The Mirrorless Movement: Sony Boasts Record Growth in Expanding Mirrorless Digital Camera Market

[Tugela]

It is interesting that the chief demographic buying into MILCs are the digital generation, who by and large are more comfortable with the digital than analog.

 

[TeT]

Undemanding snapshots? Like the 'snapshots' that thousands of professional wedding photographers are taking every day with their Fuji X-Series kit? There IS a market for mirrorless, as Fuji, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus has all proven. Some of these companies don't even make a traditional DSLR any more (in the Canikon sense).

But Sony cannot feed itself and its employees from the wedding photogs.

Its all the other sales that pay the bills... IF the camera Phone wipes out the majority of the other non Pro sales.. then mirrorless is a bust.

I have no idea if the mirrorless goes the way of the dodo; ppl still use point and shoots..

Just have to remember what the mirrorless bread and butter is and is not...

 

[old-pr-pix]

I always go to CIPA for "real" data. Latest (April '15) summary shows that P&S sales are certainly in decline, yet they are still being shipped at an annualized rate of 20 million units per year. Likewise, DSLR's are shipping at a rate of 8.8 million per year (thru April). Mirrorless (actually non-reflex in CIPA data) is running 2.6 million per year.

Interesting is that 36% of interchangeable lens cameras shipped to Japan are mirrorless, 63% are DSLR's. While in the Americas only 15% are mirrorless. Yet, mirrorless is actually growing 21% Y-on-Y vs. DSLR's in the Americas. (Mirrorless % declined slightly in Japan)

So, while there is a "trend" toward mirrorless, there are still huge numbers of other units being sold. Likely NPD was contracted by Sony to do some market research. It does not appear NPD has a track record of observing the camera industry. [edited to correct % - I shouldn't do math before coffee!]

 

[unfocused]

My two cents:

I think a lot of people confuse the target audience for mirrorless with the DSLR target audience.

Basically, the Sony press release indicates the target market is the same market segment as the high end point and shoot and low end DSLR's (Rebels, etc.) As others have said, there are a lot of reasons why Canon and Nikon may be moving slowly in this market. A few thoughts:

These are not camera "system" buyers. Most will buy a camera with a kit lens and never buy another lens. That means the opportunity for after-market sales is limited. It also means that the customers are not invested in a "system." If Nikon or Canon enters the market in a big way, they will have the ability to capture market share as customers drop their old models for the latest thing. So, neither company is "missing the boat" they may be just waiting for the waves to settle down before they launch.

Customers who are interested in a system are still better served by a DSLR and the cost of entry into DSLR systems remains less than mirrorless. Canon's SL model/models are really much more innovative and they have no competition in the sub-compact DSLR market.

Canon seems to also be experimenting with fixed lens, higher-end cameras, which basically meet the same niche as mirrorless, when you consider that most people will never buy another lens or take the one that "comes with the camera" off the body.

Sony is a niche marketer. This demonstrates that. They are in the mirrorless market because they can't compete against Nikon and Canon in the DSLR market. I would not be surprised to see Sony exit the DSLR market entirely.

Sony is making a big play in the mirrorless market because they have nowhere else to play. It would be a mistake to read this as a strength, when really it is a weakness. They can't compete against Nikon and Canon for the much more lucrative and larger DSLR market, so they are going where the opportunity lies. In the end, it may prove to be a smart move on their part, but it is way, way too early in the game to predict that.

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years. Sony is gambling that the demographic they are going after will become enthusiasts that invest heavily in mirrorless. But, there is much to be said for these same customers moving to "real" cameras (DSLRs) as they move into specific sub-categories of photography (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.).

Ultimately, this is all going to be moot. As I've said many times before, the disruptive technology on the horizon is light-field cameras. When and if that technology is perfected, suddenly the need for costly and sophisticated autofocusing systems evaporate. Then we will have a revolution on our hands that makes digital seem tame in comparison.

