, then maybe we would see and an uptick in sales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of newer cameras are very close to this, where you can transfer the pictures from camera to phone wirelessly within a minute. While I personally like to take my pictures back and edit them, when requested by my wife, I'll often send a photo to my phone, give it a once over, and have an edited picture to her within 5 minutes (from camera to wife's phone).
Click to expand...



I don't have any references. It was a guess based on my limited observations of people around me. I think I read an article a few years back that this was the case with DSLRs in the mid-2000's when they began to get popular in the consumer market. There were a lot of kits that came with either the short zoom, or a short and a long zoom, and that covered most casual users needs. When you get an 18-55, and a 50-250 zoom in a kit, a lot of people are perfectly content with the set, especially if they just want to take pictures at their kids' soccer games and family BBQ's.

I would not be too surprised the trend was different for mirrorless cameras. When DSLRs became popular, it seemed like everyone and their mom was buying a kit or getting one for Christmas, and becoming a "professional."  This was also before the smartphone, and point and shoot camera quality and features were all over the board, so DSLRs below a $1k was a big deal. It was pretty trendy for a while, so there were a lot of casual users and a lot of people who just got bored with photography and never had the need to buy more lenses. With how good of pictures you can get with cell phones now, I could see that a lot of people who hopped on the DSLR bandwagon wouldn't bother now, so the people buying any camera these days are probably more serious about it and more likely to buy lenses and accessories.

I'll for sure take some vacation pictures and post them. Going to NYC, and then upstate. I've been there bunches of times, but only for work, never as a tourist, so It should be fun.


----------



## Solarflare

I still hardly ever see a mirrorless out in the wild. Most people of course have a phone. Theres still some compacts out there. And DSLRs. And a surprising amount of film cameras.


----------



## Jeff15

For many years I used all Nikon gear as I am a very keen enthusiast Photographer, I have over the years sold a few pictures but I am by no means a professional.
I started to find it difficult lugging all my Nikon gear ( DSLR + 3 lenses ) around particularly uphill. I went to the doctor and found that I was suffering from COPD.
Just after this, I sold all my Nikon gear and bought my first mirrorless camera and two lenses for it weighs about one-third of my Nikon gear and the picture quality amazed me.
I am now using a Panasonic top of the range G9 and when I show images at photo clubs no one can tell that the images were shot on a mirrorless camera, I can compete with anyone with any camera. I rest my case.


----------



## beagle100

Solarflare said:


> I still hardly ever see a mirrorless out in the wild. Most people of course have a phone. Theres still some compacts out there. And DSLRs. And a surprising amount of film cameras.



I suppose it depends the location of  "out in the wild"
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## cgw

Solarflare said:


> I still hardly ever see a mirrorless out in the wild. Most people of course have a phone. Theres still some compacts out there. And DSLRs. And a surprising amount of film cameras.


Sounds like you've got a case of "confirmation bias." I see small entry-level DSLR's around tourists' necks but also Fuji MILCs and other mirrorless many consider "street" cameras like the Fuji X100 cameras or smaller Sonys, Panasonics and Olympus. Just started shooting a near-invisible Ricoh GR II that's often mistaken for a phone. It's the larger prosumer and pro camera shooters weighed down with lens tonnage I rarely see around downtown Toronto now. YMMV, and obviously does.


----------



## waday

cgw said:


> Ricoh GR II


Did you see that they announced a GRIII?


----------



## Derrel

cgw said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still hardly ever see a mirrorless out in the wild. Most people of course have a phone. Theres still some compacts out there. And DSLRs. And a surprising amount of film cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you've got a case of "confirmation bias." I see small entry-level DSLR's around tourists' necks but also Fuji MILCs and other mirrorless many consider "street" cameras like the Fuji X100 cameras or smaller Sonys, Panasonics and Olympus. Just started shooting a near-invisible Ricoh GR II that's often mistaken for a phone. It's the larger prosumer and pro camera shooters weighed down with lens tonnage I rarely see around downtown Toronto now. YMMV, and obviously does.
Click to expand...


Yes, confirmation bias...it's pretty strong in many people.

I'm seeing quite a few mirrorless cameras "in the wild". However, the last time I went to a place where there were many,many,many people taking photos was late December of 2016, and I went to Pacific City, Oregon to a very popular beach, on a weekend day, one that had simply _spectacular_ blue sky weather and unseasonably warm weather. The blue sky weather and warm temperatures had been widely predicted by area weather forecasters for several days. The beach was crowded with a huge throng of people, and it seemed that almost all of them were taking photos. I noticed one thing over and above everything else: *the VAST majority* of people were using their smartphone cameras, more so than any other camera type, perhaps by a margin of 10 to 1. Second, there were quite a few smaller, MILC cameras present. Third: in d-slrs, lower-level Canon and Nikon d-slrs with kit zooms were the most prevalent item being carried, Digital Rebel and Nikon D3200- and 5200-level models seemed to be the majority of the d-slrs. Fourth: I saw a few Sony cameras. Fifth: among the group present there, the iPhone seemed to be hugely represented. Sixth: I did not see any Fuji new-style mirrorless cameras (wrong demographic perhaps?). Seventh: "Big,black camera" shooters were split about 50-50 between Canon and Nikon and were very few, about four of each. Eighth: This was the most photo-intensive place I have been or seen since going to Hawaii...there were more people photographing,both in-total and as a percentage of the people in attendance, than I've seen in years.

