3 ms·

>Zeiss makes great lenses, but they are also available for Nikon and Canon. That's not true. Zeiss for Nikon/Canon is a manual-focus only line. They make total

by pedrocr 13y ago

>Zeiss makes great lenses, but they are also available for Nikon and Canon. That's not true. Zeiss for Nikon/Canon is a manual-focus only line. They make totally different autofocus lenses that are only available in alpha mount. And Sony also makes their own high-end lenses that are not Zeiss (their G line of Minolta heritage). >Canon and Nikon do make some mediocre lenses but they are all cheapies for cheap bodies. The top end is what will keep them in business. The only top-end that I know of that's really unique to them is tilt-shift lenses, and mirrorless can even take care of those by allowing for tilt-shift mounts for normal lenses in the mirror box space. For any other specialty lenses (telefocus mostly) mirrorless will allow for fully featured adapters. >The electronics companies are in a terrible position. The only people who will buy their bodies and lenses are cost-conscious hobbyists--a group that is rapidly shrinking. Industry statistics say otherwise. Mirrorless is the only growing category and Canon and Nikon are basically not in that market as both EOS-M and the Nikon 1 system have been flops. Nikon is especially in a tight spot because they depend on Sony for sensors. >You're never going to show up at an NFL game or press conference and see a bunch of Sony and Samsung systems. I wouldn't be so sure. Sony in particular has the ingredients to make that happen (good telephotos and fast bodies).

snowwrestler 13y ago
The AF "Zeiss" lenses are in fact Sony lenses with the Zeiss name on them. The reason only the manual Zeiss lenses are available for Nikon and Canon is that they are the only ones actually manufactured by Zeiss (i.e. the only ones discerning customers want). Mirrorless is like the netbook of digital photography. Over time, demanding photographers won't put up with the depth of field, EVF lag, and poor ergonomics, and casual hobbists won't put up with the size and inconvenience. Most of the mirrorless market will get eaten out from underneath by ever-improving point and shoots. The rest will get eaten by full-frame DSLRs--most of those customers will buy Nikon or Canon.
- pedrocr 13y ago
  >The reason only the manual Zeiss lenses are available for Nikon and Canon is that they are the only ones actually manufactured by Zeiss (i.e. the only ones discerning customers want). That's just bullshit. Your lens snobbery doesn't hold much water. Canon has never been known for its great lenses for example. >Over time, demanding photographers won't put up with the depth of field, EVF lag, and poor ergonomics The depth of field and ergonomics will be the same on an Alpha mirrorless as in a current Alpha. And demanding photographers are already saying that EVF is the future[1]. >Most of the mirrorless market will get eaten out from underneath by ever-improving point and shoots. The rest will get eaten by full-frame DSLRs--most of those customers will buy Nikon or Canon. Do you have any argument for this when the market is going in the exact opposite direction with mirrorless system eating up both those markets? You're just arguing what you'd like to happen but the market isn't cooperating with your worldview. [1] http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.pt/2013/05/i-think-writing-is-on-wall-future-is.html http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.pt/2013/05/i-think-writing-...
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Serious photographers are gear snobs; that's not my fault and getting mad at me won't change it. To the extent they are using mirrorless cameras, they are using them to complement their top-end DSLR systems, not replace them entirely. Thom Hogan among others has written about this extensively. EVFs have numerous shortcomings, and most of their advantages are already available on high-end DSLRs with live view technologies. EVF is not great, and not even your linked article says it's great. It's just something photographers have to live with to get the lower cost and smaller size of mirrorless cameras. As I've already said, I have no doubt the DSLR market share will shrink. Where we part ways is whether this means incumbents like Canon and Nikon are going to get put out of business by electronic companies like Sony and Samsung.
    - pedrocr 13y ago
      >To the extent they are using mirrorless cameras, they are using them to complement their top-end DSLR systems, not replace them entirely. Thom Hogan among others has written about this extensively. The example I gave was of a long-time professional photographer that now uses EVFs exclusively and says they are both the future and much better than traditional viewfinders. >EVFs have numerous shortcomings, and most of their advantages are already available on high-end DSLRs with live view technologies. EVF is not great, and not even your linked article says it's great. It's just something photographers have to live with to get the lower cost and smaller size of mirrorless cameras. The A77 and A99 are direct counterexamples to that. They cost the same as their competitors and have the same size. Those are the cameras in the example I linked so at least that one pro didn't go in looking for cheaper or smaller. >As I've already said, I have no doubt the DSLR market share will shrink. Where we part ways is whether this means incumbents like Canon and Nikon are going to get put out of business by electronic companies like Sony and Samsung. I don't think Canon and Nikon are going out of business, I just think this is the classic Innovator Dilemma situation where the new technology that is considered inferior ends up dominating. After all the current crop of companies are the result of the long evolution of the 35mm standard. Initially that was the low-end to take advantage of cheap movie film, no match for the medium and large format serious stuff... The same way Hasselblad is still in business but mostly irrelevant I fear Nikon and Canon will be that way in 20 years if they don't innovate along with the market.

by pedrocr 13y ago

snowwrestler 13y ago

The AF "Zeiss" lenses are in fact Sony lenses with the Zeiss name on them. The reason only the manual Zeiss lenses are available for Nikon and Canon is that they are the only ones actually manufactured by Zeiss (i.e. the only ones discerning customers want). Mirrorless is like the netbook of digital photography. Over time, demanding photographers won't put up with the depth of field, EVF lag, and poor ergonomics, and casual hobbists won't put up with the size and inconvenience. Most of the mirrorless market will get eaten out from underneath by ever-improving point and shoots. The rest will get eaten by full-frame DSLRs--most of those customers will buy Nikon or Canon.

pedrocr 13y ago
>The reason only the manual Zeiss lenses are available for Nikon and Canon is that they are the only ones actually manufactured by Zeiss (i.e. the only ones discerning customers want). That's just bullshit. Your lens snobbery doesn't hold much water. Canon has never been known for its great lenses for example. >Over time, demanding photographers won't put up with the depth of field, EVF lag, and poor ergonomics The depth of field and ergonomics will be the same on an Alpha mirrorless as in a current Alpha. And demanding photographers are already saying that EVF is the future[1]. >Most of the mirrorless market will get eaten out from underneath by ever-improving point and shoots. The rest will get eaten by full-frame DSLRs--most of those customers will buy Nikon or Canon. Do you have any argument for this when the market is going in the exact opposite direction with mirrorless system eating up both those markets? You're just arguing what you'd like to happen but the market isn't cooperating with your worldview. [1] http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.pt/2013/05/i-think-writing-is-on-wall-future-is.html http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.pt/2013/05/i-think-writing-...
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Serious photographers are gear snobs; that's not my fault and getting mad at me won't change it. To the extent they are using mirrorless cameras, they are using them to complement their top-end DSLR systems, not replace them entirely. Thom Hogan among others has written about this extensively. EVFs have numerous shortcomings, and most of their advantages are already available on high-end DSLRs with live view technologies. EVF is not great, and not even your linked article says it's great. It's just something photographers have to live with to get the lower cost and smaller size of mirrorless cameras. As I've already said, I have no doubt the DSLR market share will shrink. Where we part ways is whether this means incumbents like Canon and Nikon are going to get put out of business by electronic companies like Sony and Samsung.
  - pedrocr 13y ago
    >To the extent they are using mirrorless cameras, they are using them to complement their top-end DSLR systems, not replace them entirely. Thom Hogan among others has written about this extensively. The example I gave was of a long-time professional photographer that now uses EVFs exclusively and says they are both the future and much better than traditional viewfinders. >EVFs have numerous shortcomings, and most of their advantages are already available on high-end DSLRs with live view technologies. EVF is not great, and not even your linked article says it's great. It's just something photographers have to live with to get the lower cost and smaller size of mirrorless cameras. The A77 and A99 are direct counterexamples to that. They cost the same as their competitors and have the same size. Those are the cameras in the example I linked so at least that one pro didn't go in looking for cheaper or smaller. >As I've already said, I have no doubt the DSLR market share will shrink. Where we part ways is whether this means incumbents like Canon and Nikon are going to get put out of business by electronic companies like Sony and Samsung. I don't think Canon and Nikon are going out of business, I just think this is the classic Innovator Dilemma situation where the new technology that is considered inferior ends up dominating. After all the current crop of companies are the result of the long evolution of the 35mm standard. Initially that was the low-end to take advantage of cheap movie film, no match for the medium and large format serious stuff... The same way Hasselblad is still in business but mostly irrelevant I fear Nikon and Canon will be that way in 20 years if they don't innovate along with the market.