Nikon and Canon have both introduced mirrorless bodies using new mounts, and the industry is at a crossroads. The new lenses that were introduced lack any promise or justification for their existence, and are more expensive while offering less useful features than past generations.Most lenses introduced in the last few years have been a disappointment. While they are technically impressive, offering unprecedented focal lengths or apertures, they are getting drastically heavier and more expensive, while making serious compromises on usability and filter compatibility. At the same time, they are often missing basic features, like image stabilization or filter threads. This trend seems only to have worsened with the new mirrorless mounts.
Nikon’s Z line is a prime example, pun intended. For the launch of a new mount, they rolled out a few obligatory lenses including a 24-70 and a few primes. Instead of developing a more useful lens, like a telephoto lens native to the mount for launch, they focused development on a ridiculous 58mm f/0.95 vanity lens. It is rumored to cost $6,000, and is so unwieldy it comes with it’s own tripod foot. Besides trying to grab headlines, I can’t figure out who this lens is aimed at, particularly given the attributes of the existing Z bodies. High performance 50mm lenses, like the Zeiss Otus, already exist. Meanwhile, Nikon claims their existing 50mm Z mount lens “will redefine your notion” of what a 50mm lens can do. Do photographers really need two definitions of a standard lens on a mount that only has 4 or 5 lenses to begin with?
I don't think even NIkon knows which direction they want to go.
Canon’s RF mount isn’t any better, with the 28-70 f/2 lacking the wider angle capability of their EF lenses and any form of image stabilization, all for twice the price of their well regarded 24-70 f/2.8 II. The lens features an insane 95mm filter diameter, and weighs 1.3lbs more than it’s EF competition. This throws away any weight savings from the switch to mirrorless, and seems to be another example of a product made for a cool sounding headline, rather than a genuinely better user experience. What sort of performance could Canon have delivered if they stuck to F2.8? Could they have fit in an IS system? That omission seems particularly egregious given the EOS R lacks any built in stabilization. If they are worried about low light performance, a 24-70 f/2.8 II shooter can bring another 1.3lbs of f/1.8 prime lenses for the best of both worlds.
I would have loved to see some f/4 zooms that match professional standards, and some wicked sharp f1.8 primes. The classic 24-70 f/2.8 shouldn’t be regressing, and image stabilization should be included whenever possible. The new bodies are hopefully on the cutting edge of ISO performance, and emphasize the weight savings inherent in mirrorless, so what is this fetishization of unnecessarily wide apertures? The expanded electronic communication abilities of the new mounts also seem to be going to waste, as Nikon’s halo lens is manual focus only, despite the razor thin depth of field. Canon and Nikon instead seem to have aimed for the most expensive options at every turn, without a meaningful improvement in product capability.
These lenses seem to be trying to justify the new mounts’ existence. Instead of genuinely addressing a photographer’s needs, Nikon and Canon built lenses in search of a problem. Viewing the new lenses in combination with their bodies only further highlights the disjointed nature of the lineups. The Z6 and Z7 offer photographers a practical, collapsible 24-70 f/4 and a monstrous, multi-thousand dollar prime lens, with nothing in between. If, however, you're looking for a 50mm lens, the Nikon Z lineup is perfect, featuring 3 variations of a 50mm lens out of 12 total lenses announced.
1 of 3 50mm lenses for the Z mount
I'm not saying the only direction to go is smaller, lighter, and slower. I'd love to see some alternatives to the bigger, faster, but wildly expensive lenses that are in vogue; I understand that new ground has to be broken for marketing wins. I think my problem instead lies with the unclear direction that Nikon and Canon are taking with their new mirrorless efforts. While the road maps they've provided offer more information than they have provided in the past, I don't see their overarching purpose. Is the Z lineup supposed to push the limits of what cameras can do, as the 58mm Noct would indicate? Then why does it's autofocus performance lag competitors and even the D850 it supposedly equals? It lacks the same level of customization in controls already present on less expensive, older bodies like the D500.
While some would say, if you don't like it, don't buy it, the very existence of these new lines also threaten the viability of existing models. Looking at the number of lenses that Nikon or Canon are capable of designing and launching, when combined with their road maps for the new mounts means new lenses for existing mounts are unlikely. The situation is even worse for users of the duo's first mirrorless efforts, as Nikon CX is discontinued and Canon's EF-M has an unclear future.
