Sony's New a7RII Camera Delivers World's First Back-Illuminated FF Sensor

[RLPhoto]

But it mentions it has a full electronic shutter mode for silent shooting. Does this mean it can sync at any speed? Good bye hassy if this is true.

I could be wrong but my gut feeling is that it can't sync past 1/250th just yet. If it was able to I think we'd see the marketing department all over that one.

Good point. But perhaps it's something overlooked and sonys recent debacle with the 199$ a7r, anything is possible now.

I don't remember if the x100 was advertised as a sync speed champion, it was just kinda hidden in the background. It's release day and given a few weeks, Sony could perhaps release more info on this because it would be an even more earth shaking release.

 

[benperrin]

Good point. But perhaps it's something overlooked and sonys recent debacle with the 199$ a7r, anything is possible now.

I don't remember if the x100 was advertised as a sync speed champion, it was just kinda hidden in the background. It's release day and given a few weeks, Sony could perhaps release more info on this because it would be an even more earth shaking release.

I think it will be a good thing for everyone if major manufacturers could enable flash at higher shutter speeds without resorting to hss or similar technologies. I'm certainly hoping that Sony has really hit it out of the park with this camera. If so I'll most likely be buying one a few months after release.

 

[psolberg]

who gives a crap about stock prices.

Canon does. Sony does.

good. I'm not sony. I'm not canon. 8) I don't work for either. those of you that do, go talk about stocks somewhere that matters. I thought this was a photography board and not an investor board?

It's the internet, and an open discussion forum. If you find the content irrelevant to you, feel free to not read on it. Also feel free to not further side track the discussion by repeatedly commenting on it.

FWIW, I did not bring it up in this thread, but I did want to correct a factual inaccuracy about what was posted. Are you also opposed to truth as well?

Finally, if you can't imagine how stocks are relevant to a discussion of camera gear, consider a once-popular maker of camera gear and supplies: Kodak.

yeah keep it on topic buddy. just saying. keep it on topic (read topic).

 

[neuroanatomist]

who gives a crap about stock prices.

Canon does. Sony does.

good. I'm not sony. I'm not canon. 8) I don't work for either. those of you that do, go talk about stocks somewhere that matters. I thought this was a photography board and not an investor board?

It's the internet, and an open discussion forum. If you find the content irrelevant to you, feel free to not read on it. Also feel free to not further side track the discussion by repeatedly commenting on it.

FWIW, I did not bring it up in this thread, but I did want to correct a factual inaccuracy about what was posted. Are you also opposed to truth as well?

Finally, if you can't imagine how stocks are relevant to a discussion of camera gear, consider a once-popular maker of camera gear and supplies: Kodak.

yeah keep it on topic buddy. just saying. keep it on topic (read topic).

Industry news, buddy. Industry news (read topic category). Just saying.

 

[psolberg]

who gives a crap about stock prices.

Canon does. Sony does.

good. I'm not sony. I'm not canon. 8) I don't work for either. those of you that do, go talk about stocks somewhere that matters. I thought this was a photography board and not an investor board?

It's the internet, and an open discussion forum. If you find the content irrelevant to you, feel free to not read on it. Also feel free to not further side track the discussion by repeatedly commenting on it.

FWIW, I did not bring it up in this thread, but I did want to correct a factual inaccuracy about what was posted. Are you also opposed to truth as well?

Finally, if you can't imagine how stocks are relevant to a discussion of camera gear, consider a once-popular maker of camera gear and supplies: Kodak.

yeah keep it on topic buddy. just saying. keep it on topic (read topic).

Industry news, buddy. Industry news (read topic category). Just saying.

new thread. just saying. there is a reason threads were put in place under a section.

 

[FunkyCamera]

That Neuro fanatic is right in one thing

He's right in most things. Sony fanboys just can't see it. As the guy says, if you want the best photographic tools go for Canon. If you want a hunk of junk that will break immediately and take months to repair, go Sony. If you want to take photos in RAW format, get Canon, if you want super overcompressed GIF-quality garbage, get a Sony. He's put the facts out there, it's your fault if you fails to listen.