I think that we need to realize the overall camera purchase market is made up of many people who are just "regular folks", and are not really photography gear enthusiasts. The overall buying public is mostly made up of people who just want to take photos. And who want to share the photos, often via social media like Facebook, or Instagram, or via Direct Messaging or Personal Messaging (aka DM or PM). From what I saw on that one, hugely photo-intensive day, smart phones were like 10 to 1 among about, I would estimate, 800 t o 1,000 people. Over the course of the day, at other beaches, I saw easily that many more people. Real, camera-only cameras, were definitely a minority.

It's easy to form opinions when you hang out with photography enthusiasts, or to use confirmation bias to reinforce ideas you already hold. It's also very easy to let sales trends and articles dealing with sales blips to confuse you; the best example being people who proclaim that film is "resurgent". No, film is not resurgent, but it is coming back a teeny-tiny bit sales-wise from almost being dead, and the number of film stocks being made has dropped, and continues to drop, yet there are people who are still buying film and shooting pictures on it. It's dangerous to draw conclusions based on small data points, but from what I am seeing since 2016, yes, mirrorless cameras are selling now, more and more. I think what many people like are the small bodies and small lenses, and the pretty affordable prices.


----------



## zulu42

Recently at a small downtown street fair I saw a few people shooting. There were two from a photo class I attended -  another student with an XT-2, and the pro who taught the class was carrying a bridge camera. I saw one other Sony mirrorless shooter, and the phone shooters.

I was the only big camera guy. Even with a small lens on, the D800 stuck out like a sore thumb. The crowds were giving me space as if I were pregnant!


----------



## cgw

waday said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ricoh GR II
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see that they announced a GRIII?
Click to expand...

Yup. But I got a very sweet deal on the GR II and already have Fuji/Nikon 24mp cameras. No clue when the III will ship or what it will cost. The stabilization feature is way more interesting than the larger sensor. The tiny 16mp version is awesome, especially for b&w jpgs.


----------



## cgw

cgw said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ricoh GR II
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see that they announced a GRIII?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. But I got a very sweet deal on the GR II and already have Fuji/Nikon 24mp cameras. No clue when the III will ship or what it will cost. The stabilization feature is way more interesting than the larger sensor. The tiny 16mp version is awesome, especially for b&w jpgs.
Click to expand...


Forgot to add that the Ricoh GR II's RAW files are DNG format--no conversion necessary.


----------



## Solarflare

The GR3 doesnt have a larger sensor than the GR/GR2.

The GR3 is smaller than the GR/GR2.

I think the GR3 is a major step backwards compared to the GR/GR2 because

- Nobody needs image stabilization on a compact with a fixed 28mm thats meant to focus on people photography, for which you want 1/125 sec if possible.
- They killed one of the great features of the GR/GR2, which was the good interface.
- They did not fix the main issue of the GR/GR2, which was poor sealing. Thats the reason all GR/GR2 keep dying and getting sensor spots pretty quickly.

All in all I wished somebody else would make a GR-like camera, since Ricoh clearly cant be bothered anymore. Unfortunately it doesnt look like it.

Fujifilm offers a XF10 which is great except for the lacking flash hotshoe. Thats just a dumb thing to overlook. Yes I know its a leaf shutter and yes I know you can trigger per commander mode. Still commander mode isnt reliable and doesnt sync well above 1/500 sec. Flash cables do.







And about mirrorless, no thats no confirmation bias. Last big event I was: nobody had a mirrorless. The other guy had a DSLR, too, a D7100 with I think a 18-140mm ? And then there was a guy with a Leica M3 and a Voigtländer lens.


----------



## waday

Solarflare said:


> Thats the reason all GR/GR2 keep dying and getting sensor spots pretty quickly.


As someone who has been eyeing the GRii (and potentially the GRiii), I'm very interested in this statement. When you say "dying", in what respect? I'd prefer not to shell out for a camera only to have it die or to have it get sensor spots that can't be cleaned within a very short timeframe.


----------



## DGMPhotography

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone mention the Nikon Z7? 

Seems like a pretty solid camera. 

Nikon Z 7 | Interchangeable Lens Mirrorless Camera


----------



## cgw

waday said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the reason all GR/GR2 keep dying and getting sensor spots pretty quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who has been eyeing the GRii (and potentially the GRiii), I'm very interested in this statement. When you say "dying", in what respect? I'd prefer not to shell out for a camera only to have it die or to have it get sensor spots that can't be cleaned within a very short timeframe.
Click to expand...


