DSLR soon obsolete

OhLook wrote in post #17352093
Last week, maybe this week. Canon's been buying big banner ads on cnn.com.

Fair enough but look at the trend in online advertisement in general. A lot of sites are moving towards individualized ads. Using the cookies stored in your computer to show you relevant ads. But I digress.

I just dont see DSLRs being killed by mirrorless anytime soon, even the next 3-5 yrs.

gmm213 wrote in post #17351574
When was the last time you saw marketing for cameras geared toward the general market? An ad on tv or in a magazine by the supermarket checkout? The last I remember was those Ashton Kutcher adds for coolpix in the mid late 2000s right at the beginning of the smartphone craze.

Canon pretty regularly is running ad campaigns on Sport Center. Very good ads actually. The 'inspire' campaign they ran last year actually won an emmy. The 'bring it' campaign they're running right now is a good one too.

gmm213 wrote in post #17351574
As far as Canon and Nikon not being in the market of mirrorless who cares. Your target sales for any product are always general population not people already invested into a system or hobby. So the general population wouldn't care about nikon or Canon's carrying ons. On top of the fact that Sony seems to be dominating mirrored and if they really wanted to they wouldn't let either camera brand stop them selling the crap out of mirrorless. They are one of the largest tech companies in existence.

Canon and Nikon matter because they have enormous brand equity in the camera market

gmm213 wrote in post #17351574
You mentioned they stop producing products that compel people to switch from they're current gear 3-4 years ago. But that also coincides with the emergence of heavy use of camera smartphones.

Correlation does not imply causation.

If what you're asserting is true, then regardless of DSLR sales are doing, if smartphones truly were a replacement for DSLR's in the minds of consumers, we'd see less people using them out in public.

I just got back from Disney World last week...and there were DSLR's. every. where. I also see them everywhere at my kids school events.

There still is a huge disparity between the quality of smartphones and DSLR's, and based on the fact that people still use them, we can say at least anecdotally, that there are still consumers who find value in that disparity.

The problem is that camera manufacturers are struggling to capitalize on this still lucrative market and perpetuate the growth they've enjoyed in recent years. The key to perpetuating growth with any technology product is to continue to innovate, or at least create the perception of innovating. It's the reason Canon releases a "new" rebel each year, but even that trend is losing steam. They're at a point where they have no choice but to create a more compelling reason to buy new cameras.

gmm213 wrote in post #17351574
Yes there is a distinct improvement between camera phones and dslrs that many appreciate but from an overall picture who cares about many companies care about general populace. The general populace has two standpoints in tech, all tech not just cameras.

1. My device that I already have does 80% of that speciality device so why pay hundreds of dollars for it. (Consumers see the numbers manufactures went then to see, mp for cameras, resolution for tv and teach them to only care about those numbers. You see it in tv right now with 4k which is a bogus tech but the average consumer only sees bigger numbers. In cameras you see opposite. My phone has 13mp why spend 700 or more to get 21)

2.Consumers want 'pro' looking gear (dslrs) not the old simple p&s looking gear from 5-10 yrs ago (which even though there's a huge difference consumers buy on numbers and look.) Remember people who own 1000s of dollars of gear aren't there target Joe shmoe who wants the fanciest look I new tech toy is

Never said that mirrorless cameras in and of themselves are the cause for the decline of DSLR sales. There are a variety of reasons why DSLR sales are declining. The reason for the decline is somewhat irrelevant. The bigger question is: what do camera manufacturers do from here?

Camera manufacturers have no choice but to innovate at a greater degree than they have been, and again, mirrorless cameras are that last opportunity to innovate.

Up until recently, mirrorless cameras were not The prevailing market perception is that DSLR's will always be 'better' than mirrorless cameras, but many of the cameras released in the past year perform as well, or better than their mirrored counter-parts. As such, manufacturers are starting to position them next to their DSLR offerings (i.e., Sony dropping the NEX monicker, and giving their mirrorless cameras the alpha monicker reserved for their higher end DSLR's). There have also been several rumors of Canon developing a FF mirrorless mount sometime in the near future.

As with any technological innovation, there is always skepticism at the on-set, but as we've seen with smart-phones, tablets, etc etc, if there is real value behind innovation, consumers will eventually catch on. Anyone who believes that consumers will never see the value proposition behind a smaller camera that does as much as a bigger camera, knows nothing about the trends in technology products. Hell, there was a time when people were sure digital cameras would never replace film...and look where we are now.