Nikon and Canon should ground their new mounts in reality. Once they’ve rolled out a competent set of practical tools, go ahead and build some $3,000 vanity lenses, but not while you’re still missing anything with a focal length above 105mm. As both mounts heavily rely on legacy compatible adapters to create any sort of complete kit, did the Z and RF mounts really need to exist? Nikon fans already complain of missing lenses for the DX mount, and I feel there are still holes in the F mount line, like a high performance, lighter mid-range zoom. Canon is having to juggle development for EF-S, EF, RF, and EF-M, which leaves the future of each mount in question.
Given the lenses introduced and revealed on the roadmap so far, I don’t believe Nikon and Canon are headed in the right direction. With tightening camera sales figures, manufacturers need to make rational, deliberate choices more than ever before, and manage their resources wisely.
Lead image by Szabo Viktor
Canon & Nikon? #oldnews Fuji & Sony lead the way.
smh
I disagree completely with this article. I’m a full-time commercial photographer and Canon guy. I was really excited to see Canon’s initial lens offering for their FF mirrorless system. The 50 1.2 is being regarded as the GOAT 50 and the 28-70 f/2 is giving us the chance to have a 28/2, 35/2, 50/2, and 70/2 in one lens.... And man, 1.3 pounds?? I understand that when traveling or shooting for 12 hours in one day how a little weight savings can go a long way... but it’s 1.3 pounds more. That’s almost nothing. I hope they continue down this road of producing big, heavy, huge-aperture lenses for when that is practical, as well as developing small, light lenses for when that’s needed.
I have to agree here. I don't see the drama and also disagree with the article.
Canon is marketing with the best of both worlds in their mind - use the "old" EF lenses and slowly develop a new line of lenses and more bodies. What did you expect? a new camera mount with 10 new lenses straight out of the blue? give it some time. and if you're not happy with where it's going, change brands.
Plus, that weight thing is mostly for travel photographers. Any studio, landscape or portrait photographer is not looking worried how heavy the lens is. what they want is quality and quality goes hand-in-hand with heavyweight (more elements, more weight).
Ps. fuji shooter here after shooting years with Canons 5D III, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 50 F1.2, etc,.
I'm one of those that wants less weight as I work with travel photography and groups of tourists, so I clearly don't mind choosing weight over quality. But i do understand the marketing decisions from Canon for 2019.
Yep. There is no doubt as to what sort of photographer Canon had in mind with the new lenses. It also bodes well for where I think Canon is going with their yet to be introduced pro body.
But with that speculation comes expectations. Because Canon chose to delay a pro body, but introduce pro lenses, the body had better be up to those expectations.
Hahaha. Time will reveal just how grave a mistake it was for Sony to jump the gun with its now relatively small mount compared to what Nikon and Canon have at their fingertips. The Nikon 14-30mm f/4 is the tip of the iceberg, (82mm standard filters at 14mm full-frame? Yes please!) ...Canon has some utterly incredible glass coming up.
Sony will rue the day they decided they could fit a full-frame sensor into their NEX mount.
The Z6/7 and EOS R may not be triple crown winners right out of the gate, but they don't have to be. These "the sky is falling!" naysayers have been saying that Canon and Nikon are utterly doomed because of how fast Sony is going, but the reality is that Canon and Nikon have decades of experience designing cameras, and Sony is just figuring things out as they go along, which is why they need to rush each new generation out. So Canon and Nikon have plenty of time to completely switch their core customer base from their old mount systems to their new mounts.
Yes, Sony is going to remain a key player in the market, and they'll likely continue to take a bigger piece of the pie. But they're still going to wind up having the least-capable full-frame mirrorless system, in the end. It'll be a great mount for casual shooters and any pros who don't mind the restrictions on the mount size. But Canon and Nikon will be fine, and have a big advantage in a few more "exotic" respects.
i disagree with your vision on Sony. They are the market leaders when it comes to full frame mirrorless and they have years of experience ahead of the competition plus a good lens line-up so far. They will most likely drop their prices eventually as competition is getting bigger but i see them in no way falling behind nikon and canon. What i do see is Nikon and Canon upping their game to be on par with Sony in the mirrorless department.
No need to drop prices when they have more tech, more features, and more glass than the mirrorless competitors.