 

[Orangutan]

My two cents:

Mostly agree.

I think a lot of people confuse the target audience for mirrorless with the DSLR target audience.

At least for now. At some point mirrorless will catch up with the benefits of SLR. I've been wrong about the timeline before, but progress is being made.

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse

I doubt this: it will just go through a period of Darwinian variation and selection as manufacturers look for the features needed to extract money from bank accounts.

But, there is much to be said for these same customers moving to "real" cameras (DSLRs) as they move into specific sub-categories of photography (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.).

My track record on this prediction is pretty bad, but I think mirrorless AF will come close in 5 years.

Ultimately, this is all going to be moot. As I've said many times before, the disruptive technology on the horizon is light-field cameras. When and if that technology is perfected, suddenly the need for costly and sophisticated autofocusing systems evaporate.

Not unless it's very different tech from what we have now. As far as I know, current tech LF cameras have poor resolution per sensor area. I can see LF cameras becoming popular as the new P&S, or even for some video applications. At the enthusiast/pro photographer level, there needs to be a major improvement on resolution in the still image.

 

[TeT]

the shortcomings of mirrorless compared to DSLR will probably be fixed eventually; whether we will or will not be using them is up in the air...

The light field camera is in the same boat and improving rapidly as well...

has anyone used one of these? The first Gen Lytos is available on amazon for $80 right now...
The potential is there...

 

[Bennymiata]

Maybe this increase in mirrorless sales are all the $199 A7's they sold recently?

 

[Gnocchi]

Ultimately, this is all going to be moot. As I've said many times before, the disruptive technology on the horizon is light-field cameras. When and if that technology is perfected, suddenly the need for costly and sophisticated autofocusing systems evaporate. Then we will have a revolution on our hands that makes digital seem tame in comparison.
[/quote]
These light-field cameras are very interesting! Fun times ahead ;-)

 

[Hillsilly]

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years. Sony is gambling that the demographic they are going after will become enthusiasts that invest heavily in mirrorless. But, there is much to be said for these same customers moving to "real" cameras (DSLRs) as they move into specific sub-categories of photography (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.).

I'm not entirely convinced. I hear a lot of people switching to Fuji and Sony. You don't hear of many coming back.

Ultimately, this is all going to be moot. As I've said many times before, the disruptive technology on the horizon is light-field cameras. When and if that technology is perfected, suddenly the need for costly and sophisticated autofocusing systems evaporate. Then we will have a revolution on our hands that makes digital seem tame in comparison.

Once people recognise that digital imaging is a fad, they'll also realise that the real disruptive technology is Fuji Instax.

 

[gobucks]

Key motivating factors for their photography include travel and family

Undemanding snapshots that you can do with any camera (or phone), then - hardly pushing the boundaries of camera performance.

Sounds about right...

Why would Canon invest significant effort and resource to take market share in a space that phones will wipe out any time now?

As a travel photographer, I definitely disagree that it is undemanding. Shooting in non-ideal light (often where flash and tripods are prohibited), being ready for the moment you didn't see coming, and getting a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion for street subjects that aren't posing for you all present challenges. My photos with a 6D are much better than my old T3 from a couple years ago, and worlds better than what my girlfriend can get on her iphone (why am I so dark, and the sky so white?!?!?! LOL)

I have a 6D, Canon's most obvious high end travel camera, and I love it, but I would love it even more if it were shrunk down to something like the A7II, which I'd consider if not for Sony's lens lineup (really? $995 is your cheapest normal prime, and it's F/1.8?). An A7II competitor from Canon with EF lens compatibility would sell like hotcakes, and considering the 6D is cheaper than most variants of the A7, I don't think it would undercut their pricing at all.

 

[ahsanford]

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.

Disagree, respectfully.

Once a mirrorless rig becomes 90-95% as good as an SLR, manufacturers* will push them over SLRs as they are cheaper to make (no mirror box, less material, etc.) and therefore represent higher profit margins.

