So how long have we had to write about "the death of D-SRL " thing to make it actually happen?(updated)
Many camera forum experts suggesting Nikon should go FX mirrorles soon, or they must fail........many of them say something like below all the time.
"The writing is on the wall. Cost-cutting is a mantra with camera makers today and a big, complex prism and mirror assembly cost more than an EVF. They will all disappear. I'd be curious to see the relative costs of manufacturing of say a Nikon D810 and a Sony A7R2. The CEO of Sigma won't want to completely ruffle the feathers of Nikon or Canon who stubbornly resist the move to at least a credible line of mirrorless cameras so he's not going to come out and say, "reflex is dead" but it is going to be, as dead as plate film cameras became when 35mm roll film arrived."
Yeah the mirrorless fanatics are always aggressive and some times stupidly bellicose to any one does not share the same extremely positive view on their beloved so called Mirrorless that they believe to be some kind of real disruptive innovation of camera..........but really?
We always hear this kind of extreme mirrorless fanatic arguments in every camera related forum these days, but now I have to ask them how long have you been saying the same BS already? I think I was one of the very first of this kind to have said about it in 2011 as I got my first NEX5n, but has anything changed since then?
And why if it is so much cheaper to build a decent all around mirrorless camera like the A7R2 or the XT2 than a similarly performing D-SLR of their respective sensor class, then why these mirrorless at least decent ones are so much more expensive than the same class similarly specified D-SLRs?
The Nikon D810 costs only about 2100 US, the Sony A7R2 costs 3200 US or so still, if the EVF is so much cheaper than the decent quality OVF in the D810 class of cameras , then why is the Sony so much more expensive?
Are those Sony/ Olympus/Fuji fanatics do not feel cheated or shafted by those mirrorless makers they defend to death if, as they say, the EVF bodies are so much cheaper to build than the similar performing OVF bodies?
I used to think it is really cheap to build the so-called mirrorless when I was on my second NEX7, but the average price of the decent mirrorless cameras with a great EVF have never come down, actually it seems going up not down.
The NEX7, which was obviously designed for higher end APS-C market than the A6XXX bodies was much cheaper than the A6300 or the A6500, let alone the Fuji XT2 or the X-Pro2.
The Olympus EM1 was much cheaper than the EM1MK2, the Panasonic GH4 was much cheaper than its successor the GH5, and all of those m43 tiny sensor cameras are much more expensive than the Nikon D7200 , see my point?
At every level, the average price for a decent mirrroless body is increasing........every year and much less cost effective than a decent D-SLR like the D7200 is now.
Maybe it is the economy of scale but the mirrorless price seems never come down, and the average build quality of the so-called mirrorless cameras seem to be deteriorating rapidly, the NEX7 was the best built mirrorless besides the super expensive Panasonic GH5 and the oversized Samsung NX1 and it was really cheap back in 2012.
Since the NEX7 era, those mirrorless fanatics claiming the same coming total extinction of D-SLRs every month(if not every day), but the market share of the mirrorless is just not increasing at all, in fact, decreasing.
The market share of the mirrorless cameras peaked in late 2013 with about 28.4 percent(of the entire ILC market) after the first A7 launch, but after that it has been gradually decreasing, and strangely enough no big media talks about it.
I am not a D-SLR fan at all, in fact far from it. I have been a mirrorless shooter since the first NEX5 and always believed the current form of so-called mirrorless would take over up to almost 90 percent of the entire ILC camera market and having written about that more than 90 times since April, 2012, but in reality it has never happened(yet).
If any of those mirrrorless fanatics were right, by now every D-SLR should have been all dead, or at least should have become an irrelevant player(super nitche products like Leica M). But in reality, they still own about 74.2 percent of the entire ILC market.........this means the so called mirrorless makers have only 25.8 percent of the market share.
It is really deplorable.....pity!
So why are mirrorless cameras not selling well?
Well there are many reasons but I think the main reason is the price- most of mirrorless cameras do not seem to be a good value, they are way too expensive for what they can do especially as a whole system, and thay really do not look innovative or different enough to make those long time Canon or Nikon shooters with lots of CN glass / accessories to move to any of those so-called mirrorless systems......
Since Canon has owned about 55 percent of the entire ILC market since about 2015,until these mirrorless makers takes some of Canon's market they will never gain anything or even not make any money..
Now the sad reality is that none of these mirrorless makers are breaking even but reporting some big loss every year, even Sony is not profitable at all(the entire company seems to be profitable, though).
Contrary to the forum consensus Sony has lost about 5 percent of their market share since they fully moved to E mount main, when they reported their all time peak market share in the year end of 2012, they had about 14.1 percent of the market share. Now they have only about 11.2 percent of it. Fuji is about 6 percent or so. It is really pathetic.
Honestly, Sony has been a big loser in terms of sheer sells. They have invested more R& D money than any other player in this game, but they haven't got any profitable return from it yet.
Canon, on the other hand, has invested so little money and gained about 14 percent of the market share in just last year alone.
I think until Canon seriously decides to disrupt their own EF mount D-SLRs with their version of the Sony A7R or Fuji X-T2, the mirrorless market share always stays very small-kind of irrelevant. In 2012 when I had my second copy of Sony NEX7, I thought by now Sony would've already become no1 in this business, but it never happened...........
As we look at all the major mirrorless camera makers financial results, we must wonder why they are not doing really well, not gaining anything over Canon and Nikon.
Nikon hasn't done anything right in the last 4 years or so, and almost all their recent products have had an issue or two, or even recalled,but in terms of sheer market share and sells they are doing much better than any of these over-hyped mirrorless makers. Nikon's finanical issue at least their camera division is greatly exaggerated and at least still much more robust than any of the mirrorless players.
Now many people ask us why so many people actually GOING BACK to Nikon or Canon recently despite of the incessant silly claims from the mirrorless fanatic camera sites that mirrorless have gained much sells and almost completely killing the lazy two asleep camera giants- that is never happening..........
Well it is easy because the so-called mirrorless systems are all flawed and overpriced at best. They all have a few serious issues as a whole system and that is why many of those real working event pros going back to their old systems after having evaluated one or two so-called mirrorless systems for a month or so........many of them are not very rich to keep many camera systems for their work, and for work Nikon or Canon system is much more reliable with better support.
It is really as simple as that.
Anyway I tried to write about the current state of each of the 5 major mirrorless players below:
1>Sony: As many of our customers rightly pointed out, it is the most interesting one besides Panasonic right now. Honestly as a long time Sony system user(I've owned both A and E but mostly FF E mount stuffs now) with lots of E mount only lenses, I want to Sony to become the no1 dominant player in this business(other wise, I will lose too much money in transition). They have a lot of good things going for their system now. Sony has done many things actually right or at least interesting; trading their already established market share in D-SLRs for a similar MILC market share.
Since they thought the new MILC market would definitely be the future and quick to take over most part of the D-SLR market, but that never happened yet, and in the process Sony has lost some big money on their stills camera business, however, their big and powerful enough motion camera division and sensor division have made more than enough money to make up for it. So the entire Sony DI (digital imaging) group is reporting some profit but the stills business is not doing very well.
I think the so-called mirrroless would eventually eat the big part of the ILC market but not so soon because Sony and other mirrorless makers trying to shift themselves to only high-end market with an unreasonably steep price hike thrown in every iteration.
So they have a lot of issues in the short run, but in the longer run I am quite sure they are doing it right. The way Sony has integrated their excellent video and stills products really change the way low budget productions shoot their films. Also Sony is the only one FF camera manufacture to give us the choice of 3 different sensors in the same type of boring but solid A7X2 type body. While the A7X2 bodies are still not perfect, not as durable as the most powerful Panasonic or Samsung crop sensor bodies such as the GH5, the NX1, the A7R2 and A7M2 are both arguably already great cameras and in case of the A7R2 probably we can safely say it is a great camera, or at least the best all around FF camera ever made in this price range. The lens line is also becoming quite solid with high quality but compact Zeiss Batis line primes and Sony GM series zooms, they are quickly filling out the gap in their lens line and I would say maybe they do not have as many lenses as Canon or Nikon legacy mounts, but the average lens quality is much higher in Sony system since all Sony FE and E mount lenses are new designs without silly film-era-lens design stipulations.
So they might be the best positioned for the future, especially in the long run, however, they still have to execute on that future by carefully listening to their long time customers like us.
They must improve the A7X2 body quality further in the upcoming A7X3 series, or need to add a new more rugged pro grade system that can withstand freezing cold weather in a series of harsh winter mountain shooting sessions. They need to improve tethering capability with Capture One, but I am sure this one will be rectified very soon since Sony has been closely working with Phase One for this, and this is why we can get the C1 for Sony so cheap. Thanks for the Phase One-Sony deal, and I think this is the biggest pro of the Sony E and A system over Canon Nikon Fuji. After all, Capture One Pro is the best RAW developer.....
Another so-called Sony specific issue was that they just exhausted users by updating 3k bodies every 8 months or so, but this one also already fixed. The clear sign for it is the long life span the A7M2 has had and the A7R2 seems to have had. They will not be replaced by the end of this spring...So in case of the A7M2, it has had 3 years of life and it is a long time for any tech product.
As I said the second generation A7 series bodies are already very good, so unlike the first original series , they would not update these in a rush, and I think it is a good thing.
Sony haters always pan them for their terrible customer support especially repair quality and unreasonably expensive charges for that, but it is really improving and I must say it is now one of the best at least in Asia. They have the thoroughest most complete distribution channels in camera business, and they have the most service stations throughout Asia.
Nikon used to have the best service at least in Japan, but now both Sony and Canon have surpassed them in this department.
So Sony is getting better and quickly fixing all known bugs and issues at faster pace than any one else in this game.
However, in the even longer run,their extreme focus on expensive high end market will eventually force them to go the same path they went in the HiFi audio market..
2>Fuji: They also have reliability issue and more seriously they have RAW converter issue , it is really hard for any Windows user to find a decent quality RAWC for the X-T2 or X-T20. On top of that, the silly design over functionality kind of retro UI and ergonomics aren't every one's cup of tea..........
I always want to love a Fuji X something when it comes out and try it every time new X body comes out, but every time I end up hating the silly retro user interface and lack of DXO support.
Also, most of Fuji X bodies I tired had terribly bad battery life, actually they were all much worse than my A7X cameras in this regard. So I really want to love the X system, but I must admit it is an overpriced style over functionality kind of system and I do not like their cameras at least until they give us non-retoro body with normal Bayer or organic sensor choice.....I do not like the X-Trans at all, and I consider it worse than the latest generation m43 sensors used in the GH5, the EM1MK2, or the Pen F.
Their Kaizen policy may have led their poorly designed X system this far.
But like many of Ex-Xsystem users pointed out, they can no longer gain from just listening to their customer requests, as customers just think in terms of existing things, not possible new things. If they want to get more new users coming into their odd obscure X system, then they must become better at internal innovation that solves real user problems that their users do not even know how to solve, or they cannot even imagine having those problems in their existing Fuji cameras.
Personally, I think, if Fuji continues the silly retro-style over actual usability concept, they will eventually fail it miserably.
3>Canon EOS M mount: well what I can say? honestly the EOS M5 is a great body in real life, but its spec sheet is way behind the time for the suggested price, especially for Video market. It has no 4k, no 120p, no 422-10bit, no proper microphone jack, etc. And the sensor is , while it is a bit better than the poor Xtrans 24mp sensor, still way behind the current Sony 24mp chip in the latest Sony APS-C such as the A6500. But other than that, at least in real life practical use for stills, it is really surprisingly a good camera with very cheap, compact but sharp lenses.
The EF-M22mm f2 is a stellar lens really sharp for the price and even in absolute sense.
It beats the oversized Fuji XF23mm f1.4 hands down without the super annoying X-trans artifacts. The EF-M11-22 and 55-200 are both quite decent zooms too. The EF-M11-22 actually beats the expensive Fuji XF 10-24/4 in resolution and distortion control, and the Canon lens is about 4 times cheaper than the Fuji.
So while the EOS M5 is not on par with the very latest mirrorless APS-C cameras over 1k range in spec sheet comparison, it is actually a very cheap and decent performing system, especially if you already have some of good Canon EF or EF-S mount lenses. The adapter is cheap and it is made by Canon-not by any obscure lens maker or mount adapter maker unlike the Sigma EF-E adapter or the SpeedBooster crap, and therefore all native Canon EF , EF-S and EF-M lenses are 100 percent compatible with the EOS-M5.
That is why despite of many very negative views on this system from self-proclaimed armchair forum experts , the EOS M system is rapidly gaining its market share, it is just super economical and actually a very practical system. I personally like its very organized menu and highly sophisticated intuitive touch interface.
But I think for pro level FF mirrrorless system, Canon will definitely use the EF mount since going a totally new mount does not make the FF lenses much smaller or better.....so why should Canon give up the already completely electronic EF mount with the biggest lens catalog to date.
4>Olympus: As Thom says it is already a very matured system , maybe almost as matured as the Canon Nikon D-SLR duo...........and I think almost all bugs and quirks of the systems are already ironed out effectively, and almost all their products are now excellent.
But this clear sign of the system maturity means that they've already done almost everything they could conceive of for the system and nearing to the point where there they have no way to make significant improvement in every future iteration.
Or at least it is extremely difficult to get any extra out of the m43 sensor from now on, they are already getting very close to that point that they have once reached to in their Original 43 era in 2010 or so. Unless there is a big new sensor tech breakthrough they will eventually reach the point and will suffer from the hell of the small sensor IQ limit that they have set up for themselves.
Even if there is a big sensor tech breakthrough in the next 2 years time, that will also benefit the bigger sensor groups, too, and therefore the big IQ gap between the m43 vs the 35mm format will not become smaller.
Actually the excellent set of m43 primes can mitigate or even defy the m43 sensor limits........but that actually makes the m43 system much more expensive than a basic FF system with a set of moderately fast primes or f4 type of zooms.
And the faster you want to go with the system the bigger it gets and this basic optical logic also applies to m43 system. At this point m43 loses almost all its meaning and becomes as heavy and big as the bigger sensor rivals.
But if you can accept the obvious sensor size related IQ limits , then it is an excellent system.
It is the most well balanced system in many ways; it is very fast in both operation and AF speed, it is very practical with the super effective dust buster system, it is very tough and well sealed, and it can be very small with a set of light lenses(if you give up a couple of stops of light gathering power).
So IMHO, I really think Olympus should focus on developing moderately fast super sharp primes and zooms, not repeating the same mistake they made in their 43 era with the huge set of f2 zooms and f1.2 primes. They shouldn't try competing with so-called FF for DOF to DOF , but design more balanced system based around a set of super sharp f1.8 primes and f2.8-4 zooms for those who do not want or need the super shallow DOF or the extra light gathering power of the 35mm system at the big cost of huge back breaking size and weight.
Still even the sensor IQ limitations the m43 is a very interesting and very well balanced system for many many people who do not need the ultimate speed or thinnest DOF that the so-called 35mm FF plus a set of fast primes and f2.8 zooms provide...... For me if they can solve the sensor size related IQ issues, it's the best system for me. In other words, if they could make the sensor shift high resolution mode works for handheld work, I would definitely choose m43 over so-called FF or APS-C.
So to me it seems like a race between Sony makes the FE system fully functional without the many known FE system related quirks and bugs(with better more intuitive UI), vs m43 makes the high resolution mode works handheld or some amazing sensor tech breakthrough like the complete utilization of the Organic sensor for consumer market actually occurs.
IMHO, the point of sufficiency issue is really overlooked by many FF fans, but at some point a smaller sensor system- the APS-C or the m43 gets there for many of us and at that point many of us will ditch the so-called FF system, or at least some of us will find the smaller sensor format better balanced..
Personally I really really hate the term FF and I think we should use "35mm format" instead of FF. The FF sounds too arrogant and stupid....The sensor size is always relative to the other formats and the 35mm is not the biggest sensor format. So why do we have to call it FULL FRAME?
5>Panasonic: In my honest opinion, Panasonic has been the true tech innovation leader in ILC market after Samsung gave it up completely in 2015. It is really interesting how they've taken a shifty calculating tactic and made it really work for them: the most complete form of hybrid-ability. They have made over three dozen mirrorless cameras in eight years and they were the very first company to have actually materialized the current mirrorless concept, but almost no one talks about them for their stills aspects at all but solely for their incredible video integration in their stills cameras. So they basically succeeded in their tactful game-changing mission.
Now after the incredible GH3, GH4 and everything after that, the game has been changed successfully for them and now it is played by their set rules not by others.
So many hats off to Panasonic. But do not forget although most of people see the Panasonic flagship camera series the GH as the pure video flagship and if you do not care much about video, it is not for you, it is actually even as a pure stills camera probably the best m43 ever, and in terms of sheer functionality and speed it beats everything else in the market regardless of sensor format or body class.
I think Panasonic is unfairly underrated. Even the cheap G85 is incredibly good for the modest price and size, and also in absolute sense. It is blazingly fast, the AF is incredibly accurate, it can even beat the best D-SLR like the D500, the D5, the 1DX and the a99MK2 in lowlight AF department, it is really incredible. The GH5 is really extremely good, competing only with itself.
I really believe that Panasonic would actually dominate the mirrorless market if they were to design a GH5 FF for around 3000 USD price market. Even a FF version of the G85 may make them the no1 in this catergoy and only second to Canon in the entire ILC business. The GH is and the latest G are extremely reliable and extremely tough, built like a real tank to withstand heavy use out in the field, even in an extreme cold mountain or a frozen lake or even in the North Pole.
It is splash/dust/ freeze proof, freeze-proof down to -15-degrees in addition to splash / dust-proof construction. Like Panasonic themselves say this camera can go everywhere you can.
I think Panasonic should make a larger sensor version of the GH5 and the G85, with a high resolution square format 32 by 32 or at least 24.6 by 24.6 sensor, then I am sure they will be able to completely change the way this game will be played, and really reignite the sluggish stills camera industry.
So I guess I really want Panasonic to succeed in this game that may help them to design a second larger sensor version of their already excellent 43 system.
I mean if they come up with FF GH5 or G85 tomorrow with at aleast 5 lenses, I would sell all my Sony and Nikon so-called FF cameras......
As I write above there is no-even one- flawless camera system from any of mirrorless manufactures, however, if you pick up two or three of these above with two different sets of strengths, then it may be at least for you good enough systems even if you do have to own two different sets of lenses. I personally concluded although I really want to go only one brand kit for practicality reason, for now I at least need 2 brand kits and for me that seems like Panasonic or Olympus and Sony or maybe Canon.
The m43 and the Sony FE make a great combo and that can cover almost everything I do with my cameras........I find m43 the best suited for video, macro and light travel stuffs and probably for street, I think I use my Sony for more tripod based stuffs or high resolution required stuffs or when I need a good manual focus lens such as the new Voiklander 12mm f5.6 or 15mm f4.
Now, I just tried the new Voiklander 40mm f1.2 and it is incredibly good, I will definitely get this one for my A7R and A7R2, and this lens will instantly make my A7X system an indispensable camera system to me.
Just a couple of years ago, Sony E mount haters always made fun of the E mount system for its(then) very poor lens lineup. But now ironically enough, with some serious help from Coshina and Zeiss, Sony seems to have developed arguably one of the best lens line in the FF class in just a matter of a year or so and I think we have to give some serious credit to Sony for keeping it an open mount system unlike Canon and Nikon are trying very hard to shut all thirdparties out of their respective FF system at any cost. Nikon has sued Sigma for a several times already and they have lost a lot of money and customers over that.
Sony E mount has the widest range of digital optimized MF(manual focus) lenses and those people who find precise MF-ability more important to them than super fast C-AF will always choose the Sony FE system. I mean it is almost impossible to really precisely MF on your Nikon with their poor soft LV image quality..no focus peaking,etc. The Canon D-SLRs at least have very good LV and LV exposure simulation mode, but the Nikons including the latest D5600, the D500, the D5 do not have that. The LV speed of the latest Nikon is basically the same as the 7year old D7000, in fact, Nikon has made no progress in this area since the D600.
It is really pity and the Nikon D-SLRs-even the best ones are not comparable to any of the Sony A7X series cameras in this regard, let alone to the fastest mirrorless cameras like the XT2 or the GH5.
Having said all above points though, I must admit it's all about short term view of the business, and I must also admit my gut feeling tells me the final winner of the future camera market won't be any of these traditional camera companies, they have no vision for the future, and that is the real problem.
I think the final winner is something like the Light L16 with a bit better sensor tech and much more powerful internal processor. The future is computational camera not the so called mirrorless, we camera fanatics always see it from a traditional camera user's view point, and so we tend to overlook what is actually important to many of normal camera buyers.
The real biggest problem of the Japanese camera companies is that they do not listen to the young people: there are many young people who I know are actually interested in photography but find it too expensive for their meager income.....but the entire industry is trying to up the average camera price every iteration, so how they can get the young interested? Bieng young means usually not rich, many times poor.
And even before discussing about the price issue, we must realize that no current major camera companies have actually tried inventing new 21st century U.I. for the smartphone generation boys and girls, they've never made it always connected or programmable, so how can the smartphone generation people get interested in any of the old 20 century minded camera systems that forces them to buy many many lenses and accessories to do anything well.
The camera companies've just listened to the forum fanatics too much too long, and remember the fanatics are mostly old men in his 60s or 70s. Plus, the Japanese camera companies are all run by almost 70y/o men in expensive grey suits that does not understand the real needs of the young people........so they do not see why their products are unappealing to the young.
I am sure there are very extremely talented young engineers, and managers in these camera companies, but the old bosses do not let them do anything really interesting, the old bosses just force the young managers to share their dated 1990's idea of how cameras should be like.
I also know as a camera dealer, many young boys still interested in a serious camera, but not the system idea. I've found this out by interviewing 120 boys(younger than 25) who bought one of the major mirrorless or D-SLR mount system cameras from us and returned it. The top reason why they decided to return it was that they felt the system burden was just too much to keep on their shoulder.
They told us when they realized how many lenses they'd actually need to do all what they wanted to do with their camera, they decided to give it up. It was too expensive and too annoyingly space-taking, and that'd be a big burden on them as they were still very young and therefore they need more money for many things.
So the current trend of upping the prices of all cameras to make up for the lost unit sales will not work, actually it will kill the industry. Like Thom Hogan's latest article says it very well, I think the companies may not be dying but the old fashioned photography industry, especially the accessory makers, publishers, LCD protector makers, etc, are all dying with the idea of the 90s style of print based photography that always discussed at sites like Luminous Landscapes and DPR. So the only one real solution to the industry is to ignore the old fanatics and listen to the smartphone generation people.
UPDATE :I attended a few academic conferences in Osaka, Kobe and Kyoto. And I visited many many very crowded tourists venues there and I have come to realize the death of real camera thing is nothing but extremely exaggerated by those silly clickbait sites. There were many many people still using a REAL ILC camera along with their smartphones.
Then what is the problem I've found there?
Well there were a very few people using so-called mirrorless there , especially the high-end mirrorless cameras like theA7R/A7R2,theA7M2, the X-T2, the X-P2, etc. I saw many m43 cameras even the EM1MK2 and GH5, I also spotted many people with XT20, A6300, etc, but I never spotted any A7R2, A7M2, XT2,etc......even at the most crowded tourist places like Kinkaku-ji temple, Kobe Great earthquake museum, Kiyomizudera temple, etc.
And that makes me worry about the long term future of so-called Mirrorless, if Sony and Fuji actually going under before Nikon?
To be honest, there are many many Nikon shooters and of course Canon guys and girls, but no A7 or XT2 guys at all.
In my last academic conferences in Tokyo area, I found it the same, and in Bangkok and Korea I did not see any Fuji or Sony high-end mirrorless bodies at all.
And more worrying fact was that there were so many Chinese tourists there with big cameras, but none of them shooting a Sony or a Fuji, that makes me really nervous about the future of Sony.
Sony is investing a lot of money very quick into the FE system but the ship seems to be sinking. I think the stupid shill marketing and silly "mirrorless taking over the entire industry "hype generated by Fuji and Sony paid internet sites is not at all working for them , but maybe working against them.
The D800 boom in many camera fora made Nikon really damn stupid , but is Nikon the only one real victim of it?
UPDATE2: Many people including myself thought Nikon is dying, if not already dead by now, but in reality Nikon still sells many many more units than Sony and Nikon is now working on new type of sensor design and they may collaborate with Pentax and Olympus to set up a new sensor company. If this plays out well, then Sony will be the loser since they will have no one to sell their so-called Fullframe sensors any more. And as a result their highend camera prices will go up significantly.
And now Sony has just announced they've just decided to spin off their digital-imaging division(Sony DI) and now it is an independent business under Sony corp's supervision, just like their sensor group.....
This means now Sony imaging is not a part of Sony but their subsidiary, and therefore, to Sony device group, the imaging group is just a customer,nothing special, in fact,considering its size of market share in relation to that of Nikon, Sony imaging group is a lower class customer to the device group.
So there is no more reason for Sony device technology to keep the best sensor for in-house use-only. In fact now Sony device tech must compete with the new sensor company Nikon Olympus Ricoh have just established here and some European sensor designers such as CMOSIS, who makes the Leica SL sensor and M sensor.
And do not forget there is always Canon if Sony does not sell anything to Nikon.........Canon will start selling it and there will be Panasonic and Tower Jazz also........so Nikon will not have any problem choosing sensor suppliers any more.
Sony must sell their best sensors to Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax , or Sony will lose them, Sony cannot choose customers any more.
If Sony is smart, it will not compete with Nikon or Olympus in camera market. After all, Nikon is the biggest customer of Sony.....and Sony also buys steppers from Nikon anyway. So Sony is not dominating the sensor market, or controlling Nikon as many armchair experts in many camera fora think..........and the just announced Spun-off of their imaging division makes Sony camera business less trust-worthy........... Sony thinks every business as a short term investment and runs it to make it temporarily profitable and then spins it off.
After that? of course sells it to anyone willing to buy it.........like Sony did with the Vaio PC business, TV business, etc,etc.
That is why no one really trust Sony in the long run, we long term Sony users just use its cameras but always know it is a back-up plan or step-gap solution......
After all no serious camera buyers are as obtuse as many spec-chasers and review sites think they are. No one buys into a big expensive camera system just for an amazing set of features in a body or two...................there are many many more important aspects to a system camera than just a set of great features... I think Sony should try to be an Intel of camera.
After all, a good camera system requires a set of great glass and speed lite system and determination to support it.
If the body alone performance is everything then the A99MK2 is selling like hotcakes every where, but in reality no one takes that high risk.....because no one trusts Sony that much.
I think sometimes public perception of a manufacture is very important, and Sony needs serious effort to improve their brand image, just a couple of great bodies do not do all the bad name fix for them.
So now I am not very positive about the current form of mirrorless and strongly doubt any of these Sony, Fuji, m43,etc would survive......say more than 5 years....
It is basically the same boring tech used as in the D-SLR, nothing new or revolutionary at all.....and so I think Nikon still has some time left to figure the best way to do mirrorless out for the longer term future since none of the current mirrorless doing it right. In other words, if they ditch the F mount and go all electronic mount like the FE or EF but with a bit wider mount throat design , then they would have the best FF mount system in the market. But they must do it very quick and do it right at the very first try just like when they did it with the D3/D300 launch......back in 2007.
UPDATE: I think Nikon fans are getting really desperate(paranoid) as you can see it at Nikon Rumors and Photorumors sites.
They constantly bashing any Sony, Canon, Fuji, and m43 products, before that they used to bash Samsung too.
They usually say CanonNikon to put Canon and Nikon in the same class or league, but what they do not realize is that Canon has stated many times their rivals or what Canon considers its rivals are Fuji and Sony not Nikon, Canon does not even care about Nikon.
This is the reality that Nikon fans cannot see but everybody else sees clearly.
I went to Nagasaki in last week end and this week to cover their atomic bomb events and festival, and I have noticed clear sign of the ILC market trend might really be changing that I did not see many Nikons that I used to see at this kind of events and tourists venues( actually, Nikon was the dominant player at this event for many years, until maybe this year).
I saw many mirrorless cameras this time and this was my first time that I saw more mirrorless shooters than D-SLR guys. And the most worrisome trend I saw for the D-SLR community(especially for Nikon community) was that all those still shooting with a heavy ugly Nikon D-SLR seemed to be really old retired men....
Another seriously worrisome trend I saw for Nikon community was that all rich Chinese and Arab tourists had a Canon 5D4 or 1DX2, some with the A9...or even GFX50s or Hasselblad X1D( but no one rich was shooting Nikon).
I also met a several Sony A7X shooters some were shooting with a A7 original but ,to my surprise, most of them had A7R2 or A7S2.
Oh even more shocking change was that many many people had Panasonic GH5 or very expensive (for the sensor size) Olympus EM1MK2 with 40-140f2.8 pro zoom........and a few Chinese tourists I had some conversation with had a Olympus EM1MK2 kit plus Fuji GFX50s kit or Sony A7R2 plus Fuji XT20 or X-Pro2 kit.
But still Canon seemed to be the dominant player here by a huge margin.
And I think Nikon seems to have been the biggest loser here and it getting worse and worse for them since the young really feel the name Nikon as obscure as Konica-Minolta or Pentax.
Some local students I met told me that they do not know what Nikon is and to them good popular camera makers are Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Leica.
I was a bit surprised that they knew Leica and I was so happy to know that, however, they did not even know Nikon and its legend even though they were Japanese.
Now, Nikon is quickly becoming an old man brand here in Japan, and no young people do not even know the name of it any more.
Now I strongly believe Nikon is really dying.