Not vouching for them or defending them, just stating fact.
With canikon going into the market, you've already seen a few brands dropping prices. Supply and demand says all brands will eventually drop prices as there is more competition.
But they already sell cheaper than the competition hence Sony prices staying stable for now even with multiple year old cameras.
Being objective about things, the majority of complaints centered around switching systems was that Sony lenses were expensive and now people are buying Canikon bodies for higher prices and being offered outrageously priced glass to start with. It’s crazy to buy the mirrorless options now until canikon give them more support.
agree to an extent. but also think all brands will be lowering prices in the next couple of years.
Sony is only the market leader because they had a 5-year head-start. We'll see where they stand in another 1-2 years. Maybe they'll stay the FF MILC market leader, maybe not.
Either way, that was not my point. My point was that Canon and Nikon's direction is just fine, if not superior to Sony's direction in at least a few ways.
It's always frustrating at first because they can only make so many new lenses at once. But it's pretty obvious that both Canon and Nikon have decided to achieve a balance of modest, everyday lenses and exotic, "look what our system is capable of" trophy lenses. I think the former is necessary to ensure sales right from the start, but the latter is also necessary to raise the eyes of those serious, specialized pros who might need more than what Sony's mount can offer. Or the people who just want a reason to say, "See, this is why I stuck with Canon/Nikon!" ...even if they never actually buy that $3K zoom that weighs two bricks.
"Sony is only the market leader because they had a 5-year head-start" .
drop the ONLY and you got it.
No, because the "ONLY" implies that if Canon and Nikon had started the RF and Z mounts 5 years ago, they'd likely still hold the #1 and maybe even the #2 market position for full-frame mirrorless sales. That's what the "ONLY" means.
"the ONLY implies that IF canon and nikon had started".... i don't comment on IFs... i comment on facts.
Sony is the mirrorless leader because they had the guts to invest in FF-Mirrorless ahead of everybody else. That's not an "ONLY" for me. that's merit and guts and they deserve to be where they are in the market. hat's off to Sony for venturing where not even the big leaders decided to go and for being the best FF option in the market when it comes to Mirrorless. well deserved.
"The big leaders" decided not to go there, because the mk1 and even mk2 bodies from Sony were utterly terrible in terms of build quality, durability, and Canon and Nikon did not see a threat yet. Of course they were likely already R&D-ing a FF MILC system 5+ years ago, because that's what "big leaders" do. But they also take their time and do the important things "right the first time", (like, the mount dimensions and protocols) ...and then progress from there.
I predict that in 1-2 more generations, Canon and maybe even Nikon will offer all the bells and whistles that Sony took so long to perfect.
Don't get me wrong, I hope this pushes Sony to get better and better with their currently superior things like Eye AF, because that's what's best for photographers. I just know that taking your time to get something right, not rushing to market, is what gets you the win in the long run, as long as you do get around to it soon enough. Canon and Nikon were indeed at risk of missing that deadline, and handing the win over to Sony, but I think that window has closed.
Sony is currently the mirrorless leader because they frantically put multiple generations of gear out there as rapidly as they could, because they knew that if Canon or Nikon had been ready sooner, they wouldn't have stood a chance. I know you don't like "if", but that's the true reality of what actually did, and what could have, transpired over the last 5 years.
Regarding the lowering of prices, BTW, I agree that full-frame sensors will become more affordable to mass-produce, that's what always happens with technology that starts off really expensive and then gets cheap. That's why we have $99 cell phones now that are almost as good as a $999 iPhone. Mass-production is amazing.
However, I think this will roughly affect the makers of full-frame cameras equally, of course. I can see a $999 full-frame body from Canon, Nikon, and Sony within the next 2 years. And at $999, I don't even think Sony will be able to put dual card slots or even IBIS in, it'll likely be a very bare-bones camera.
"Yes, Sony is going to remain a key player in the market, and they'll likely continue to take a bigger piece of the pie. But they're still going to wind up having the least-capable full-frame mirrorless system, in the end".
This is where i disagree. Misjudging sony's power on this market is naive to say the least.
I'm going to go the other way on this one. I think the path Nikon and Canon have taken make a lot of sense. Both seem to have focused on releasing a hand full of practical lenses, and a few bragging rights lenses. It seems to me that their intent is to put out a couple lenses which were not physically possible to create on their old systems in order to showcase the value of creating a new mount: it's a statement for both companies which says "this line is the future".
