Sony Dominates FF Sales in USA

[MdB]

12 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but I worked in the Broadcasting Industry. Do you??

I'm not sure what your argument is? Wasn't I agreeing with what you're saying? I'm a producer and have worked in the broadcast space. 

I was agreeing that most people don't have a clue the kind of gear and investment in that area. And it isn't just cameras, it's the whole workflow right through to broadcast. As you say, scary money. The people saying this stuff usually are weak at the idea of a $10k lens. Not the 1/4 million dollar tape deck. 

[Django]

Re: Canon vs Nikon AF: I guess this must be subjective as I feel the Canon AF system is superior to Nikons. I find it far from complicated and embrace the options. Especially AF-C which you can engage at the punch of a button. And i suspect I'm not alone and this is part of the answer on why Canon dominates sports shooting. And let's not even talk about Dual Pixel AF for live view / video. Other things like the big thumbwheel is pretty genius for quickly scanning through hundreds of photos etc. It's simple ergonomic things that makes world difference to me on a shoot, and that companies like Canon/Fuji get and what i think trigger that emotional connection vs tool feeling with an electronic device.

 

[jonpais]

Curious that of the dozens of silly, mindless, uncritical and gullible websites carrying the news, only two EOSHD forum members are clever enough to call it out for what it really is: outright lies. hehe

[webrunner5]

24 minutes ago, Django said:

Re: Canon vs Nikon AF: I guess this must be subjective as I feel the Canon AF system is superior to Nikons. I find it far from complicated and embrace the options. Especially AF-C which you can engage at the punch of a button. And i suspect I'm not alone and this is part of the answer on why Canon dominates sports shooting. And let's not even talk about Dual Pixel AF for live view / video. Other things like the big thumbwheel is pretty genius for quickly scanning through hundreds of photos etc. It's simple ergonomic things that makes world difference to me on a shoot, and that companies like Canon/Fuji get and what i think trigger that emotional connection vs tool feeling with an electronic device.

 

I have never owned a DPAF anything so have no clue how well it works. With as small of a box the early ones use I don't see how it can be much to write home to mother about other than on a Tripod locked down.

I would bet if you handed a Canon 1D mk IV and a Nikon 4s to a person that never shot anything they would have a lot more keepers on the Nikon than the Canon if they shot several different situations without going into the menu, and going eeny, meeny, miny, moe on the Canon. Before DPAF Canon AF Was stupid complicated. That was most of the reason the 1D mk III had so much problems with AF. They eliminated a lot of the "crap" in the mk IV,  but it still was more cluttered than it needed to be.

And the main reason I think there is a lot more Canon shooters is Nikon clung to the "hell we are Never going FF" crap for what seemed forever, and never had any Tilt Shift lenses out for years. Nikon has been run by some damn stupid people for a hell of a lot of years when it comes to marketing. They have just about pissed it away.

And yeah, the big wheel is nice no doubt.

[Django]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I have never owned a DPAF anything so have no clue how well it works. With as small of a box the early ones use I don't see how it can be much to write home to mother about other than on a Tripod locked down.

I would bet if you handed a Canon 1D mk IV and a Nikon 4s to a person that never shot anything they would have a lot more keepers on the Nikon than the Canon if they shot several different situations without going into the menu, and going eeny, meeny, miny, moe on the Canon. Before DPAF Canon AF Was stupid complicated. That was most of the reason the 1D mk III had so much problems with AF. They eliminated a lot of the "crap" in the mk IV,  but it still was more cluttered than it needed to be.

 

Ok now it makes sense, as you're comparing a 2010 camera (1D IV) to a 2014 one (D4S). That's a giant leap in high-end camera tech. Just take the 2011 Canon 1DX and the convoluted AF config of previous models got a complete simplified overhaul with 6 presets and track sensitivity bars among many other enhancements.

Gotta compare what's comparable just like the A7III's AF is light years ahead of that of the original A7.

[Mokara]

21 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They are doing well partly due to a good product but partly due to zero competition.

No full frame mirrorless Panasonic, no Olympus, no Fuji, no Canon, no Nikon.

That is about to change.

Canon and Nikon don't make FF cameras?

19 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

If you ever hold the top end Canon, Nikon bodies, like the1DX, the D5 you Would like them, heck love them. They fit in your hand like a glove, and don't seem to weigh anything like they look like they would, and are balanced it seems no matter the lens on them. They are magic. I regretted selling every one I ever owned LoL. You just can't wait to get out and shoot with one.

