Canikon Won't Eat Their Own Babies...so MILC's will

[Deleted member 17868]

Interestingly enough I just got the Christmas Gift Guide from Lens and Shutter - a big camera chain up here in Canada. Besides the Nikon 1 (a single page), no mirrorless cameras to be found in a 13x19 12 page guide. No Fuji, Oly, Lumix, Sony.
It isn't just CaNikon, it's the retailers. I'd be really interested in knowing if there is a markup difference (are entry level DSLRs more profitable?) or is it the thought that a CaNikon user will likely upgrade to a premium model and purchase more lenses than a mirrorless user.

Why won't retailers push these cameras?

 

[Deleted member 20897]

Interestingly enough I just got the Christmas Gift Guide from Lens and Shutter - a big camera chain up here in Canada. Besides the Nikon 1 (a single page), no mirrorless cameras to be found in a 13x19 12 page guide. No Fuji, Oly, Lumix, Sony.
It isn't just CaNikon, it's the retailers. I'd be really interested in knowing if there is a markup difference (are entry level DSLRs more profitable?) or is it the thought that a CaNikon user will likely upgrade to a premium model and purchase more lenses than a mirrorless user.

Why won't retailers push these cameras?

Retailers push what will make them money. While it is true that DSLR sales are declining, they are still selling well in comparison to mirrorless. While there is quite a nice selection of mirrorless at my local camera store (Midwest Photo Exchange), they still have a majority of their camera space to Nikon and Canon.

 

[Whtrbt7]

So Canon has the EOS M and Nikon has the 1. The main problem with them producing mirrorrless right now is the cost of producing units at the cost of cannibalizing their existing DSLR production lines. Mirrorless cameras are actually easier to produce since there are less parts than DSLRs. The thing that I feel Canon and Nikon are waiting for is to design a Mirrorless camera system cheap enough and good enough for a huge volume of buyers to purchase. I foolishly purchased the EOS M when it first came out expecting great things from an APS-C sensor inside of something the size of a point and shoot. The EF-M lenses were not bad but the sizes of the lenses for the size of the camera were just really ridiculous. It was even worse with my L lenses attached so the concept didn't make a whole lot of sense since they were trying to say "it's an MILC that you can bring anywhere because it's small and light enough". There were a LOT of buyers when the camera price was pretty much slashed in half to about $400 with lenses and a small flash. That's apparently the magic number for most consumers out there: $400 for a system. If the system is decently small, lightweight, and cheap as well as trendy, consumers will purchase it since it would be a "must-have" item. I just don't feel that Canon and Nikon have hit the sweet spot yet and I think they definitely haven't spent enough marketing dollars towards a Mirrorless system to make it a must have item. Right now, it seems like they are just pet projects until they can sink more marketing dollars into a system they believe in.

 

[Carbonman]

Interestingly enough I just got the Christmas Gift Guide from Lens and Shutter - a big camera chain up here in Canada. Besides the Nikon 1 (a single page), no mirrorless cameras to be found in a 13x19 12 page guide. No Fuji, Oly, Lumix, Sony.
It isn't just CaNikon, it's the retailers. I'd be really interested in knowing if there is a markup difference (are entry level DSLRs more profitable?) or is it the thought that a CaNikon user will likely upgrade to a premium model and purchase more lenses than a mirrorless user.

Why won't retailers push these cameras?

It's interesting that Lens & Shutter doesn't market M43 and similar products; I think it's a deliberate division of markets by Kerrisdale Cameras. KC owns L&S and has probably divided the market so medium format and FF are at L&S while Kerrisdale Cameras pushes FF and mirrorless cameras.

 

[tennjed]

It is not hard to understand the hesitancy, or mistakes, made by Canon or Nikon as they move forward. All you have to do is peruse the forums to gain a basic understanding of the fact that there is no one "photographer" and, as a result there can be no perfect form of camera...... Let alone specific camera model. On the forums you have a.) the competent pro/semi-pro who is familiar with the technology used in cameras, and is willing to share valuable information b.) The enthusiast (me,) who may be easily swayed by popular opinions c.) the die-hards, faithful to their brand/format, and search for any opportunity to bash all other comers. There is no consensus on what body style preferable or features most important. Making matters worse, there are no guideposts pertaining to what folks are willing to pay for quality. In business, it is preferable if your brand is perceived as a predominately "quality" brand, or a predominately "value" brand. Most camera manufacturers are all in the unfortunate position of having a customer base that demands the extremes of both. A tough position. Leica illustrates the advantages being known as strictly a quality brand. Back in the film days, Kodak benefited from their reputation as a value brand.

Imagine if Nikon, or Canon, instead of figuring out a way to construct an economical new mirror-less camera system, and again diving headlong into the world described in my first paragraph, came out with a version of the D750, or 6D, that included sensor based image stabilization the equal of Olympus'? I bet they wouldn't be able to manufacture them fast enough. Who knows, maybe they are considering it right now. What kind of a blow would that be to Olympus and the mirror-less world?

Nikon and Canon, despite recent antics, still have considerable brand recognition in the photo world. Don't count them out-.or sell those F lenses.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Thom Hogan more or less believes that Nikon/Canon will kick the other mirrorless makers out of the game, ...

interesting read. I took from this point

The pond is drying up for interchangeable lens cameras for a reason, and it doesn’t have to do with whether the camera has a mirror in it or not.

the same view that I've taken since the 00's : that there really isn't anything compelling around. Used cameras are being handed down the chain effectively for those on lower budgets (a used 20D from KEH for instance is dirt cheap) and so its only those who are "well heeled" or have a business reason to upgrade that are. If I accompany my mate out to Leyburn sprints a 20D with a USM 200 f2.8 will do just fine really.

I mean, eventually the market has to saturate ...

 

[OzRay]

Hi

interesting read. I took from this point

the same view that I've taken since the 00's : that there really isn't anything compelling around. Used cameras are being handed down the chain effectively for those on lower budgets (a used 20D from KEH for instance is dirt cheap) and so its only those who are "well heeled" or have a business reason to upgrade that are. If I accompany my mate out to Leyburn sprints a 20D with a USM 200 f2.8 will do just fine really.

I mean, eventually the market has to saturate ...

Yes, there will be a saturation point somewhere along the line and camera sales simply can't keep growing like mobile phones, as they aren't turned around in the same way (interesting that no camera company has tried to follow the mobile phone sales style, at least for the bodies, if not the lenses). But if, or when, Nikon/Canon enter the market to directly compete with Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Sony etc, will they capture the market as Hogan believes, or will it send a message that the others were right all along and they are ahead of the curve. Then again, the sheeple will always follow the marketing hype whether it's true or not.

 

[pellicle]

...Then again, the sheeple will always follow the marketing hype whether it's true or not.

sadly ...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Jonathan F/2]

Two weeks ago I was at a photo event with a few hundred photographers mostly in their 20s to early 30s. It was composed of a mainly urban crowd, but even then Nikon and Canon were the dominant brands, with a strong showing of film cameras and only a small handful of mirrorless shooters. I was a little surprised because I would think living in the big city I'd see more mirrorless adoption. I'm thinking mirrorless might be a bit too expensive for the average photographer at this point.

 

[broody]

If the Nikon Df and EOS M are any indication, Canon/Nikon are nowhere near as good at entering new product categories as TH believes them to be.