Both the Z series and R series appear to be really transition bodies - any of those cameras are a great complement to an already completed camera kit for each company, but maybe not your primary camera yet as I'd argue that neither are as capable as their DSLR counterparts (5D IV/D850). Despite the hate for the EOS R, let's use that as an example. If you shoot with a Canon 5D IV, the EOS R is could be one of the most effective secondary cameras you can get. It has the same sensor (similar processing/JPGs if mixing images with your 5D IV), takes the same battery (one charger needed), costs less than a 5D IV, weighs less than the 5D IV (or any other Canon full frame body) and performs equivalently with adapted EF lenses. In addition, having the EOS R as a backup lets you access some of the benefits of mirrorless when you're after that, and gives you access to lenses your 5D IV can't use. Anyone who buys an EOS R as a secondary body considering those benefits may be tempted to get RF native lenses for it as well, and then they've started the transition to the RF system. Having those weird specialty lenses makes that transition more attractive.
Also, having these sort of lenses allows both Canon and Nikon to stand out against Sony since the F mount's diameter will create engineering challenges to replicate those lenses. It seems like Nikon and Canon are banking on the fact that this new mount will give them options Sony can't provide, and that will help them compete into the future.
If you think of the R and Z series as primary professional cameras, then yes the current lens lineup is lacking for professional needs. If you think of the cameras as secondary cameras to their DSLR counterparts, then the lens roadmap makes a lot of sense as it convinces people to try out the new system without putting pressure on either company to release the entire lens lineup all at once.
Hi Andrew- I appreciate the response. You've put a lot of thought into it, and I appreciate that.
I agree that it's fine to have some bragging rights lenses, but I don't think they should have come at the cost of a competent kit to begin with. Does the 50 f/1.2 really have a place between the 50 f/.95 and 50 f/1.8? Does it have a place considering that could have been a much-needed telephoto? I don't think anyone in the photography community questions Nikon and Canon's ability to create lenses- this isn't Sigma rebooting their reputation with the Art line.
Taking your example of the bodies acting as a compliment only further illustrates how the lens lineup is lacking, and potentially will be for years to come. On the Canon side, will the EOS R really work as a light and inexpensive additional body, given the huge price and weight penalty associated with the 28-70? If you stick with the 24-105, why bother? It performs virtually the same as the EF mount version. Nikon is facing the same issue- unless you only shoot below 70mm, you have no native lens options for your new body, while autofocus issues will hamper performance of your adapted telephotos. As for lenses you wouldn't have access to, is the $5k outlay for an EOS R and 28-70 worth the 1 stop gain over the 24-70 many already own?
Despite the slight prestige "halo" conferred by these extreme lenses, I'm not sure Sony needs to replicate them. The 50 f/.95 is pure vanity, given the exorbitant price tag and manual focus limitations, while the 28-70 would have been better served by being a 24-70 2.8 with IS, having retained the important FoV on the wide end. These lenses seem to have been answers to engineering "dares", not actual photographer's needs.
I'm not sure how to treat the R and Z series- if they are professional cameras, they are missing essentials like telephoto lenses. If they are to win over users who would move to Sony or Fuji mirrorless, they are missing a rational set of lenses. A Z7 kit is $4k, and the EOS R is over $3k, just to duplicate body and standard zoom functionality- that is a pretty expensive and hollow proposition for anyone who wants to just "try out" the system.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my long-winded comment! A couple more points though:
I don't think anyone is looking at the 28-70 f/2 as a walk around lens - it's no doubt a specialty lens and made for crazy resolution - it indicates a future use. You're right, the 24-105 has similar performance to its EF counterpart, but I would argue that leaves little reason to fully switch to mirrorless. If Canon and Nikon had re-created the 2.8 trifecta with equivalent quality, why bother moving over? The R isn't ready to perform the full duties of a 5D IV (you could make the same argument of the Z7 vs D850), so even if you had the full 2.8 zoom lens lineup ready it wouldn't make sense to switch. With lenses you can't get for a 5D IV/D850, then the R/Z become more interesting, especially if you're not relying on the R/Z to deliver on all your photographic needs. Having new and interesting lenses is what gives people a taste of things to come.