Not mine they don't. They are far too big and feel like I am going to drop them at any moment, which is why I would never buy them. For me probably the best camera I have held in terms or ergonomics is the NX1, that is the perfect size and feels like an extension of my arm. All of the pro/prosumer Canon and Nikon cameras appear to have been designed for people with much larger hands.

[kye]

4 hours ago, Mokara said:

Canon and Nikon don't make FF cameras?

Not FF mirrorless!

12 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

It is quite a good video. But it seems the first point is glossed over with a pretty glib 'DSLRs will gradually die' approach. I simply dont think you can compare 'milcs taking over from DSLRs with DSLRs taking over from film.'

Consider this. Take a D850 owner who likes its form factor and OVF, has US$15,000 of F mount lenses and doesnt shoot video (my guess, is that most of them dont). And let's heroically assume that Nikon comes out with a 45mp mirrorless that is as good as the A7riii in a 'more ergonomic' form factor. What possible reason would the D850 owner have to switch to Nikon mirrorless (or any other) when their existing lenses wont work nearly as well on the new camera or they have to sell their lenses and buy anew? I dont really see what mirrorless brings to a 'core' D850 owner now or in the future (well apart from silent shooting with a VF). And so Nikon mirrorless and DSLRs are likely to have to live somewhat uncomfortably side by side for a long, long time.

That it is why I think Nikon's marketing of this product is going to be interesting - and perhaps rather different from what many people are expecting.

I think it comes down to timeframes and lenses.  In terms of timeframes, it took what, 10-15 years for digital to "take over" from film?  It's hard to estimate because people still shoot film today, and the first digital cameras were completely rubbish, but I think 10-15 years is a reasonable estimation.  I'm not sure what the complications of lenses and compatibility was between DSLRs and SLRs during that time, but I'm assuming they had some overlap of compatibility.

In the sense then that MILCs might take 10-15 years to "take over" from DSLRs doesn't seem to be too far fetched.  I think we tend to get a bit carried away in these conversations - it's not like Nikon will release two FF MILCs and then never release a DSLR again!

In a sense, the lens mount change is a separate issue, as it just happens to be occurring at the same time as a change to mirrorless, and I think all the logic applies.  Even if they started a second line of DSLRs with a different lens mount, all the conversations about adapters and compatibility and flange distance would still be relevant.  Needless to say, the quality of adapter for this camera will play a huge part in how well it does commercially.

[jonpais]

55 minutes ago, kye said:

it's not like Nikon will release two FF MILCs and then never release a DSLR again!

How can you say that? Wouldn’t they be better off concentrating their resources rather than spreading them too thin? 

[kye]

36 minutes ago, jonpais said:

How can you say that? Wouldn’t they be better off concentrating their resources rather than spreading them too thin? 

Maybe you're right, I guess it depends on the Return-On-Investment for the different options.

If they release two FF MILC cameras (as they have announced) and we assume they're solid but not spectacular, then for their next camera they can either release a MILC or DSLR.

If Nikon decide to release a MILC then it would make sense to make the best one they possibly can, this would be to compete with the A9 and equivalent cameras, and would prove that Nikon are still a competitor, and that the pros who use Nikon are in safe hands, etc etc.  But it would also be a statement that Nikon has moved away from DSLRs and the Nikon users who are late adopters may get their feathers ruffled worrying that Nikon has abandoned the only tech that these users are familiar with.  As much as photography is a very technical industry, photography is an art form and there are many photographers who are emotional/creative and operate almost exclusively on intangibles.  These people may be very sensitive to feeling abandoned, especially when having to learn a whole new system starts to look like also changing manufacturer.

If Nikon decide to release a DSLR then it would be a big gesture to the loyal but middle and late adopters that are already Nikon customers.  By then they will have designed and released two new MILC cameras, a new lens mount, and a number of lenses, and may have developed some technology that can be applied to a DSLR.  For those customers still using DSLRs who need a new camera but aren't ready to change to MILC and a new mount, it might be the stop-gap they needed, and for some it could be good enough to stop them even thinking about changing brands.  It would be a disappointment for those who switched to Nikon MILC who were wanting an A9 competitor, but how many of them would want to immediately upgrade is debatable.

The correct decision would be whichever one above generates the most profit over the long-term - they have to balance poaching customers from other brands with poaching customers from their own DSLR lines with losing existing customers to other brands.  It's about long-term product and customer strategy, not just features or sales.

[Robert Collins]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

How can you say that? Wouldn’t they be better off concentrating their resources rather than spreading them too thin? 

Well as nikon has far more market share than Pentax, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic combined they can probably afford a fairly broad range of offerings.

