For those of you following mirrorless

[DanK]

Mirrorless war: Canon EOS R outsells Nikon Z7 two-to-one in Japan

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/n...o-one-in-japan

[pendennis]

The Canon does have some features which are lacking on the Nikon. However, over time, these differences tend to disappear as both products are updated and improved. Mirrorless is the latest "whiz bang" technology in photography, similar to what Apple had when the iPhone appeared. Samsung, LG, and others didn't hide in the sand. Apple was very innovative with its desktop and laptop computers, yet Acer, Dell, and many others haven't gone belly up. Instead, they innovated. I'd expect that Nikon, Sony, and others will do the same.

The thing about technology, is that regardless the advantage, it can't stay secret very long. It's too easy to reverse engineer the build, and find out what's on the inside, and how it comes together. And it's awfully tough to patent processes, software, and hardware in today's environment.

Now, if money enters the picture, and a company can't afford to keep up, then the bets are off. Look at Pentax, Minolta, and Yashica, and how many cameras they sell today (he wrote facetiously).

Years ago, the Nikon F was the standard by which all 35mm SLR's were judged. Canon didn't throw in the towel, neither did a lot of other companies.

[LePetomane]

Dan, thanks for the link. In my group of photography friends mirrorless cameras were not even on the radar until Nikon came out with the Z7. Now they all must have it.

[DanK]

Dan, thanks for the link. In my group of photography friends mirrorless cameras were not even on the radar until Nikon came out with the Z7. Now they all must have it.

I find some aspects appealing and others unappealing, but my own principle interest was lower weight, which is not a major factor with FF once one adds in lenses.

Maybe I'm just getting grumpy, but it seems to be yet another fad. There seems to be one every two years or so. First was that one had to get FF to have lower pixel density and therefore larger photosites. then came MFT, which of course meant small sensors with small photosites. Then it was high-density FF cameras, which had large sensors but small photosites. Now mirrorless. All of these have their advantages of course, and I certainly don't mean to imply otherwise. In fact, larger photosites was one reason I moved to FF years ago, and I bought a small MFT camera because it is nifty to be able to tote one around in a coat pocket. But at least in my case, the equipment most in need of upgrading, to paraphrase Ansel Adams, is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.

[pnodrog]

The sales ratio will be more reflective of current lens ownership and price difference rather than actual performance. It is a meaningless statistic that will no doubt be promoted vigorously by Canon devotees.

[dje]

The sales ratio will be more reflective of current lens ownership and price difference rather than actual performance. It is a meaningless statistic that will no doubt be promoted vigorously by Canon devotees.

That sounds like a barb from a Nikon fanboy

Seriously though I agree with you about the lenses. It would be interesting to see worldwide trends too, not just those from Japan.

The other thing with the Canon vs Nikon thing is that Canon just have the one model with a 30MP sensor whereas Nikon have two models, the Z7 with a 45MP sensor and the Z6 with a 24MP sensor. There seem to be some delays with the availability of the Z6 but I think it will appeal to many over the Z7 based on price and adequacy of the sensor MP count. Anyway we'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out.

And the last word from my local camera store - the Z7 is out-selling the EOS R by a significant margin

Dave

[Stagecoach]

Until someone can convince me that a mirrorless camera can produce better 'results' than what I can achieve now I'll sit back and watch the fanboys debates

[AlwaysOnAuto]

What I like most about my Sony A7ii is that I can adapt just about any lens to it and have image stabilization. The web site linked isn't all that knowledgeable about it as it is only 3-axis stability for manual, non-native glass, not 5-axis as they'd have you believe in some of their linked articles.
I'm grumpy too, but I don't think this is a passing fad. It's pretty much here to stay, IMO.

Grahame, I'd suggest you take a look over at TalkEmount to see what some of the converts are getting for results.

[Stagecoach]

Grahame, I'd suggest you take a look over at TalkEmount to see what some of the converts are getting for results.

There may be lots of 'results' posted at that site but can you show me a specific one that I can not achieve with my DSLR

[DanK]

Until someone can convince me that a mirrorless camera can produce better 'results' than what I can achieve now I'll sit back and watch the fanboys debates

+1

[Manfred M]

I had heard somewhere that mirrorless cameras have around 1/3 fewer parts than a DSLR, this means that they can be produced for less money. That is definitely of interest to the camera makers as less money for a premium priced product = higher profit margins. For the Canon, Nikon and Sony Corporations, what's not to like?

In terms of performance; there are advantages and disadvantages to both styles of camera. If these features of one camera type makes a difference to you as a photographer, then I would suggest that this should be part of your evaluation as you proceed in making your purchase decisions. If the purchase decision is really based on "fashion", then go right ahead, but don't come back and say you weren't warned...

The one warning I will put out there is that both the Canon and Nikon offerings are "first generation". That suggests that there will be rough spots and teething issues with these cameras. Sony is well into its third generation of mirrorless cameras, so they have a mature product, and that certainly would be something worth keeping in mind.

