This article was originally published on the Digital Photography Review website in December 2011, in the section for user created articles, under my DPR user name axlotl.
It is a speculative opinion piece created to explore some issues not often discussed on photography blogs and websites.
Here is a brief excerpt from a recent interview with a Canon representative about the company's position on mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras: From Impressjapan magazine, via mirrorlessrumors.com dated 19 December 2011. Will you be releasing a mirrorless camera?
...... we are challenging ourselves to make DSLRs that are smaller, and compacts that have better image quality. So you have to ask if a mirrorless product is really necessary to fill the narrowing gap. Of course, we are more than capable of making a mirrorless camera, if we decide to.
Canon appears to believe
the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC)
is a "Gap Filler", something inbetween
compact and
DSLR.
In a recent edition of
the Australian magazine ProPhoto the editor, Paul Burrows commented
......" we've been seeing a steady dumbing down of CSC's, partly as a result of making them smaller and partly because the idea persists that snap- shooters really hanker after interchangeable lenses, but apparently little else of what comes with an entry level D-SLR". In the same magazine, Mr Burrows also wrote.
"There seems to have been quite a bit of confusion among the manufacturers - or more accurately, the marketers- of compact camera systems about who exactly is the target customer".I agree with this and would add
that in it's current form the MILC appears to be an answer without a clearly expressed question.
My perception is that there are, in the operational sense, two main types of camera user. The majority are
snapshooterswho are too busy enjoying life to bother about changing lenses or wondering what an f stop might be. Many of these people take photos with a phone cam. Some still like to use a compact camera. Some
use a DSLR
or MILC
set to one of the fully automatic modes.
The other camera user group is the
controllers. These people do like to change lenses, fiddle with shutter speeds, adjust f stops and experiment with all the interesting options available on an advanced camera.
So what does this mean for the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera ?
What follows is my reading of the situation, others will have their own views. In due course the market will decide.
The MILC may look like a "Gap Filler" right now.
But with further development it has the potential to become a genuinely disruptive innovation leading to real change in the market for interchangeable lens cameras.
So, which segments of the market are in line to be disrupted ?
Basically, all those with interchangeable lenses.
Medium format DSLR The larger the sensor, the
greater the
potential for size and weight reduction by removing the mirror box, prism, etc..
etc of a DSLR.
So I think that if some maker has enough courage to make the investment and if they get the product right, then mirrorless will become the preferred option for medium format, using a square sensor, live view monitor and touch screen controls for use on a tripod, which is the way these cameras are usually supported.
DSLR with full frame sensor, 43 mm diagonal Same argument as above. This type of camera would handle even better with a 36 x 36 mm sensor and electronic selection of
landscape/portrait framing, so there is no need to flip the body over for portrait framing. This would be a hand held camera for reasonably still subjects, requiring a high quality EVF and a sufficiency, but not a profusion,
of hard controls.
DSLR with 27-28 mm (diagonal) sensor Most DSLR's have a sensor this size.
At present the MILC offers some things not managed very well by the DSLR,
such as full time live view, the benefits of EVF and accurate contrast detect AF.
But most of them take away other things like predictive AF and the benefits of OVF.
The MILC can be smaller than a DSLR
but the size difference with lens mounted is not compelling and in any event, cameras which are too small usually suffer from compromised handling and control.
Compact I think that if
mirrorless ILC's continue their present attempts to compete with compacts, they will fail.
I think that when snapshooters get over the
newness of the MILC they will revert back to compacts or abandon cameras altogether in favour of phone cams.
Why ? Because, for any given box size (width x height x depth)
a compact with a fixed, collapsing zoom lens can have more zoom range or greater aperture or both, than a body with mounted interchangeable zoom lens and a smart phone trumps most cameras for compact size and "always ready" availability.
I believe the MILC has to tackle the DSLR
category
head on and win or become a lost cause.
In order to succeed in this task the MILC has to do
everything better than the DSLR.
Everything
means everything.