* the whopping exception are Canon and Nikon, who strategically are holding off a robust entry into mirrorless not to protect DSLR sales so much as to avoid a billion dollar plus obsolescence of their staggering FF SLR lens portfolios.

Now the wild card above is "once mirrorless is almost as good as an SLR", which will happen at different times depending on how highly performing a specific SLR is today or how demanding its users are.

Consider: For your entry-level Rebel crowd, mirrorless is not far off from SLR performance. In that price point, the IQ is effectively the same, but the responsiveness, AF, battery life (and to a lesser degree) ergonomics are clearly a step behind. That gap between the two will get smaller with time. In a few years there really will be no incentive to keep selling entry level SLRs and some manufacturers (without huge stables of FF SLR lenses) might just give up mirrors altogether in that market segment.

...and when you consider the % of users in the entry level SLR market (i.e. most of the market!), it's not a major leap to see an A6000 Mk II or III leap frog a future Rebel T8i or T9i in sales someday. That time is not that far away.

So, no. I don't see mirrorless going away. Quite the opposite. In X years time (might be 10-15 years), I expect new SLR offerings to be limited to only products that just can't be matched performance-wise -- sports/wildlife/action rigs like the 1DX.

- A

 

[Hillsilly]

At the entry level, I'd venture to say that mirrorless IQ is better than Canon DSLR. Just look at the DxOmark.

 

[AvTvM]

Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.

Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.

Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.

 

[Dylan777]

Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.

Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.

Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.

My 2cents: WHEN Zeiss releases Batis 135mm f2 with IS and/or 200mm f2.8(f2) IS, the rate of switching from DSLR to mirrorless will be higher. For many, FL from 24mm to 200mm would be enough in everyday photos.

Smaller and lighter combos motivate shooters to bring camera more often

 

[verysimplejason]

Phone cameras are getting there... If this is around 1/2 or 2/3 of its price, I'd really get this one. 1" sensor + raw + phone? That's a no-brainer for almost all photographers (well, except the price...).

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_cm1_review/image_quality/

 

[verysimplejason]

Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.

Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.

Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.

My 2cents: WHEN Zeiss releases Batis 135mm f2 with IS and/or 200mm f2.8(f2) IS, the rate of switching from DSLR to mirrorless will be higher. For many, FL from 24mm to 200mm would be enough in everyday photos.

Smaller and lighter combos motivate shooters to bring camera more often

Those are big lenses, almost DSLR lens size... and expensive...

 

[verysimplejason]

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.

Disagree, respectfully.

Once a mirrorless rig becomes 90-95% as good as an SLR, manufacturers* will push them over SLRs as they are cheaper to make (no mirror box, less material, etc.) and therefore represent higher profit margins.

* the whopping exception are Canon and Nikon, who strategically are holding off a robust entry into mirrorless not to protect DSLR sales so much as to avoid a billion dollar plus obsolescence of their staggering FF SLR lens portfolios.

Now the wild card above is "once mirrorless is almost as good as an SLR", which will happen at different times depending on how highly performing a specific SLR is today or how demanding its users are.

Consider: For your entry-level Rebel crowd, mirrorless is not far off from SLR performance. In that price point, the IQ is effectively the same, but the responsiveness, AF, battery life (and to a lesser degree) ergonomics are clearly a step behind. That gap between the two will get smaller with time. In a few years there really will be no incentive to keep selling entry level SLRs and some manufacturers (without huge stables of FF SLR lenses) might just give up mirrors altogether in that market segment.

...and when you consider the % of users in the entry level SLR market (i.e. most of the market!), it's not a major leap to see an A6000 Mk II or III leap frog a future Rebel T8i or T9i in sales someday. That time is not that far away.

So, no. I don't see mirrorless going away. Quite the opposite. In X years time (might be 10-15 years), I expect new SLR offerings to be limited to only products that just can't be matched performance-wise -- sports/wildlife/action rigs like the 1DX.

- A

Mirrorless camera's success is almost entirely hinged on EVF development. As soon as EVF is comparable to OVF then you will begin to see a lot of people jumping ship.

 

[Luds34]

Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.

Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.

Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.

My 2cents: WHEN Zeiss releases Batis 135mm f2 with IS and/or 200mm f2.8(f2) IS, the rate of switching from DSLR to mirrorless will be higher. For many, FL from 24mm to 200mm would be enough in everyday photos.

Smaller and lighter combos motivate shooters to bring camera more often

Those are big lenses, almost DSLR lens size... and expensive...

Which is why I don't see full frame mirrorless as having quit the advantage that it enjoys on a smaller sensor. I like the idea of a smaller kit. I just think though, that once you are dealing with a FF sensor, that size is going to dictate pretty decent size lenses, even sticking with shorter FL primes. Now drop that sensor size down to crop and we start to get some smaller glass. Look at those micro 4/3 systems, they get down right tiny sitting next to a DSLR (FF or crop).

Personally I feel like a mirrorless system with a crop size sensor might just be the sweet spot of compact size (travel kit) while still capable of good IQ, bokeh (when desired), low light performance (when needed).

If/when Canon wants to go full frame mirrorless, they don't have to abandon the EF mount. The latest Sony A7II isn't even all that small of a camera body, pushing DSLR size. Mount some good glass and the size advantage has essentially disappeared.

For now, I'd just like to see Canon embrace the EF-M system and compete with a nice compact, mirrorless kit for travel, casual use, out with the family, etc. I can bust out the 6D/70D when I want to feel like a pro.

 

[Dylan777]

Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.

Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.

Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.

My 2cents: WHEN Zeiss releases Batis 135mm f2 with IS and/or 200mm f2.8(f2) IS, the rate of switching from DSLR to mirrorless will be higher. For many, FL from 24mm to 200mm would be enough in everyday photos.

Smaller and lighter combos motivate shooters to bring camera more often

Those are big lenses, almost DSLR lens size... and expensive...

Which is why I don't see full frame mirrorless as having quit the advantage that it enjoys on a smaller sensor. I like the idea of a smaller kit. I just think though, that once you are dealing with a FF sensor, that size is going to dictate pretty decent size lenses, even sticking with shorter FL primes. Now drop that sensor size down to crop and we start to get some smaller glass. Look at those micro 4/3 systems, they get down right tiny sitting next to a DSLR (FF or crop).

Personally I feel like a mirrorless system with a crop size sensor might just be the sweet spot of compact size (travel kit) while still capable of good IQ, bokeh (when desired), low light performance (when needed).

If/when Canon wants to go full frame mirrorless, they don't have to abandon the EF mount. The latest Sony A7II isn't even all that small of a camera body, pushing DSLR size. Mount some good glass and the size advantage has essentially disappeared.

For now, I'd just like to see Canon embrace the EF-M system and compete with a nice compact, mirrorless kit for travel, casual use, out with the family, etc. I can bust out the 6D/70D when I want to feel like a pro.

I agree with both. Still, these FL are needed in FF mirrorless system.

I have never hand-on 4/3 system before. I do not how small and light weight they are. Having to shoot with a7, a7r and a7s I don't know if Sony or other companies can go any smaller or lighter for 35mm sensor. Their current native FE 28mm, 35mm and 55mm are great from size to weight.

 

[Dylan777]

Key motivating factors for their photography include travel and family

Undemanding snapshots that you can do with any camera (or phone), then - hardly pushing the boundaries of camera performance.

Sounds about right...

Why would Canon invest significant effort and resource to take market share in a space that phones will wipe out any time now?

While shooting with my A7s + FE55mm @ f1.8, with ISO12800ish at Talent Show, I do see other parents shooting with their smartphones and tiny P&S. What a wonderful tool for "Undemanding snapshots" :

I can see smartphone replacing tiny sensor P&S, not crop or FF mirrorless.