Strong shift from Dslr to mirrorless cameras in 2017 (Page 2): Makes sense since that was the path I followed. I do a lot of wildlife and bird photos and my arms and back got tired of...

rayr

Makes sense since that was the path I followed. I do a lot of wildlife and bird photos and my arms and back got tired of lugging around a Nikon D750 with a battery grip and 150-600 Tamron zoom lens. About this time last year, I did as much research as I thought I needed and bought the Olympus OMD EM1 Mark ll. I shoot it with the Panasonic 100-400 Lecia lens and I must say it is a joy to carry in the field and my back and arms appreciate it.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

rayr wrote:

Makes sense since that was the path I followed. I do a lot of wildlife and bird photos and my arms and back got tired of lugging around a Nikon D750 with a battery grip and 150-600 Tamron zoom lens. About this time last year, I did as much research as I thought I needed and bought the Olympus OMD EM1 Mark ll. I shoot it with the Panasonic 100-400 Lecia lens and I must say it is a joy to carry in the field and my back and arms appreciate it.

See Peterff...it’s not just me.

hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico

IHO, it is the Melennials demographic that are causing the dip in DSLR/mirrorless use;
They would rather have the convience of phone/camera/internet capabilities, over having
to lug around all the extra gear, as long as they can snap a 'good' image.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

JPL wrote:

Those camera manufacturers that are members of CIPA have delivered their sales reports for last year.
The total camera market is growing moderately at 3-4% last year. Dslr sales dropped around 10-11% while mirrorless grew about 30%.

So we know where the market is heading. If Nikon and Canon bring good mirrorless cameras to the market the speed of this switch will probably double.

I am sure the market appears to be going to smaller, lighter camera's. As for me, I am a wildlife photographer and for now no mirror less camera companies even make long fast telephoto's.
And in regards to that, my long lenses I hand hold, if I were to put my 500 f4 on a small mirror less camera it would not balance well with the small body. I even attach the vertical grip to the body in an effort to balance my long lenses with the body. For every thing else I believe mirror less has advantages. But for me, for now, it will remain large DSLR camera bodies.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

JPL wrote:

If Nikon and Canon bring good mirrorless cameras to the market the speed of this switch will probably double.

And if they don't get their act together and offer good mirrorless alternatives to Sony and Fuji, they'll be in trouble.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

billnikon wrote:

I am sure the market appears to be going to smalle... (show quote)

Is 600mm f4 (ff equiv) not long/fast enough?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Cdouthitt wrote:

See Peterff...it’s not just me.

Oh, I know it isn't just you , Clint, and trust me I have nothing against Olympus, Fuji, and so on. However, we can't discount smartphones from the overall market. We also need to rembember that UHH isn't representative of the overall market, it is a biased sample.

If it comes down to innovation there's are lot of it around and in times of transition it is very easy to draw apparently obvious conclusions that turn out to be wildly inaccurate.

There is definitely an upward trend towards mirrorless cameras and smaller sensors, but we have yet to see what the impact of full frame mirrorless will be and for whom. As setious photogtaphers - whatever that means - we live in interesting times.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

jerryc41 wrote:

And if they don't get their act together and offer good mirrorless alternatives to Sony and Fuji, they'll be in trouble.

Yes, however they are doing things, and established markets change considerably more slowly than many people think. However once a tipping point is reached things can happen very quickly. The question is when is that tipping point reached, and what influences the direction that things go in?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Cdouthitt wrote:

Is 600mm f4 (ff equiv) not long/fast enough?

Would it cover the low light aspects that many sports or wildlife photographer's want? So far we don't seem to be at that point, but there is also a lot of sensor and other technology innovation happening that may change the game.

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

The benefit is smaller and lighter. Every time I check out a smaller and lighter I come up empty because the first thing I look at is whether its shoots RAW or not and the answer is usually JPEG only.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Peterff wrote:

Would it cover the low light aspects that many sports or wildlife photographer's want? So far we don't seem to be at that point, but there is also a lot of sensor and other technology innovation happening that may change the game.

The low light performance may in fact come from more graceful handling of higher ISO settings.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

bobbennett wrote:

The benefit is smaller and lighter. Every time I check out a smaller and lighter I come up empty because the first thing I look at is whether its shoots RAW or not and the answer is usually JPEG only.

Where are you checking? Does Olympus not do "raw"?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

bobbennett wrote:

The benefit is smaller and lighter. Every time I check out a smaller and lighter I come up empty because the first thing I look at is whether its shoots RAW or not and the answer is usually JPEG only.

Are you sure about that?

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Peterff wrote:

Would it cover the low light aspects that many sports or wildlife photographer's want? So far we don't seem to be at that point, but there is also a lot of sensor and other technology innovation happening that may change the game.

I was asking BillNikon if 600mm f4 was long/fast enough...or 300mm f2 (ff equiv)...420mm f2.8 (ff Equiv)?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

rehess wrote:

The low light performance may in fact come from more graceful handling of higher ISO settings.

Yes, it may. Does that have anything to do with the mirrorless form factor or is it something else?