GR/GR II sensor dust issues resulted from owners taking the cameras' "pocketability" too literally. Friends with GR dust problems shoved their cameras into dusty/linty pants and coat pockets or courier bags. None died but several did get slightly spotty sensors after a few years of heavy use. When they replaced them with GR IIs, several opted for neck/shoulder straps rather than wrist straps(this is a very small camera)and stored them in Pelican 1020 cases. No dust or premature deaths so far. BTW, the dust "issue" was reportedly a major concern in the GR III update. Solarflare doesn't have clue whether that's been addressed or not since the GR III isn't on the market yet. GR IIs are dropping in price, so look for deals around the holidays.

It's a quirky camera that's not for everyone. It can produce great images, especially b&w where contrast can be controlled very precisely in camera. I'd consider one if you're already "camera-ed up" and like shooting quickly and drawing minimal attention. The lack of a viewfinder gets you mixed up with the ubiquitous smartphone shooters--and mostly ignored as part of that herd.

Look over the GR/GR II reviews, photo pages, and blogs where the opinions are grounded in experience.


----------



## Fujidave

waday said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the reason all GR/GR2 keep dying and getting sensor spots pretty quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who has been eyeing the GRii (and potentially the GRiii), I'm very interested in this statement. When you say "dying", in what respect? I'd prefer not to shell out for a camera only to have it die or to have it get sensor spots that can't be cleaned within a very short timeframe.
Click to expand...


Before I got the X100F, it was out of three I looked at.  1st the GRii then 2nd XF10 but in the end I went for and got the X100F then a little case that clips to my belt.


----------



## waday

cgw said:


> GR/GR II sensor dust issues resulted from owners taking the cameras' "pocketability" too literally. Friends with GR dust problems shoved their cameras into dusty/linty pants and coat pockets or courier bags. None died but several did get slightly spotty sensors after a few years of heavy use. When they replaced them with GR IIs, several opted for neck/shoulder straps rather than wrist straps(this is a very small camera)and stored them in Pelican 1020 cases. No dust or premature deaths so far. BTW, the dust "issue" was reportedly a major concern in the GR III update.


Thanks for the description. Well, I'd personally like to be able to put it in a pocket, but I guess I'd need to avoid doing that. Shame. What makes this a magnet for dust? Is it the way the lens opens/closes when turned on and off, sucking in dust?



cgw said:


> It's a quirky camera that's not for everyone. It can produce great images, especially b&w where contrast can be controlled very precisely in camera. I'd consider one if you're already "camera-ed up" and like shooting quickly and drawing minimal attention. The lack of a viewfinder gets you mixed up with the ubiquitous smartphone shooters--and mostly ignored as part of that herd.


I was able to handle one for about 1 minute before the battery died at B&H. I definitely liked that it would be easy to mistake for a smartphone shooter or even a "tourist point-and-shoot".



Fujidave said:


> Before I got the X100F, it was out of three I looked at.  1st the GRii then 2nd XF10 but in the end I went for and got the X100F then a little case that clips to my belt.


I'd love one, but at around twice the price, I'd have to do a lot of explaining and reasoning to get it. Does it have any dust issues, or does it operate differently than the GRII so there are minimal dust issues? It might also draw more attention, which I'm not necessarily a fan of...


----------



## Fujidave

When I was reading up about the GRII & GRIII not once did I see a word said about dust, if it does happen I think it would be because of the camera always going in a dusty pocket.


----------



## Fujidave

@waday I have always rated this site for reviews.


Ricoh GR II Review | Photography Blog


----------



## waday

Fujidave said:


> When I was reading up about the GRII & GRIII not once did I see a word said about dust, if it does happen I think it would be because of the camera always going in a dusty pocket.


Hmm. Ok, so, if I treat it well, make sure it doesn't get too dusty, and blow off dust prior to turning it on/etc, it'd be ok? I really wish I would have been able to have more time to play around with the camera before the battery died. Now, I just need to figure out if I want the GRII or the GRIII, OR, if I want to save for other options...


----------



## cgw

Fujidave said:


> When I was reading up about the GRII & GRIII not once did I see a word said about dust, if it does happen I think it would be because of the camera always going in a dusty pocket.



 It does come up but seems part of a mea culpa for rough treatment. Friends who had the problem admitted to abuse. The whole body is magnesium alloy and can take a punch. The GR cameras' weakness is the bellows-like movement of the retractable lens and some lack of sealing that allows fine-grain crud eventually to land on the sensor. There are some brave DIY GR sensor cleaning videos that involve more tear-down than I'd tackle.

I'm keeping mine in a Pelican 1020 case and carry it around my neck or over my shoulder. Will see if this actually works!

The X100 series are wonderful. No dust, either! It's bigger and heavier than the Ricoh and can't qualify as pocketable. Have the X100T and love it. Might be a few Xmas bargains on this 16mp version of the current X100F.


----------