Just think about incredible success of A7s in the relatively small niche it occupies

Exactly - tiny tiny niche - of people who like inoperable piles of junk with an outdated 12MP sensor and another lens format with like 3 lenses available none of which even come close to L lens quality. Meanwhile the much larger niche - people who like to take photos - is completely owned by Canon. Haven't you ever seen the Olympics or any other major sporting event? Pros don't use Sony. For good reason.

 

[psolberg]

That Neuro fanatic is right in one thing

He's right in most things. Sony fanboys just can't see it. As the guy says, if you want the best photographic tools go for Canon. If you want a hunk of junk that will break immediately and take months to repair, go Sony. If you want to take photos in RAW format, get Canon, if you want super overcompressed GIF-quality garbage, get a Sony. He's put the facts out there, it's your fault if you fails to listen.

Just think about incredible success of A7s in the relatively small niche it occupies

Exactly - tiny tiny niche - of people who like inoperable piles of junk with an outdated 12MP sensor and another lens format with like 3 lenses available none of which even come close to L lens quality. Meanwhile the much larger niche - people who like to take photos - is completely owned by Canon. Haven't you ever seen the Olympics or any other major sporting event? Pros don't use Sony. For good reason.

Honestly, Zeiss has proven to match and exceed canon many times. There is nothing special about L glass that other high end makers of lenses cannot achieve. To acknowledge your point, without sounding fanboyish, canon does have a lot of legacy momentum. I don't think it helps them ONE bit when it comes to the mirrorless market because it all counts for nothing. Yes, blackberry had the market when it came to enterprise keyboarded phones...and yet apple came in with its "no market" iphone and swopped in eventually even getting those hardcore blackberry professionals.

So yes, Canon (blackberry) vs Sony (apple) in the NICHE high end Olympics market, canon wins. But that is not this fight. This fight is in the mirrorless compact category for which canon has ZERO lenses and sony whipes the floor with canon, L glass or not. What canon has was designed for film era mirrors and last decade digital. Basically useless unless they plan to deal with clunky adapters or keep their ancient mount intact leading to less than compact, compacts.

You can huff and puff all you want about dominance in sports and what not, but sony is going after a different market down the road: the rebel line, canon's most successful by volume line in addition to the person that is moving up from m4/3. Sony's next step may be the wedding portrait crowd down the road with more Zeiss glass. They are being smart not chasing the 800mm NFL crowd. That is not a big market anyway. Let Nikon/Canon have it the way everybody lets medium format survive with other vendors. Sony is in for volume it seems and olympic games isn't it. Medium format isn't it. Is FF mirrorless it? I don't know, but that is sony's calculation and so far, they have the best lens and camera system for this purpose. While it may not be as diverse as the legacy EF, F, and other last generation lens systems, they are ahead of anybody making the jump.

And yes 3K for a compact is a lot. Once they start hitting 400-800 bucks for something with a full frame sensor and their lenses get even more diverse, canon/nikon better have an answer because so far this is just their flagship. Surely sony smells the blood in the water already and I wouldn't be surprised to see more entry level gear down the road.

 

[3kramd5]

Said it before, will say it again – you can't equate best technology with success. In fact, the track record in most industries is that "best" technology generally loses out to "good enough" technology in the marketplace. (Ask Sony about Betamax or maybe a more appropriate example might be how cell phones have become the dominant picture-taking devices.

It great to see any company innovating. I'm happy when Sony innovates. I'm happy when Nikon innovates. I'm happy when Canon innovates. It moves the standards ahead and I will ultimately benefit. But, I also don't get that excited about individual technology steps. It's not a race where the "best" technology carries some prize. It's the overall product that people buy.

Given the price of this new camera and the fact that I don't own a single lens that fits it, I can't really give it much more than a "meh." But then again, I have a long list of existing Canon products that I would like to buy first, so by the time I can consider a replacement for my 5DIII, I imagine the 5DIV or even 5DV might be available.

+1

I always have to laugh when people take sides. What's the point? I own ILC cameras from Canon (multiple 5D3 and 2), Nikon (D7000), and Sony (A7R), and lenses from the first two. I pre-ordered a 5DS at my local shop, but am on the fence about taking delivery and instead getting this new A7RII, even though I don't get along well with my current A7R.

I also laugh at what neuro calls APODFC. It's really kinda funny to watch when people get personally invested in companies.

 

[gsealy]

There is no question that Canon service and support are excellent. Second to none. Not everyone needs CPS, though. We are not all sideline sports photographers with dual 1D X's and a handful of ten thousand dollar lenses. Some of us are, and if you are, you probably won't find a better brand than Canon for what you do.

But I would wager good money that there are many, many times more landscape photographers out there who could gobble up every stop of dynamic range you throw at them, than there are guys sitting on the sidelines at sporting events with thirty thousand dollars worth of equipment loaned to them by CPS. I would be willing to bet there are many times more wedding photographers who could use the high resolution and silent shutter of an A7r II. I would be willing to bet there are many times more studio photographers, macro photographers, street photographers, who could use the technology and image quality packed into the A7r II...than there are sports photographers who quality for and use Canon CPS and haul around tens of thousands of dollars of top of the line photography gear from one event to another. I would be the majority of the average people in the stands at those same events would get far more out of an A6000 and a 55-210mm zoom than they would from any camera Canon currently offers.

CPS is awesome...but you have to qualify. Particularly in America, the requirements to qualify are very stringent.

And...if the new breed of Sony alphas do indeed focus well when adapted to Canon lenses.... 8)

I definitely agree with your thoughts.

I would just add that sport photography is a little different animal than anything else. The sporting event is going to happen whether the photographer wants it to or not. The photographer only gets paid if he produces. For those reasons the camera has to perform, no if's, and's, or but's. I have seen those guys work in some really nasty weather and there they were firing away with their 1Dx's taking literally thousands of snaps. The thing is Canon has built a reputation in this segment for performance and those sports photographers feel comfortable with the products and have confidence in them. As far as IQ goes, they are happy with really good or excellent. Do they need exceptional? No. Because nobody is going to evaluate the artistic merits of a photo of a pro golfer playing a shot. Nobody is going to have emotional ties to it or pull it out 30 years down the road. The important thing is to capture it in the first place and then get that photo on the Internet as fast as possible. Then they get paid.

 

[neuroanatomist]

who gives a crap about stock prices.

Canon does. Sony does.

good. I'm not sony. I'm not canon. 8) I don't work for either. those of you that do, go talk about stocks somewhere that matters. I thought this was a photography board and not an investor board?

It's the internet, and an open discussion forum. If you find the content irrelevant to you, feel free to not read on it. Also feel free to not further side track the discussion by repeatedly commenting on it.

FWIW, I did not bring it up in this thread, but I did want to correct a factual inaccuracy about what was posted. Are you also opposed to truth as well?

Finally, if you can't imagine how stocks are relevant to a discussion of camera gear, consider a once-popular maker of camera gear and supplies: Kodak.

yeah keep it on topic buddy. just saying. keep it on topic (read topic).

Industry news, buddy. Industry news (read topic category). Just saying.

new thread. just saying. there is a reason threads were put in place under a section.

In that case, why don't you reply to the poster who brought stock prices into this discussion?

 

[JClark]

That Neuro fanatic is right in one thing

He's right in most things. Sony fanboys just can't see it. As the guy says, if you want the best photographic tools go for Canon. If you want a hunk of junk that will break immediately and take months to repair, go Sony. If you want to take photos in RAW format, get Canon, if you want super overcompressed GIF-quality garbage, get a Sony. He's put the facts out there, it's your fault if you fails to listen.

Just think about incredible success of A7s in the relatively small niche it occupies

Exactly - tiny tiny niche - of people who like inoperable piles of junk with an outdated 12MP sensor and another lens format with like 3 lenses available none of which even come close to L lens quality. Meanwhile the much larger niche - people who like to take photos - is completely owned by Canon. Haven't you ever seen the Olympics or any other major sporting event? Pros don't use Sony. For good reason.

Let's not get crazy. If you want the best tools for action photography, you can absolutely make the case for Canon. If you're a landscaper or a studio shooter, other tools make for convincing alternatives.

Hell, I can make the case that for a jack-of-all-trades system Canon might be the best considering price, excellence with both telephoto and wide angle T/S lenses, and ISO capability - a strong case actually. But you have to acknowledge the caveat that in situations where the extremes of dynamic range and noise matter (or for that matter portability or, at least for another two weeks, MP count )- and there absolutely are some - Canon gives up ground to a multitude of other platforms.

If those situations are paramount to you, either get a different system or, if you have the money, buy an additional system to supplement your Canon gear. The a7R and RII happen to be great choices because you can adapt the awesome Canon lenses to them while mitigating the Canon shortcomings. In return you give up native strobe support and a great deal of action capability. No system is perfect, but it's silly to deny that some platforms have some advantages over Canon.

 

[psolberg]

There is no question that Canon service and support are excellent. Second to none. Not everyone needs CPS, though. We are not all sideline sports photographers with dual 1D X's and a handful of ten thousand dollar lenses. Some of us are, and if you are, you probably won't find a better brand than Canon for what you do.

But I would wager good money that there are many, many times more landscape photographers out there who could gobble up every stop of dynamic range you throw at them, than there are guys sitting on the sidelines at sporting events with thirty thousand dollars worth of equipment loaned to them by CPS. I would be willing to bet there are many times more wedding photographers who could use the high resolution and silent shutter of an A7r II. I would be willing to bet there are many times more studio photographers, macro photographers, street photographers, who could use the technology and image quality packed into the A7r II...than there are sports photographers who quality for and use Canon CPS and haul around tens of thousands of dollars of top of the line photography gear from one event to another. I would be the majority of the average people in the stands at those same events would get far more out of an A6000 and a 55-210mm zoom than they would from any camera Canon currently offers.

CPS is awesome...but you have to qualify. Particularly in America, the requirements to qualify are very stringent.

And...if the new breed of Sony alphas do indeed focus well when adapted to Canon lenses.... 8)

I definitely agree with your thoughts.

I would just add that sport photography is a little different animal than anything else. The sporting event is going to happen whether the photographer wants it to or not. The photographer only gets paid if he produces. For those reasons the camera has to perform, no if's, and's, or but's. I have seen those guys work in some really nasty weather and there they were firing away with their 1Dx's taking literally thousands of snaps. The thing is Canon has built a reputation in this segment for performance and those sports photographers feel comfortable with the products and have confidence in them. As far as IQ goes, they are happy with really good or excellent. Do they need exceptional? No. Because nobody is going to evaluate the artistic merits of a photo of a pro golfer playing a shot. Nobody is going to have emotional ties to it or pull it out 30 years down the road. The important thing is to capture it in the first place and then get that photo on the Internet as fast as possible. Then they get paid.

Exactly my thinking. Whenever I see the same old canon-fan argument: But look at all the amazing telephotos in (insert sporting even) it is mostly canon, and the crazy fisheyes, and TS, etc. So what? I see 30 guys at most a year even owing such a thing. I see 3000+ wedding and landscape photogs a year none of which needs any of it, buys any of it, cares about any of it. They just have the basics everybody else does, nikon or canon. Nothing special. Even less for "prosumers". If sony releases a camera with true uncompressed raw, basic set of landscape suitable lenses and wedding/portrait suitable lenses, they don't have to replicate the telephoto canon line or the niche macro, TS, etc. This is where sony should really focus: get the meat of the market that matters first by delivering the lenses and cameras needed. They have done the later. Now the former needs to happen.

Even if Canon/Nikon stay behind with their beastly lenses and cameras that need a sherpa to carry, along with the Medium format monsters, and sony never makes it there. I doubt most people would even factor that anymore that we factor the complete lack of medium format gear from the big two. It just doesn't matter anymore. This is a disruption. Legacy is just legacy.

 

[privatebydesign]

There is no question that Canon service and support are excellent. Second to none. Not everyone needs CPS, though. We are not all sideline sports photographers with dual 1D X's and a handful of ten thousand dollar lenses. Some of us are, and if you are, you probably won't find a better brand than Canon for what you do.

But I would wager good money that there are many, many times more landscape photographers out there who could gobble up every stop of dynamic range you throw at them, than there are guys sitting on the sidelines at sporting events with thirty thousand dollars worth of equipment loaned to them by CPS. I would be willing to bet there are many times more wedding photographers who could use the high resolution and silent shutter of an A7r II. I would be willing to bet there are many times more studio photographers, macro photographers, street photographers, who could use the technology and image quality packed into the A7r II...than there are sports photographers who quality for and use Canon CPS and haul around tens of thousands of dollars of top of the line photography gear from one event to another. I would be the majority of the average people in the stands at those same events would get far more out of an A6000 and a 55-210mm zoom than they would from any camera Canon currently offers.

CPS is awesome...but you have to qualify. Particularly in America, the requirements to qualify are very stringent.

And...if the new breed of Sony alphas do indeed focus well when adapted to Canon lenses.... 8)

I definitely agree with your thoughts.

I would just add that sport photography is a little different animal than anything else. The sporting event is going to happen whether the photographer wants it to or not. The photographer only gets paid if he produces. For those reasons the camera has to perform, no if's, and's, or but's. I have seen those guys work in some really nasty weather and there they were firing away with their 1Dx's taking literally thousands of snaps. The thing is Canon has built a reputation in this segment for performance and those sports photographers feel comfortable with the products and have confidence in them. As far as IQ goes, they are happy with really good or excellent. Do they need exceptional? No. Because nobody is going to evaluate the artistic merits of a photo of a pro golfer playing a shot. Nobody is going to have emotional ties to it or pull it out 30 years down the road. The important thing is to capture it in the first place and then get that photo on the Internet as fast as possible. Then they get paid.

When you consider all the various 'sports photographers' out there I am not so sure that is actually true. There are thousands of actual pro sports photographers as can be seen on any televised event worldwide, but there are many more thousands of lower order sport shooters, the ones covering weekend soccer, high school sports, club matches etc, many of these are shooting for the actual school or club or smaller paper/news site and would be semi pro, photography students or people who can get access, and these people don't have backup 400mm f2.8's, they need fast turnaround.

I'd certainly wager there are many more people earning money from shooting sports than shooting and selling landscapes, not least because sports shots have such a short lifespan, normally a week!

This doesn't include the gear orientated bird shooters, sure they might not need fast turnaround, but there are many thousands of them out there. Heck here in Florida I see way more 600 f4's than 17TS-E's.

 

[The Flasher]

Does anyone know if Sony improved their RAW file handling for this version vs. the A7R?

Apparently not.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/10/sony-rx10-ii-rx100-iv-and-a7r-ii-announced-were-blogging-live-from-the-pres

Q: what about lossless compression or un-compressed RAW files for the a7r2?
A: I checked with the product planner for the A7R II - the compression scheme is the same as in the past, no option for uncompressed

Another quote from that page: "Mark Weir told me that the A7R II can focus Canon lenses faster than Canon bodies."

If true, whoa.

" And interestingly, Sony tells us there should be a significant improvement with third-party lenses as well, not just first-party glass. In fact, the company is claiming that this is the very first mirrorless camera that can focus using SLR camera lenses just as fast as would the mirror-based camera!

 

[unfocused]

...new sensor tech is nice to have, but not that vital as maybe 5 years ago...

And, that sums it all up.

I'm pleased that Sony, Nikon and Canon all continue to innovate. (and they all do, despite the wailing of the anyone-but-Canon Fanbois.)

But, I made a rational decision to invest in a system for the long haul. It does what I need it to do and my own shortcomings far exceed any shortcomings of the system itself. The technology will improve over time and I will upgrade as I need/want to. I don't have unlimited funds, so as long of the system continues to advance at a pace faster than my bank account, I see no reason to worry about whose technology is five steps ahead in a 5,000 mile march.

 

[psolberg]

That Neuro fanatic is right in one thing

He's right in most things. Sony fanboys just can't see it. As the guy says, if you want the best photographic tools go for Canon. If you want a hunk of junk that will break immediately and take months to repair, go Sony. If you want to take photos in RAW format, get Canon, if you want super overcompressed GIF-quality garbage, get a Sony. He's put the facts out there, it's your fault if you fails to listen.

Just think about incredible success of A7s in the relatively small niche it occupies

Exactly - tiny tiny niche - of people who like inoperable piles of junk with an outdated 12MP sensor and another lens format with like 3 lenses available none of which even come close to L lens quality. Meanwhile the much larger niche - people who like to take photos - is completely owned by Canon. Haven't you ever seen the Olympics or any other major sporting event? Pros don't use Sony. For good reason.

Let's not get crazy. If you want the best tools for action photography, you can absolutely make the case for Canon. If you're a landscaper or a studio shooter, other tools make for convincing alternatives.

Hell, I can make the case that for a jack-of-all-trades system Canon might be the best considering price, excellence with both telephoto and wide angle T/S lenses, and ISO capability - a strong case actually. But you have to acknowledge the caveat that in situations where the extremes of dynamic range and noise matter (or for that matter portability or, at least for another two weeks, MP count )- and there absolutely are some - Canon gives up ground to a multitude of other platforms.

If those situations are paramount to you, either get a different system or, if you have the money, buy an additional system to supplement your Canon gear. The a7R and RII happen to be great choices because you can adapt the awesome Canon lenses to them while mitigating the Canon shortcomings. In return you give up native strobe support and a great deal of action capability. No system is perfect, but it's silly to deny that some platforms have some advantages over Canon.

100% with you. Ultimately case in point to add a practical example: canon's new 11-24. Sure nobody else can shot at 11mm. But at f/4 one is already behind the vs shooting a 14-24 f/2.8 nikkor. If your doing landscape in low light levels or outright nightscape and that extra 3mm isn't helping you in any way. Not to mention nikon's astrophotography oriented D810A for which canon has no answer at all ups the game even more. This is a shortcoming which could be addressed with this sony sensor high ISO capabilities. Off course it doesn't mean the canon system sucks. Far from it. I think the 11-24 is an interesting lens in its own merit but it is not going to win everything all the time, and neither will the canon sensors. Even if I don't shoot nightscapes all the time, the nikon/sony system will still deliver insane DR over the canon equivalent. That extra 3mm f/4 doesn't add anything. Surely this is not the only example but that is the basic rationale.

I simply don't look at a lens system as the only metric here. The sensor matters a heck of a lot because that is the part that actually captures data and that is what you'll have to work with later. As long as another system provides a satisfactory replacement, even if not an exact match, or a superior match, all that matters to me are practical gains for my work. I know canon isn't the best at everything. Neither is sony or nikon so if I bought a brand that wins them all, I'd be shooting i-glass...as in i-maginary

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even if Canon/Nikon stay behind with their beastly lenses and cameras that need a sherpa to carry, along with the Medium format monsters, and sony never makes it there. I doubt most people would even factor that anymore that we factor the complete lack of medium format gear from the big two. It just doesn't matter anymore. This is a disruption. Legacy is just legacy.

Is it? This is what MILCs vs. dSLRs looks like:

This is what a real disruption looks like:

Can you spot the difference? :

 

[psolberg]

Even if Canon/Nikon stay behind with their beastly lenses and cameras that need a sherpa to carry, along with the Medium format monsters, and sony never makes it there. I doubt most people would even factor that anymore that we factor the complete lack of medium format gear from the big two. It just doesn't matter anymore. This is a disruption. Legacy is just legacy.

Is it? This is what MILCs vs. dSLRs looks like:

This is what a real disruption looks like:

Can you spot the difference? :

the problem with your rationale is that the camera industry is down across the board so you cannot compared things properly as you have two disruptions: mirrorless and smart phones.

Read Thom Hogan's interesting takes on this subject as he does make some much better analysis than your charts there.

Sony's bet is on the disruption that basically anybody but canon/nikon see: DSLRs will continue to become niche and their lens systems will go with it. The smartphone disruption will ALSO hurt mirrorless vendors. In fact EVERYBODY making cameras will feel it.

The question is not what happens today or just last year. To be honest, EVFs have to advance a bit more, and lens systems have to grow in mirrorless. But that is the trend and it is the disadvantage of DSLRs with their bulky costly designs full of moving parts and film era roots.

Lastly, do not use the past to predict the future. That is foolish. Look at the present: people are buying less cameras and the industry is hurting. Sony bets that when the ashes settle, they will have a completing system for people who want to get more from a smart phone (which is a sony sensor anyway). They think they will want APS-C and Full frame mirrorless with modern optics designed for the new age. Canon Nikon? who knows. Maybe they hope people will go back to buying rebels or whatever. Either way, disruption is taking place, like it or not. Maybe sony is wrong and people will re-embrace DSLRs and their old lens systems. But again, we're at this inflection point where DSLRs will need to prove their relevancy and that hasn't happened before: the film to digital transition was on the capture medium (film vs electronic). The mounts, mirrors, OVFs all stayed the same. This time, everything changes including the mounts.

 

[Marsu42]

I don't have unlimited funds, so as long of the system continues to advance at a pace faster than my bank account, I see no reason to worry about whose technology is five steps ahead in a 5,000 mile march.

Same for me, alas, it might be different for people deciding what system to invest in ... and not everybody around CR is a Canon shooter of decades stocking a zoo of Canon-only gear.

And, to give the local fanbois the maximum amount of concession I can muster, Canon definitely isn't the clear and only choice these days for a lot of applications - including general-purpose shooting which is probably a large segment of the digital camera market. If you take the mid-term perspective into account with what we *know* Canon offers (and not what is rumored to be in their drawers), my advice to newbie purchasers would shift further away from Canon atm unless you want to use something only Magic Lantern can offer.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even if Canon/Nikon stay behind with their beastly lenses and cameras that need a sherpa to carry, along with the Medium format monsters, and sony never makes it there. I doubt most people would even factor that anymore that we factor the complete lack of medium format gear from the big two. It just doesn't matter anymore. This is a disruption. Legacy is just legacy.

Is it? This is what MILCs vs. dSLRs looks like:

This is what a real disruption looks like:

Can you spot the difference? :

the problem with your rationale is that the camera industry is down across the board so you cannot compared things properly as you have two disruptions: mirrorless and smart phones.

Read Thom Hogan's interesting takes on this subject as he does make some much better analysis than your charts there.

Sony's bet is on the disruption that basically anybody but canon/nikon see: DSLRs will continue to become niche and their lens systems will go with it. The smartphone disruption will ALSO hurt mirrorless vendors. In fact EVERYBODY making cameras will feel it.

The question is not what happens today or just last year. To be honest, EVFs have to advance a bit more, and lens systems have to grow in mirrorless. But that is the trend and it is the disadvantage of DSLRs with their bulky costly designs full of moving parts and film era roots.

Lastly, do not use the past to predict the future. That is foolish. Look at the present: people are buying less cameras and the industry is hurting. Sony bets that when the ashes settle, they will have a completing system for people who want to get more from a smart phone (which is a sony sensor anyway). They think they will want APS-C and Full frame mirrorless with modern optics designed for the new age. Canon Nikon? who knows. Maybe they hope people will go back to buying rebels or whatever. Either way, disruption is taking place, like it or not. Maybe sony is wrong and people will re-embrace DSLRs and their old lens systems. But again, we're at this inflection point where DSLRs will need to prove their relevancy and that hasn't happened before: the film to digital transition was on the capture medium (film vs electronic). The mounts, mirrors, OVFs all stayed the same. This time, everything changes including the mounts.

It's amusing when someone's words from just minutes ago come back to mock them...

yeah keep it on topic buddy. just saying. keep it on topic (read topic).