[webrunner5]

I really don't see what you can add in this day and age to a DSLR that makes it worth upgrading an existing model? Hell no one needs more MP, and one more FPS is not worth having for tons more money. Sure Canon could Actually put decent 4K in a DSLR, but they are not the greatest vehicle to use to do it in. They are not going to have IBIS, EVF, all those focusing aids, on and on. Seems like buying a beautiful new saddle to put on an old ugly Mule. ?

Sure people that use 800mm lenses on Safari, but hell you can do that with a lightweight Olympus EM1 mk II and a Panny 100-400mm. I can see no real use for them other than war zones and and in the Antarctic. But even now the Olympus EM1 mk II is taking over there also. They are super weatherproof. Now probably not drive nails tough as a 1DX or D5.

It will be interesting for both Canon and Nikon on further DSLR development. Now I am sure what they have won't be the last, but wow they have an uphill battle to sell them if they both do well on their new Mirrorless ones.

[Cinegain]

Some Nikon lenses require a focus motor in the camera body (as they don't have one built into the lens). I doubt the new mirrorless body will support these lenses (already ran into that with the D5300, that was a league below the 'pro' bodies). There's stubborn people who still like optical viewfinders and think that off-sensor AF is better (and love the mechanical slapping around of mirror and shutter when taking shots perhaps). Pentax has proven that a mirror and optical viewfinder not necessarily have to be in the way of implementing stuff like sensor stabilization. So... atleast in the early days, they could have a transitioning period where they bring out models in both areas. I mean, the E-mount has been around for a while now, but Sony's last traditional DSLR with A-mount was the A99II... and that one started shipping at the beginning of 2017. That's not very long ago. That you're proceeding with the one, doesn't necessarily mean you need to kill off the other just quite yet.

[ND64]

Sony overall ILC marketshare is still %13. The same number they achieved when they were in DSLR/SLT business. in APS-C, despite all the tech buzz, Canon hammered them with a lazy EOS-M effort. Same will happen to FF when Canon releases its mirrorless dragons. And I say this as a Nikon guy. 

[Robert Collins]

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

Sony overall ILC marketshare is still %13. The same number they achieved when they were in DSLR/SLT business. in APS-C, despite all the tech buzz, Canon hammered them with a lazy EOS-M effort. Same will happen to FF when Canon releases its mirrorless dragons. And I say this as a Nikon guy. 

Yes, I think Canon is  very well placed for mirrorless. Thom Hogan recently estimated that the Sony 'A' series had 3% market share of ILCs. It might (optimistically) be 5% in 2018 and that would be a reasonable market share of FF which is about 15% of ILCs.

Sony's APS-C strategy seems to be a bit of a mess. High end bodies with low end lenses - no 2.8 zooms. They are supposed to launch a a6700 camera by the end of the year - for what US$1500? US$900 gets you a Canon M50 + 15-45 + 55-200 or a Sony a6300 body only. Canon is the only mirrorless manufacturer focused on the low end asp-c - everyone else - Sony, Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic have gone relentlessly upmarket.

[Django]

I don't see the profesionnal photography market moving away significantly from Canon/Nikon and even less from DSLR to MILC just yet:

World Cup Moscow, June 2018.

Paris Fashion Week

 

Lens selection, OVF, weather sealing, battery life, off-sensor AF, grip, balance with big lens etc.. The DSLR still remains king.

It will take indeed at least another decade imo for MILCs to take over and I suspect it is still Canon/Nikon that will pave the way by adressing things like weather resistance, ergonomics etc.. giving pros a mirrorless DSLR experience.

Sony is more focused on enthusiasts & semi-pros by making the smallest, most compact advanced cameras which is what Japanese tech giant companies aspire to. 

But cramming the most features in the smallest body has it's limitations. Sony are well aware of all this and even somewhat admits to it:

Do you think we’ll see mostly mirrorless cameras at the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo?

Yes.

How many of those cameras do you want to be made by Sony?

Many! But the professional market is very conservative, so we’re taking it step by step. We saw some photographers using the Alpha 9 at this year’s winter Olympics but of course the majority was Canon and Nikon. But the number of Sony photographers is increasing.

There have been questions about the weather sealing of a7-series and a9 cameras. Is this something you want to address?

In really bad conditions, in really heavy rain, will photographers keep on taking pictures [for long periods of time?] I don’t think so. In those conditions, most photographers will use some kind of rain cover. But of course durability is very important. Photographers should be able to shoot [in poor weather]. We have an internal ‘weather test’ and for each kind of customer we will aim to produce products with adequate durability.