[pendennis]

I had heard somewhere that mirrorless cameras have around 1/3 fewer parts than a DSLR, this means that they can be produced for less money. That is definitely of interest to the camera makers as less money for a premium priced product = higher profit margins. For the Canon, Nikon and Sony Corporations, what's not to like?

In terms of performance; there are advantages and disadvantages to both styles of camera. If these features of one camera type makes a difference to you as a photographer, then I would suggest that this should be part of your evaluation as you proceed in making your purchase decisions. If the purchase decision is really based on "fashion", then go right ahead, but don't come back and say you weren't warned...

The one warning I will put out there is that both the Canon and Nikon offerings are "first generation". That suggests that there will be rough spots and teething issues with these cameras. Sony is well into its third generation of mirrorless cameras, so they have a mature product, and that certainly would be something worth keeping in mind.

Usually 1/3 fewer parts, including mirror boxes, etc., do mean less money; but I'd wager that the R&D costs on the new Canon and Nikon models are going to be spread over fewer sales, thus higher sales prices.

Having come out of a cost accounting background, I've seen what happens with new technology, and the inability to spread those costs out over enough products to stay competitive. I'd say Nikon and Canon are caught in the same bind.

[Manfred M]

Usually 1/3 fewer parts, including mirror boxes, etc., do mean less money; but I'd wager that the R&D costs on the new Canon and Nikon models are going to be spread over fewer sales, thus higher sales prices.

Having come out of a cost accounting background, I've seen what happens with new technology, and the inability to spread those costs out over enough products to stay competitive. I'd say Nikon and Canon are caught in the same bind.

As a designer, I know all about that and the R&D (including design), tooling and other startup costs are amortized over a specified number of units. If the sales exceed the number of target units, then those overhead costs have been recovered and if the camera sells well, that part of the product price goes straight to the bottom line. If the sales fall below expectations, the bottom line is negatively affected. This is true for any new camera body or lens, not just a new family of cameras like the new mirrorless offerings.

Let's be a little bit careful about calling this "new technology", as while the lens mount may be new, the technology is well established at both Canon and Nikon (something called "LiveView"). In in-camera stabilization is new to both companies, as are the new lens mounts and the electronic viewfinders. The rest is relatively well known technology for camera manufacturers and not a great stretch. Unfortunately, there are always startup issues, whether this is in the supply chain or in the manufacturing processes that take some time to debug and sort out.

As a designer I also know one cannot anticipate every eventuality and the new product launch date had better not be missed (or heads will roll). The product cost is also sacrosanct; coming in below budget is fine (but rarely happens). Coming in with a final cost that is too high is totally unacceptable and that is usually the #1 goal of the designer; to hit the price point.

It's nice to see that Sony has some competition; that can only result as a win to anyone in the market for this style of camera.

[rpcrowe]

I am glad that Sony has competition in the mirrorless world. Competition is always good for the consumer.

I will mention that one big difference between Sony and Canon (I don't know about Nikon) is that Sony is in competition with other companies while Canon tends to compete with Canon. The Canon folks are so afraid of cutting into the sales of their flagship camera (like the 5D4) that they tend to emasculate their cameras that are lower on the food chain. Take the introduction of the Canon 6D2... Instead of borrowing the autofocus capabilities from the 5D4, they put the focusing system of the 800D into the 6D2...

OTOH... Sony OTOH has borrowed many of the great focus features of the A9 into the lower priced A7iii and even the A6500. And there are some hard rumors of a crop format, "Mini A9" eventually coming down the pike.

BTW: Graham... In response to your posting... I'd like to offer the excellent manual focusing capabiities of the later Sony mirrorless cameras using the focus assist and focus peaking. Additionally, the in body stabilization of the later Somy models breath new life into some old and some not so old lenses...

From what I glean from the Japanese sales statistics is that Nikon is coming up on the short end of the stick, despite the hoopla about the Z7 being the best ting since sliced bread...

[Stagecoach]

BTW: Graham... In response to your posting... I'd like to offer the excellent manual focusing capabiities of the later Sony mirrorless cameras using the focus assist and focus peaking. Additionally, the in body stabilization of the later Somy models breath new life into some old and some not so old lenses...

This is exactly the type of comment and hype Richard that is floating around everywhere on the web, it has little relevance to 'results'.

They are simply 'features' that some may feel necessary to improve on what they can achieve with a basic DSLR.

[Manfred M]

Sony mirrorless cameras using the focus assist and focus peaking.

Richard - Focus peaking has been around in higher end video cameras for a very long time. Sony (and Panasonic) were major players in the high end video camera market for a long time before they entered the still camera market. Focus peaking was a work around to enable to shoot video using the built-in viewfinder / screen that had fairly mediocre resolution and still get a reasonably good chance of having an in-focus shot. Smaller sensors and the associated greater DoF also helped as these were relatively forgiving versus a current fast lens and full frame (or larger) sensor camera. Video shooters still prefer confirming focus using a large external monitor. This is rather akin to shooting tethered in the studio using a still camera; something pro shooters use in high-end studio work all the time..

I'm less of a fan of both focus assist and focus peaking than you are. Focus assist can be fairly precise, but I find focus peaking is an 80% solution most of the time.

[rpcrowe]

Grahame...

I am old enough to remember photographers saying just about the same thing about in camera exposure meters. That "any photographer worth his or her salt should be able to guestimate the exposure or use a hand held exposure meter These new fangled meters in a camera are just a new FAD and will disappear in a few years"

My late father used to say that the most annoying people in the world are those who have recently quit drinking, quit smoking, or lost weight. I have to add, those photographers who have recently switched brands to that annoying group...

However, I have not deserted the Canon DSLR world, either full frame or crop sensor. I am going to shoot the sailing of the Star of India on Saturday morning... https://www.10news.com/lifestyle/exp...-in-five-years I will shoot with my 6D2 with a 70-100mm lens and my 7D2 with a 100-400mm lens. OTOH, when my wife and I travel to Pasadena on January Second to view the Rose Parade floats which are parked for public viewing, I will be carrying my A6500 and a pair of lenses with a total weight of 28.75 ounces or 915 grams. Different horses for different courses

Manfred, my 6D2 using face detect AF will hit focus on the eye or eyes around 90-95% of the time (I have tested this with three 100 shot groups of images)... If I could use face detect on the 6D2 with eye level viewfinder (or if the AF array covered more of the frame when shooting), I might never have ventured into the mirrorless field. OTOH, the little Sony using Eye AF is right up there with the 6D2 in accuracy when using Eye AF with the eye level viewfinder. I nail the focus consistently using the 85mm Sony f/1.8 wide open.. As far as focus peaking, I like it when using a longer focal length. fast lens wide open. The shallow DOF combined with a medium focus peaking level will place the focus point right on the subjects eye or eye, since the DOF is so shallow. I am talking about using a lens of around 85mm equivalent at f/2 or wider.

This was with a 58mm lens at f/2 on a 1.5x crop camera - I don't remember missing any shots due to misfocusing on that day...



BTW: I would not think about using a manual focus lens with a faster moving subject. I use them only for portraiture when my subject is not moving...

I also would never shoot indoors or in a studio with such a wide aperture. My preferred aperture for studio shooting is around f/5.6. But, in a studio, I can control the background. When shooting outdoors, I often want to blow out the BG with selective focus...

[Manfred M]

Manfred, my 6D2 using face detect AF will hit focus on the eye or eyes around 90-95% of the time.

With single point focus and recompose, my accuracy rate is very close to 100%. In fact, I can't remember the last time I missed focus using that method. That being said, 90% - 95% is a lot better than most of the alternatives; let's hope other camera companies come out with their own versions..

[Stagecoach]

Grahame...

I am old enough to remember photographers saying just about the same thing about in camera exposure meters. That "any photographer worth his or her salt should be able to guestimate the exposure or use a hand held exposure meter These new fangled meters in a camera are just a new FAD and will disappear in a few years"

My late father used to say that the most annoying people in the world are those who have recently quit drinking, quit smoking, or lost weight. I have to add, those photographers who have recently switched brands to that annoying group...

I have absolutely nothing against new technology Richard but I will only change to it if it's going to give me personally something I want, or, I have to update because my gear is broke, lost or stolen.

No amount or people raving over what is important or interesting to them personally has any worth to me.

Now when someone comes to me and says here's a 'camera/type/system' that will give me better IQ than what I have achieved on a specific image I'll be listening intently

[rpcrowe]

As I mentioned in another string... The more players who join the game in producing and developing new products, the more beneficial it is to us as photographers...

I remember when most SLR cameras were the size of the various Nikon F models, then Olympus came out with their OM1 and OM2 cameras, introducing a smaller form factor for DSLR photography, The OM1 and OM2 models also brought out a lot of other new innovations that soon found their way into cameras of other manufacturers.

The result was beneficial to all photographers shooting 35mm film.

What about the auto diaphragm SLR, the bayonet interchangeable lens mount, lever operated film advance soon followed by motor drives and winders? All of these innovations benefited the consumer and many innovations found their way into later interchangeable SLR cameras...

I look at combat motion picture footage shot in the 1960's and marvel at what I could have done if I had a modern camera with digital capability. Just the sheer weight of film per minute of shooting time. A 100 foot roll of 16mm film weighed in the area of a half pound and gave about two and a half to two and 3/4 minutes of shooting time. So roughly speaking; a pound of film, give or take, provided five minutes of shooting time. What a difference from SD or CF card weight per minute of video