I hope they are going obsolete, maybe I will be able to pickup a few l lenses for dirt cheap!!

mystik610 wrote in post #17352164
Canon and Nikon matter because they have enormous brand equity in the camera market

If what you're asserting is true, then regardless of DSLR sales are doing, if smartphones truly were a replacement for DSLR's in the minds of consumers, we'd see less people using them out in public.

I just got back from Disney World last week...and there were DSLR's. every. where. I also see them everywhere at my kids school events.

Canon and Nikon not entering the market from a camera industry standpoint, Yes. Nikon and Canon vs a company like Sony in general consumer industry, No. Im not saying that Nikon and Canon don't effect the camera industry, they probably do the most, but new technologies and products are meant to bring in new people to the hobby. New people aren't the camera industry they are general consumers.

I do see less DSLRs in the public use. Why carry a few pound camera when I could stick my phone in my pocket for snapshots.
Disney World has roughly a 50 million a year attendance, divide by 4 for average family size is roughly 12.5 mil. Divided by 365 thats 34,000 families a day. I bet that there isn't even 17,000 DSLRs in Disney world a day but probably more than the 34,000 as far as smartphones. Dont mean to start arguing, just pointing out more towards the OPs original statement.

As far as DSLRs sales declining due to mirrorless that was more towards the OP.

I knew I hadn't been watching as much tv but I guess I hadn't realize how little I actually was watching

gmm213 wrote in post #17352197
...As far as DSLRs sales declining due to mirrorless that was more towards the OP.

I think it's pretty safe to say that SLRs sales not caused by mirrorless sales. A quick peek at the CIPA data show that SLRs peaked in 2012 and sales have fallen from there. 2012 was also the first year where CIPA tracked mirrorless as a separate category and their sales are falling as well.

2010 p/s = 108,576,298 SLR = 12,886,936
2011 p/s = 99,830,469 SLR = 15,693,781
2012 p/s = 77,982,104 SLR = 16,200,451 mirrorless = 3,956,602
2013 p/s = 45,708,286 SLR = 13,825,569 mirrorless = 3,305,798
2014 p/s = 24,351,372 SLR = 8,805,621 mirrorless = 2,714,875

gmm213 wrote in post #17352197
Canon and Nikon not entering the market from a camera industry standpoint, Yes. Nikon and Canon vs a company like Sony in general consumer industry, No. Im not saying that Nikon and Canon don't effect the camera industry, they probably do the most, but new technologies and products are meant to bring in new people to the hobby. New people aren't the camera industry they are general consumers.

I do see less DSLRs in the public use. Why carry a few pound camera when I could stick my phone in my pocket for snapshots.
Disney World has roughly a 50 million a year attendance, divide by 4 for average family size is roughly 12.5 mil. Divided by 365 thats 34,000 families a day. I bet that there isn't even 17,000 DSLRs in Disney world a day but probably more than the 34,000 as far as smartphones. Dont mean to start arguing, just pointing out more towards the OPs original statement.

As far as DSLRs sales declining due to mirrorless that was more towards the OP.

I knew I hadn't been watching as much tv but I guess I hadn't realize how little I actually was watching

Smartphones will always have a larger share of the market than cameras. Smartphones are general purpose devices that basically everyone has, regardless if they're photographers or not. DSLR and Mirrorless cameras are special purpose devices who specifically want higher quality photos than a smartphone can provide. I don't agree that we should be comparing these two markets in any context, because as cameras, smartphones and DSLR/Mirrorless cameras have always appealed to different subsets of consumers. Smartphones are a more logical replacement to a compact camera, but there is a stark difference between a $150 camera you can shove in your pocket and a $500+ camera that requires its own bag and/or a strap.

Right now we're seeing a world where DSLR sales are falling year over year, but DSLR usage and the demand for the utility of a DSLR, isn't falling...at least not at a proportionate rate as the sales are falling. So the demand for a higher quality camera is certainly out there however, camera manufacturer's are failing to leverage that demand by releasing products that can keep their sales numbers afloat

gjl711 wrote in post #17352202
I think it's pretty safe to say that SLRs sales not caused by mirrorless sales. A quick peek at the CIPA data show that SLRs peaked in 2012 and sales have fallen from there. 2012 was also the first year where CIPA tracked mirrorless as a separate category and their sales are falling as well.

2010 p/s = 108,576,298 SLR = 12,886,936
2011 p/s = 99,830,469 SLR = 15,693,781
2012 p/s = 77,982,104 SLR = 16,200,451 mirrorless = 3,956,602
2013 p/s = 45,708,286 SLR = 13,825,569 mirrorless = 3,305,798
2014 p/s = 24,351,372 SLR = 8,805,621 mirrorless = 2,714,875

What stands out to me in that data set is that although camera sales overall are falling, the proportion of camera sales attributable to mirrorless cameras is increasing year over year. Though there isn't a solid causal relationship between DSLR sales and Mirrorless sales, given that Canon and Nikon don't have a (real) horse in the mirrorless race, this growth in the market-share of mirrorless cameras is coming at their expense.

mystik610 wrote in post #17352493
Smartphones will always have a larger share of the market than cameras. Smartphones are general purpose devices that basically everyone has, regardless if they're photographers or not. DSLR and Mirrorless cameras are special purpose devices who specifically want higher quality photos than a smartphone can provide. I don't agree that we should be comparing these two markets in any context, because as cameras, smartphones and DSLR/Mirrorless cameras have always appealed to different subsets of consumers. Smartphones are a more logical replacement to a compact camera, but there is a stark difference between a $150 camera you can shove in your pocket and a $500+ camera that requires its own bag and/or a strap.

But your still assuming that a good chunk of dslr users don't just but the camera to look fancy or think the camera itself magically takes better pictures and they never take it out of auto mode. Professionals and hobbyists are and always will be a small market percentage of any industry, in this case specifically the DSLR/mirrored industry. The rest will be general consumers buying for status symbol and lack of knowledge, yes people buy all kinds of tech due to LACK of knowledge.

I'm not saying that dslr sales have been killed soley by smartphones but I think you could attribute a larger percentage of that loss to smartphones than mirrorless which was my original statement to the statement of the OPs comment of mirrorless killing dslrs in the next few years.

gmm213 wrote in post #17352924
But your still assuming that a good chunk of dslr users don't just but the camera to look fancy or think the camera itself magically takes better pictures and they never take it out of auto mode. Professionals and hobbyists are and always will be a small market percentage of any industry, in this case specifically the DSLR/mirrored industry. The rest will be general consumers buying for status symbol and lack of knowledge, yes people buy all kinds of tech due to LACK of knowledge.

I'm not saying that dslr sales have been killed soley by smartphones but I think you could attribute a larger percentage of that loss to smartphones than mirrorless which was my original statement to the statement of the OPs comment of mirrorless killing dslrs in the next few years.

Not really a distinction from a market perspective between those who are actually benefiting from the quality of DSLR's, and those who simply enjoy the perception of quality associated with DSLR. All that matters is that people are buying and using them. Same story with sports cars some people buy them specifically to enjoy the performance, some like the prestige and the idea of a high performance car. Auto manufacturers don't care what you do with them so long as they can get you to buy them.

That said, even for those who never use a 'real' camera to its full potential, there is still value in 'real' cameras, if only due to the perception of quality associated with the camera. Perception drives sales. And marketing is perception management.

Yes there is a large proportion of the camera market lost to smartphones...not disputing that at all.

The only point I'm making is that amid falling DSLR sales, it behooves camera manufacturers to innovate and release products that are differentiated from the cameras that consumers already own. For consumers who know nothing about cameras, they're seeing identical looking DSLR's released each year, with the same specs (MP). There is no perception of innovation, and no motivation to buy new cameras. Of course sales are gong to stagnate and slow down.

For the consumer market, there is tremendous value in a smaller camera that can do as much as a DSLR, and given the trends in the market for cameras in the past 3 years, the bigger players will have to embrace that. Now that the performance of mirrorless cameras have closed the gap with DSLR's, mirrorless is the direction the market is headed. Not saying this will stave off declining camera sales overall, but mirrorless cameras are increasingly taking a bigger piece of what's left of the market for cameras. If Canon and Nikon don't make a broad push for mirrorless cameras first, someone else (Sony) will.

mystik610 wrote in post #17352964
Not really a distinction from a market perspective between those who are actually benefiting from the quality of DSLR's, and those who simply enjoy the perception of quality associated with DSLR. All that matters is that people are buying and using them. Same story with sports cars some people buy them specifically to enjoy the performance, some like the prestige and the idea of a high performance car. Auto manufacturers don't care what you do with them so long as they can get you to buy them.

That said, even for those who never use a 'real' camera to its full potential, there is still value in 'real' cameras, if only due to the perception of quality associated with the camera. Perception drives sales. And marketing is perception management.

Yes there is a large proportion of the camera market lost to smartphones...not disputing that at all.

The only point I'm making is that amid falling DSLR sales, it behooves camera manufacturers to innovate and release products that are differentiated from the cameras that consumers already own. For consumers who know nothing about cameras, they're seeing identical looking DSLR's released each year, with the same specs (MP). There is no perception of innovation, and no motivation to buy new cameras. Of course sales are gong to stagnate and slow down.

For the consumer market, there is tremendous value in a smaller camera that can do as much as a DSLR, and given the trends in the market for cameras in the past 3 years, the bigger players will have to embrace that. Now that the performance of mirrorless cameras have closed the gap with DSLR's, mirrorless is the direction the market is headed. Not saying this will stave off declining camera sales overall, but mirrorless cameras are increasingly taking a bigger piece of what's left of the market for cameras. If Canon and Nikon don't make a broad push for mirrorless cameras first, someone else (Sony) will.

But there is a distinction in the market between people actually benefiting from a DSLR and people who benefit from the perception.
The perception market: 4-5 years ago when someone was in the market for a P&S for $200 why not look at upgrading to a DSLR for an extra $400 and look cool. Now why even bother buying a camera when my phone can do it as well. Look at teens. They are already always on there phones already why put it down and pick up a DSLR when the results are so similar between a cameraphone and a DSLR with kit lens in auto especially when you just plaster all kinds of effects in instagram over it.

And honestly the real innovations in mirrorless are the fact that they are lighter and smaller. Not necessarily better or cheaper. Theres no real innovation there. Now that doesnt matter to some people because they will buy it cause its the newest, but a lot of people dont especially with people buying dedicated cameras, both P&S and DSLR less.

Why replace $5000 or $10000 worth of gear, mind you your selling $5,000 for $3,000 or so, with something that has less diversity, ie less lens, and no real improvement except size and weight, which has been pointed out to be practically nill with a large lens.

May mirrorless create improvements and innovation, yes it very well could. Will you see that reflected step for step in DSLRs, most likley yes. Thus there benefits are negligible. Did DSLR kill film, yes. Simply because you couldn't make the same improvements to film you could digital. But the difference between DSLR vs mirrorless are no where near as great with film and digital. But I think that mirrorless will do well, I just dont think that it will kill DSLR anytime soon if ever, which was the OPs original statement. I think it will be more of an addition to fill a market segment than take it over

gmm213 wrote in post #17352994
And honestly the real innovations in mirrorless are the fact that they are lighter and smaller. Not necessarily better or cheaper. Theres no real innovation there. Now that doesnt matter to some people because they will buy it cause its the newest, but a lot of people dont especially with people buying dedicated cameras, both P&S and DSLR less.

Making a product smaller and lighter, while offering the same level of performance, isn't innovation in the realm of technology products...said no one ever =)

gmm213 wrote in post #17352994
Why replace $5000 or $10000 worth of gear, mind you your selling $5,000 for $3,000 or so, with something that has less diversity, ie less lens, and no real improvement except size and weight, which has been pointed out to be practically nill with a large lens.

May mirrorless create improvements and innovation, yes it very well could. Will you see that reflected step for step in DSLRs, most likley yes. Thus there benefits are negligible. Did DSLR kill film, yes. Simply because you couldn't make the same improvements to film you could digital. But the difference between DSLR vs mirrorless are no where near as great with film and digital. But I think that mirrorless will do well, I just dont think that it will kill DSLR anytime soon if ever, which was the OPs original statement. I think it will be more of an addition to fill a market segment than take it over

It will take a while for mirrorless cameras to kill dslr's, but mirrorless designs will replace sales sooner than most think....starting with consumer cameras. As the technology continues to improve, we will sooner than later reach a point where keeping a mirror in the design will no longer offer compelling benefits, and will actually become a hinderance (i.e. the inherent AF calibration issues involved with placing AF points on the mirror) to a camera. We're already there, in term of APS-C cameras. We will still have large form factor cameras for professional use, but expect the mirror to be excluded from the design eventually.

As far as having to ditch thousands of dollars worth of gear....it wouldn't be the first time someone like Canon discontinued a lens mount system in order to move forward with the technology (i.e., FD and FN mount). That said, adapters will go a long way as the technology transitions. It's certainly made the transition easier for me, as I can utilize my existing lenses when necessary, but can benefit from a significantly lighter set-up with a native lens when I want to go that route as well. I have options, and there's tremendous value in that

But does a smaller lighter camera, which they're barley either, offset replacing or adding gear?

The only benefit really seen in mirrorless is size and weight. Take the Sony a3000 vs nikon d3200, two comparable cameras by specs, the a3000 is 128x91x85 compared to 125x96x77 for the nikon. That's beyond marginal. Weight is Sony 411g vs 505g nikon which is less difference than the weight of most adapters

Will nikon or Canon die if they don't go mirrorless. I don't believe so. Mirrorless is a cool new option not a huge new revolution.

The difference between film and digital was large, like the difference between standard deff tv and hd which is night and day. The difference between mirrorless and dslr is the difference between 720 and 1080 which is much less impressive

gmm213 wrote in post #17353148
Will nikon or Canon die if they don't go mirrorless. I don't believe so. Mirrorless is a cool new option not a huge new revolution.

The difference between film and digital was large, like the difference between standard deff tv and hd which is night and day. The difference between mirrorless and dslr is the difference between 720 and 1080 which is much less impressive

Based on the trends in the market (where mirrorless cameras are getting a an increasingly bigger share of what's left of the camera market), they have no choice but to jump into the mirrorless market.

Canon is technically already in the mirrorless market with the EOS-M, so they're already invested in the format. It was a piss-poor effort, but it did establish the format, and allowed them to get some lenses out the door. All they need to do is release a half-decent body that is comparable to a DSLR. They likely will when the market conditions are right. The dual pixel AF they developed for the 70D (in live view) is a natural fit for a mirrorless camera.

The rumor-mill very recently has also been hinting at a full frame mirrorless camera from Canon sometime in the near future.

gmm213 wrote in post #17353109
But does a smaller lighter camera, which they're barley either, offset replacing or adding gear?

gmm213 wrote in post #17353109
The only benefit really seen in mirrorless is size and weight. Take the Sony a3000 vs nikon d3200, two comparable cameras by specs, the a3000 is 128x91x85 compared to 125x96x77 for the nikon. That's beyond marginal. Weight is Sony 411g vs 505g nikon which is less difference than the weight of most adapters

The benefits go beyond size and weight

-More accurate AF, as it isn't hindered by the inherent calibration issues between the mirror and sensor
-Ability to leverage more accurate, yet very fast focusing, hybrid phase detect/contrast detect AF systems. (i.e. the dual pixel AF in the 70D via live view)
-Ability to AF across the entire sensor (contrast detect), and place AF points (phase detect & hybrid) across the entire sensor. AF and track motion across the entire frame vs in the center of the frame with DSLR cameras.
-Exposure preview via EVF, including ISO boosted image in view finder when shooting in low light
-More data within the viewfinder (focus peaking, levels, zebra patterns, histograms, grids, etc etc)
-Faster shutter speeds and FPS. There are mirrorless cameras that can shoot at a 1/16,000s shutter speed. Shutter speed and FPS is not limited by the physical movement of the mirror. its limited by how fast the shutter can open and close, and how fast the processor (and card) can write the data.
-allows for lenses with a smaller flange distance, leading to smaller designs
-no need for retrofocal designs for wide angle focal lengths. Any lens wider than about 40mm will benefit from smaller, simpler designs. This includes zooms that include wide angle focal lengths (17-40, 24-70, 28-135, etc etc)
-quieter (no mirrorslap). exception is the a7r, with its mechanic shutter
-less moving parts - most common component to break on a DSLR is the mirror.

gmm213 wrote in post #17353109
But does a smaller lighter camera, which they're barley either, offset replacing or adding gear?

IMAGE LINK: http://s14.photobucket​.com …5551_zpscc4a9c4​b.jpg.html

I've thought about this some more. From the standpoint of a Canon or Nikon, here is what would make sense:

1) Release a mirrorless body with fast contrast detect AF and top shelf EVF like the Sony A6000.
2) Release a limited, but dedicated set of lenses for this body with short register distance. Some cheap standard zooms, some expensive UWA and standard zooms, and a set of nice fast primes....24, 35, 50, 85.
3) Release an adaptor to use EF lenses on the body, with full AF performance using the contrast detect fast AF.

This body gives you small and compact with the dedicated lenses, but can shoot absolutely anything when using the EOS adaptor. That would be the killer setup. I'd buy it in a heartbeat, selling my wider EF lenses in favor of the dedicated stuff but keeping my longer EF lenses for sports etc.

I want something that fits my hand comfortably, mirrorless are too small and fiddly. While I don't want my phone larger, I kind of miss my motorola razr, I don't want my camera smaller. Simply not comfortable to hold and all the buttons are too small and too close together. And if it's not comfortable to hold and handle for a long time it's not meant for my big hands. That's why I usually have a grip on mine