Is that something that your professional users are asking for?

Yes. But we need a balance between durability, and size and weight. For a professional camera, the requirement for durability is higher, but for hobbyist kinds of camera, the priority is smaller size and lower weight.

 

[kye]

11 minutes ago, Django said:

I don't see the profesionnal photography market moving away significantly from Canon/Nikon and even less from DSLR to MILC just yet:

I definitely agree with you around the reluctance of the pro market to adopt new technology.

One thing that I have seen that MILCs offer that the pros would really value is a faster burst rate.  IIRC Tony Northrup was saying that they did a head-to-head at some kind of sports event with the A9 vs the top end Canon and Nikon and the A9 got 20fps vs the others that were both in the 10-12fps region.  My memory was that it was with full continuous autofocus.  I think if you don't have C-AF enabled then CaNikon are much closer to the A9.

I'm not sure what that kind of burst rate improvement is worth professionally, but it's definitely worth something.

[Robert Collins]

19 minutes ago, Django said:

I don't see the profesionnal photography market moving away significantly from Canon/Nikon and even less from DSLR to MILC just yet:

World Cup Moscow, June 2018.

Paris Fashion Week

 

Lens selection, OVF, weather sealing, battery life, off-sensor AF, grip, balance with big lens etc.. The DSLR still remains king.

It will take indeed at least another decade imo for MILCs to take over and I suspect it is still Canon/Nikon that will pave the way by adressing things like weather resistance, ergonomics etc.. giving pros a mirrorless DSLR experience.

Sony is more focused on enthusiasts & semi-pros by making the smallest, most compact advanced cameras which is what Japanese tech giant companies aspire to. 

But cramming the most features in the smallest body has it's limitations. Sony are well aware of all this and even somewhat admits to it:

Do you think we’ll see mostly mirrorless cameras at the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo?

Yes.

How many of those cameras do you want to be made by Sony?

Many! But the professional market is very conservative, so we’re taking it step by step. We saw some photographers using the Alpha 9 at this year’s winter Olympics but of course the majority was Canon and Nikon. But the number of Sony photographers is increasing.

There have been questions about the weather sealing of a7-series and a9 cameras. Is this something you want to address?

In really bad conditions, in really heavy rain, will photographers keep on taking pictures [for long periods of time?] I don’t think so. In those conditions, most photographers will use some kind of rain cover. But of course durability is very important. Photographers should be able to shoot [in poor weather]. We have an internal ‘weather test’ and for each kind of customer we will aim to produce products with adequate durability.

Is that something that your professional users are asking for?

Yes. But we need a balance between durability, and size and weight. For a professional camera, the requirement for durability is higher, but for hobbyist kinds of camera, the priority is smaller size and lower weight.

 

I sort of feel that pro photography will dramatically change over the next 10 years rather more than the equipment.

Those rugby scrum photos look kind of 2000s to me. How many of those photogs will have a job in 10 years? I just dont really see the need to pay 300 people to take exactly the same photo at 10 frames a second in a modern world.

 Most likely people will be taking stills from video at sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup.

[Cinegain]

Case in point from earlier mention:

 

[Django]

33 minutes ago, kye said:

I definitely agree with you around the reluctance of the pro market to adopt new technology.

 

I don't think it's so much a reluctance to adopt new technology, rather than proven new technology. Up until today, we've only really had Sony for FF mirrorless and although they have really pushed the envelope tech wise and should be saluted for that, they have also been plagued with issues like overheating, battery life, weather sealing, ergonomic issues etc. causing concern/doubt in the pro world (where a missed photo could be a missed paycheck).

26 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

I sort of feel that pro photography will dramatically change over the next 10 years rather more than the equipment.

Those rugby scrum photos look kind of 2000s to me. How many of those photogs will have a job in 10 years? I just dont really see the need to pay 300 people to take exactly the same photo at 10 frames a second in a modern world.

 Most likely people will be taking stills from video at sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup.

No. World Cup & Olympics aren't going anywhere and these are global events, which means global press which equates to hundreds photogs. As for stills from video taking over, not going to happen as well. You aren't going to have hundreds of video cameras pointed at all the field & off-field players from all angles at all times during multiple games overlapping each other.

Let's face it some things are here to stay. By following some of the logic i'm hearing, smartphones will have wiped out photo & video cameras by 2020.

[kye]

and they need to publish them pretty darn quickly..  this was an interesting video, and I've linked to the time when they mention publishing in under 1 minute from the photo: