Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fuji X-T1 announced
#11
If we're going to play the numbers game, what proportion of mirrorless sales is "high end"? Last time I looked, mirrorless systems tended to only really shift in volume once they were more than a generation old and heavily discounted. Then again, similar may apply to lower end DSLRs too... On these forums we do have a view distorted to the higher end.

 

That aside, of course a strong high end product is needed in any line for the halo effect if done right. To me, that was and still is the X-Pro 1 and it needs a refresh. Everything else since that has been passable.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#12
Quote:Volume-wise full format is not overly relevant (10% DSLR market share). Full format is important in terms of profits - I will give you that.

It may be a useless segment for you but Canon and Nikon have to care about their APS-C business.

And both the E-M1 and X-T1 are highly competitive here.


Don't underestimate the brand recognition. It seems to me, what ever happens people buy the Nikon or Canon anyway.


The e-m1 and x-t1 are, I think, a bit above the D7100 and on that base starting to compete with the D610. The new e-m10 seems to be a good competitor to the D5300. But we have been there before. People bought D5000s instead of E-620s.
enjoy
#13
Yes, I agree here. The mirrorless gang has to be prepared to go for a long battle. The camera market is a religious one.

However, unlike Canikon they have no constraints and on the long run this will make a difference.

Or to phrase it differently - when was the last time, Canon and Nikon came up with a (DSLR-centric) innovation ? 

But yes, given their brand strength, they could still turn the tide any time.

IF they would come up with mirrorless cameras of similar capabilities (than their DSLRs), they would sell like hot cake. Even the half-hearty EOS-M did better than expected given the quality and scale of the system. In this case, nobody would even raise a question anymore whether mirrorless is the real thing.

Honestly exactly that happened over at Sony. Their DSLR lineup is dead.

#14
Quote:Yes, I agree here. The mirrorless gang has to be prepared to go for a long battle. The camera market is a religious one.

However, unlike Canikon they have no constraints and on the long run this will make a difference.

Or to phrase it differently - when was the last time, Canon and Nikon came up with a (DSLR-centric) innovation ? 

But yes, given their brand strength, they could still turn the tide any time.

IF they would come up with mirrorless cameras of similar capabilities (than their DSLRs), they would sell like hot cake. Even the half-hearty EOS-M did better than expected given the quality and scale of the system. In this case, nobody would even raise a question anymore whether mirrorless is the real thing.

Honestly exactly that happened over at Sony. Their DSLR lineup is dead.
 

I think Canon is just complacent due to their strong market position. If motivated they will continue to dominate technologically. I remember reading an interview with a Canon engineer who expressed (subtly) his frustrations that engineering innovation is often bridled by management when they see no need to release new technology quickly due to their strong market position.

 

If you look at all the big developments in camera technology, most of it is initially developed by Canon and the others eventually follow e.g electronic lens mount communication, USM, IS, CMOS sensors, sophisticated PDAF (f2.8 sensors, large AF point arrays), live view, duel-pixel design, full frame, video, diffractive optics, extreme lens designs (200mm 1.8, 85 1.2), fast frame rates. Canon has always been a dominant technological leader and there is no reason this should not continue. I think its more a question of them not feeling enough pressure to feel the need to do more.

 

Even with the hype around mirror-less cameras, they do not really sell that well globally and the manufacturers are not making money on them. Attempting to be profitable is probably why something like a EM-1 is so over priced compared to a competing DSLR, which is definitely more expensive to build. 
#15
Quote:No idea why an E-M1 would cause any headaches,
 

Well, perhaps I've got a twisted mind, but the E-M1 is the camera that triggered my intention to move to mirrorless. In fact I had been lazily following the MFT segment until a few months ago. When the E-M1 came out and I saw the first reviews, I reckoned that we was at a turning point and I could move from the D5100 to a mirrorless camera without losing quality. Then I started a deeper analysis and got to Sony and Fuji as the two "finalists", in the end picking Sony because Fuji doesn't offer my favourite focal range in a single lens (16-70mm) - it's a pity, because I like Fuji cameras a lot more than Sony....

 

Curiously, the E-M1 is indeed still behind the D5100/D7000 for a relevant point, that is high ISO (see DxOMark), but the whole point is still valid. In the end, the E-M1 made me spend the whole photo budget for 2013 to Sony instead of Nikon, after 15 years of absolute loyalty to Nikon.

stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#16
I think no matter how good (and I'm not sure mirrorless is good enough yet - i mean on reliabability front for heavy usage) there is still the issue of those who have lots of lenses. I am thinking journalists and nature photography. I think the image quailty is probably good enough (it is certainly better than old full frame such as 5d) so while a modern full frame will have better image quality and still do a much better job with tracking (spots photographers) as well as handle dust better I think olympus/fuji will have an attempt to make some slow movement. The biggest problem I see is that they are not that durable. fuji zoom lenses seem to have a high failure rate and both fuji and olympus can't deal with too much shock/dust last but least they also have very short battery life.

-

Certainly for a home user they are almost reliable enough but I wonder in terms of profits how things split between the home user and professional markets.

-

Anyways I will not buy another canon or niknon until they learn to shave off 600 or so grams while still retaining accurate focus and other electronic features.

-

I currently use olympus but am very tempted by this new fuji (my left eye is not so great so the xe-2 is not so wonderful but with middle viewfinder I can pick the eye) still I am still very concern by the higher failure rate in lenses and decenter issues i read about. I want my equipment to just work. I don't want to have to test it and play the return game.

#17
Quote:Yes, I agree here. The mirrorless gang has to be prepared to go for a long battle. The camera market is a religious one.

However, unlike Canikon they have no constraints and on the long run this will make a difference.

Or to phrase it differently - when was the last time, Canon and Nikon came up with a (DSLR-centric) innovation ?

But yes, given their brand strength, they could still turn the tide any time.

IF they would come up with mirrorless cameras of similar capabilities (than their DSLRs), they would sell like hot cake. Even the half-hearty EOS-M did better than expected given the quality and scale of the system. In this case, nobody would even raise a question anymore whether mirrorless is the real thing.

Honestly exactly that happened over at Sony. Their DSLR lineup is dead.
Same with FT and mFT. The former are gone. But then Sony and FT struggled with DSLR but found a niche with mirror less.


If Nikon and Canon would jump to mirror less - how long would it take them to be competitive?
enjoy
#18
Quote:I currently use olympus but am very tempted by this new fuji (my left eye is not so great so the xe-2 is not so wonderful but with middle viewfinder I can pick the eye) 
 

That confused me: you do realize that you use a rangefinder-style camera with your right eye, right?
#19
People have different dominant eyes. I can only use my left eye for photography. Can't adjust to using my right eye at all. In an informal poll I ran on another forum, there seemed to be a 50/50 split on preferred eye.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#20
Of course, but he said that he had troubles with his LEFT eye. If he had problems with his right one, I would understand the need for a centered viewfinder.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)