Obviously it takes time to fill out a lens lineup, and putting out a few bread and butter lenses is necessary, but the speciality lenses excite people on possibilities and tell consumers "we're putting our efforts over here going forward". The core lenses are likely coming: Canon Rumors is suggesting up to 7 new RF lenses in 2019: RF 16-35mm f/2.8L (or similar), RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS (or similar), RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (or similar), RF 105mm f/1.4L, RF 85mm f/1.8 IS STM, RF Macro lens, RF non-L kit lens (https://www.canonrumors.com/as-many-as-7-new-rf-lenses-coming-in-2019-cr2/) - though it is a rumor so take that with a grain of salt. Until Canon releases a professional grade mirrorless, I'd suggest you don't need the trifecta yet - adapting is just as functional for current Canon users. Obviously not so for people moving to Canon, but I don't think the R is intended to draw people to Canon, I think it is aimed at retaining Canon users and gradually transitioning them to RF.
If the EOS R and Z6/7 were truly supposed to be considered professional grade cameras, then yes this lineup won't work because it has huge holes which are needed for a professional kit. The fact that none of these cameras have all the professional features found on their DSLR counterparts (i.e. 2 card slots, or perfected autofocus) indicate that they're not professional cameras when compared to DLSRs. As a backup and first step for transition to mirrorless though, they fit nicely.
Hi Andrew, interesting take on it.
I went into the mirroless launches expecting a roughly D750/D850/5D4 grade camera. Given the price point, and success of the A7 models, I was genuinely ready to switch over entirely from my D810, as I feel Nikon is signaling the slow death of the F-mount. Canon, as usual, seems to have the glass, with some weaknesses in the body (at least for high end use). Nikon has delivered a body that seems comparable to the D850, disregarding fast AF use, but would require me to keep most of my F mount glass just to fill in the gaps.
Given the very late (relative to Sony/Fuji) entrance into the market, and considering the design expertise, I expected a more well-rounded entry. At least on Nikon's side, I'd be worried that this will meet the same fate as CX, stifled by a lack of ecosystem support.
I have no problem with new and interesting lenses- the 24-70 is very appealing as a travel/landscape photographer, who is disappointed with the old 24-70's edge performance- but I can't justify an entirely new body for a slightly better mid-zoom. If they had a basic kit of lenses, even just throwing a Z mount and AF setup on the 70-200 f/4, I'd be very tempted to switch over.
I won't speak to Nikon since I'm not a Nikon shooter but Canon already has plenty of smaller slower quality glass that can be mounted with the available adapter. Canon needed to make a splash with some new glass in order to support their new system.
I think the comparisons to legacy lenses are the most dangerous for Canon- the 28-70 is a step back in a number of ways compared to the EF 24-70. With that in mind, why not get a 5D4 and 24-70 for less money, weight, and expense? The EOS R body doesn't offer anything convincing to side-grade.
Not bleak at all. The new lenses look great, and they are just the beginning.
Unless it's outdated, Alex's profile lists all Nikon gear and the specific lenses informs his gripe with the initial lens offerings. To each, their own.
Yeah, I shoot an entirely Nikon kit. I've used some Sony gear before, and enjoy it. This article came about when I was looking at switching kits- I wanted to go "all-in" on the Z or maybe switch to Canon, with the hopes of slimming down my kit and gaining some performance on focal lengths where I have weak lenses.
The more I looked at each, however, I realized I couldn't build a basic kit with native lenses for years to come. Both seemed to be missing some fundamental lenses, and I'd be right back at adapting F/EF lenses. If I'm doing that, I'd just stick with a D850/5D4.
I don't expect them to have 10 years worth of lenses at release, but at least give a path to a functional kit within a few years of release.
They have to switch in order to be in the hype : "look I have THE best mirrorless camera, I am then THE pro photographer' .
Just a big ego problem. But nowadays, we only look at the gear used by a photographer, not the final result, don't we ?
Their strategy is clear: they said the new mount would allow them to do wider apertures, so they're doing it. For everything else they assume you can buy an adapter and put the old lenses in.
Canon EF and EF-S lenses work 100% with the new RF mount and are improved with the control adapter.
So your argument as relates to Canon is hollow. They are showing what can be done. They have IBIS coming in the next generation of R bodies.
And their L lenses are wicked sharp .
This is a silly rant with no basis in truth regarding the Canon line.