Image quality, operating speed,
responsiveness, EVF appearance and refresh rate, single frame AF,
predictive AF,
handling qualities, controls,
lens selection and more. To really disrupt the market all this has to be available to consumers at an attractive price point.
 |
| This is one of my wooden MILC mockups. The shape, size, handle design and UIM layout have all been designed by working directly with wooden pieces to provide an ergonomically eficient device with compact dimensions. This mockup's box size [Width x Height x Depth] is 605 cc which is actually smaller than the Panasonic G5 shown above [box size 722 cc] Yet the mockup has a larger handle and larger UIM's throughout. I would like to see the makers of MILC's use this camera body shape in preference to the mini DSLR shape for it's greater ergonomic efficiency and ease of holding, viewing and operating. |
Responding to the challenge To generate interest from the snapshooter crowd seeking better image quality than a phone cam, camera makers could make large sensor compacts with fixed zoom lenses. The Micro Four Thirds or Nikon CX size sensor could form the guts of a category killer advanced compact. Sony has already entered this arena with the RX100 compact, recently voted one of the best 50 inventions of 2012 by Time Magazine.
To keep the controller group happy and push DSLR's off center stage in the interchangeable lens market MILC's
need
to develop a multi tier product line.
At the bottom are the very compact ILC's without EVF, at the top there are pro style high performance cams with the ergonomics, capabilities and lenses required for professional use.
These have an ergonomic handle, thumb rest and control modules
for users who elect to operate the device with their hands. Oh........right.........that would be all of them........
Canon and Nikon will keep
selling boatloads of
DSLR's, in the process competing with each other within the envelope of sustaining innovation until the day someone delivers to the market an MILC which beats the DSLR at everything, for the same price or a bit less.
At that point the game will change forever.
The problem for the DSLR as a species is that it has
reached the end of it's evolutionary journey. DSLR's
can benefit from
sustaining innovation but the MILC brings the potential for
disruptive innovation. I think that if the makers of MILC's
bring their technology, ergonomics and marketing up to speed, they will prevail.
Postscript, November 2012The biggest disruptive innovation to hit the camera world turned out to be the phone cam which has encouraged snapshooters to abandon entry level compacts
en masse. I still think there is a role for advanced compacts, superzooms and similar cameras which offer features and/or performance not available from phone cams.
Canon finally released it's MILC in the form of the underwhelming, "me-too" EOS-M.
It looks and operates just like the many "no EVF"
ILC's from Panasonic, Olympus, Sony and Samsung, but
according to many reviews, focusses more slowly than any of them. Canon is promoting the EOS-M to the
customer who is urged
to
"Lose yourself in the moment, not the Manual. Be a PLAY- Fessional" whatever those words might mean.
From my perspective as a consumer it appears Canon still regards the MILC as a gap filler and is slow to fully embrace the MILC as a disruptive innovation.
 |
| This is my large mockup with box volume of 882 cc which is midway between the GH2 [808 cc] and GH3 [1014 cc] It would be suitable for professional use with handling characteristics similar to medium/large DSLR's but in a much more compact package. |
There has been some discussion on blogs and user forums recently about the camera market and in particular the rate at which MILC's are, or are not, encroaching on DSLR sales. It appears MILC sales have flatlined or even declined in 2012. One possible explanation for this might be the recent aggressive discounting of entry and lower mid level DSLR's.
For instance in a popular electronics discount store in Australia today you can buy a Nikon D5100 Twin Lens kit for $847 or Nikon D3100 Twin Lens kit for $746.
But the Olympus EM5 single Lens Kit is
$1396 and
Sony NEX6 Twin Lens Kit sells for $1498. To be fair the DSLR's
are superseded models and the MILC's are the latest and presumably best of the breed.
Do the customers care ? I don't know.
But I can see that it could be difficult for the sales staff to explain why the available mirrorless cams are more expensive than DSLR's with similar specification.
I have read opinions by people who appear to know about such things that a MILC should be less expensive to produce than a DSLR as it contains fewer parts. If that is true perhaps there will come a day when the price difference operates in favour of the MILC.