Soo bad canon and nikon.. and yet they dominate sales.
The article suggests that Nikon and Canon can't do both, and that building their current stable of lenses and working on longer lenses are somehow mutually exclusive. A really silly article.
There are only so many R&D dollars to go around- so, yes, Nikon/Canon can’t develop as many lenses for the old mount and the new mount compared to just one mount.
That isn’t inherently a problem, as F/EF are very mature ecosystems.
It becomes a problem when photographers who would move wholly to mirrorless can’t, as the ecosystem is missing basics, like a native telephoto lens, at the expense of vanity lenses, like a 50 f/.95.
it is not a problem because there is an adapter to fit the very mature ecosystem you've just mentioned. this is the beginning of Canon in the mirrorless full frame market. no new product comes polished... just look at Sony's and Fuji's first cameras and lenses in the mirrorless field and compare to the ones we have access to today.
I get it, everyone hates the leaders on the block, whether it Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Canon, Nikon, etc. But how is it these multibillion dollar companies manage to be in business this long? No, their products are not perfect, but no man-made product is.I suggest starting your own company and produce products to the entire world, since everyone on the Internet has great ideas. IJS
Being a market leader shouldn’t insulate a business from criticism.
Looking just at photography companies, Kodak was a market leader for decades, and developed the first digital cameras. Their executive team stifled their transition to digital, confident in their position and legacy. Then they went bankrupt.
That’s a much more dramatic tale then some questionable lens choices, but illustrates the point that being on top doesn’t give a company the Midas touch.
I have to enthusiastically agree with another post that you and others feel they possess the competence and authority to decide what is profitable to Nikon AND know what users want AND to claim that "vanity" lenses necessarily displace the development of any "useful" lenses or products is naive and arrogant. What do you know?
The fact that CaNikSon are all now offering MILCs means the future looks very bright. Duh.
BTW, if the sample photos on dpreview are any indication, Canon's 50/1.2 and 28-70/2 are STUNNING.
7 years ago I told people "Mirrorless will be making big moves, just wait, Sony is going to make a serious splash, the a7 is huge move and going to pave a future for camera tech" - people said I was foolish, ignorant. Dslr's will be the only future.
5 years ago I told people "The A7R2 is one of the best cameras to drop since the release of the D700 back in 2007, this camera is the best camera now and will put Sony on the map" - People said its just a fad, Nikon and Canon are the only camera companies that matter, they will never compete. The next year they won camera of year and took 15% market share.
3 years ago I told people "Man, look at Sony go. An apsc with weather sealing, 5 axis stabilization, 4k video, 240 fps slow mo at 1080, 325 af points, in a compact body for $1300, they are taking over. Nikon and Canon are going to need to make Mirrorless full frames to compete or they will be left in the dust and Sony is going going to start taking over" - People said it was madness, sony have no lenses, no one will care to make lenses for them, without third party options, they are doomed to stiffle.
1 year ago I told people "And there it is. A7Riii is all around best full frame money can buy, Photo news outlets are bashing Nikon and Canon for having insufficient competition with their Mirrorless products, photo resources are clearly showing their bias in paid sponsorship of ads by trying to speak well of Canon/Nikon, and Sony now has a ton of third party options" - People now say "Tell me more about Mirrorless and Sony, I think Im going to make the switch, seems cool" and are dropping their DSLR's in droves.
Good luck to Nikon and Canon as they try to catch Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic in Innovation and value. They were to stubborn, just like Kodam to jump on tech advances sooner, and its going to take them a lot of money, effort and time to do anything close.
This what happens when you leave old excutives and shareholders in charge of companies for to long who are resistant to change. Any negetive article about Nikon and Canon right now just makes me chuckle. They honestly did it to themselves.
Get out of here with that truthful logic!
The saying "there is no pleasing everyone" surely apply. For example I would wish to have a DTZ converter for D-Nikkors. It is amazing to see how the opinions vary: some people rave about the new Canon lenses, others praise the S-Nikkors for being light. I think that the readers who pointed out the large scale planing and surely worked out detailed strategy for the future development are correct. Tom Hogan in his analysis calculate that Nikon/Canon have to sell about 20 million DSLR's to the estimated time point in which mirrorless will be on pair with DSLR's in terms of number of bodies. This balance of sales will be greatly dictated by the pricing. The point here is, that both Nikon and Canon have something to lose, whereas Sony failed to make a dent in the duopoly with their Minolta based system, and felt free to focus entirely on something else. And they made a good job.
Still, a full frame $2000 body plus lenses is only a niche proposition for everyone involved. Money is being made by "feeder" systems, and they are currently the DX/APS-C level bodies and consumer type lenses. My prediction is that once the full-frame rhetoric will get old, average people will grab smaller systems as their travel companions or casual photography tools. Majority will even stick to the ever better smartphone cameras. Another aspect is the "last camera syndrome" as described by Tom Hogan: Aging hobby photographers simply feel that the owned body is good enough, and will not seek a replacement. All such factors play a role in these exciting times of transition.
I do not know why to insist on always putting the problems and realities of Nikon together with Canon. Your opinion has a completely disjointed view when you put your thoughts, especially about Nikon.
First, Nikon has dedicated itself in this new format to launching more f / 1.8 lenses, smaller and cheaper than Canon. Alright the $ 6,000.00 lens is advertising, but so what. What changes in the reality of the format? Absolutely nothing.
You have forgotten that there are other companies manufacturing lenses and quality equivalent to Nikon and Canon. Can they make lenses smaller and cheaper, but with quality? Of course yes.
The story of the new montages just begins.
Another question: Will Canon introduce new cameras with their corporations stabilized? You can bet on that ...
Nikon and Canon release their first major mirrorless cameras within weeks of each other- that's bound to invite some comparisons.
What it changes is that $6k lens occupies R&D, production, and marketing resources that could have been dedicated to filling out the essentials. Without a native telephoto, photographers are stuck adapting F mount lenses, which has an AF penalty, and precludes full adoption of the Z mount.
That other companies are manufacturing quality lenses only makes it more galling that Nikon and Canon are failing to execute a thorough kit. Keeping the mount closed, and failing to introduce necessary lenses opens possibilities for their competition.
The funny thing is......everybody will fall for it, everybody will spend money that they do not have to get all these new bodies and lenses. And....some people will have stunning images too:-)
What new and astounding lens designs mean to me is that Nikon and Canon are serious about going mirrorless. They have created mirrorless camera lens departments and have actually had their best designers over there for at least a couple of years.
That effectively announces that DSLRs are on a path toward planned obsolescence, and they are indirectly acknowledging it.
That definitely seems to be the case. Nikon's "high water mark" for lens introductions seems to be about 6 a year. Given the roadmap, it looks like the next few years will be only Z mount lenses. This is a problem, since Z cameras are missing a full kit of lenses for the next few years, while F mount is stagnating.
Canon has now stated that they'll be concentrating on R mount lenses for the foreseeable future.
I don't think that's a problem--as long as they get a pro-level R mount camera out pretty soon. Frankly the EF line is adequate, and the people hungry for "newer, faster, and with Techron added" will be the mirrorless market anyway.
I also hope they're smart enough to actually port a lot of the current EF designs to R-mount QUICKLY rather than leave them on whatever update cycle they're on as EF lenses.
They've just released version III of the 70-200L zoom. Don't wait another three years to put out a new R-mount version, Just port the current damned 70-200L over to R right now. And the rest as well. Nobody wants to screw with adapters.
Let us all be honest.
Mirror-less cameras are a fad like vaping, flash-crowds and other social media inspired stupid ideas.
Were Leica cameras not mirror-less? Well yes Leica did made SLRs and DSLRs but the classic Leica is a mirror-less camera and an object of great desire. I know I've had a couple.
The press and internet hysteria (can I use that word if most are men?) that suggested the age of DSLRs was over will never happen (or certainly not yet). The sheer idea that I might trade-in my DSLR that can do anything for a Mirror-less camera that can do less with similar image qualities is risible. However I am quite happy to mop up a few little used top quality lenses freed up by this.
I do agree (apart from price) that a mirror-less with compatible lens mount might be useful as a second body for one or two particular tasks but there I stop.
Perhaps we should wait for the next world class event and see how many mirror-less are being used versus DSLRs?
Mirror-less, nice jewellery though
Saying mirrorless isn’t the future is the biggest denial of technology I’ve seen as a comment.
Canon and Nikon developed new mounts for a reason. The DSLR is dying and it’s Sony’s fault, Canikon’s problem to catch up.