Foreshadowing the inevitable?

[The_Traveler]

The reason I use the SLR is that I have a better choice of focal lengths and under some circumstances (e.g., low light, extensive cropping) one does get noticeably better IQ with an SLR. I'm not familiar with 4/3, but I imagine there are circumstances where an SLR would do better, and there will always be some who will use an SLR at least sometimes.

I'm certain there probably are but rarely for me.

I want enough quality to do exactly what I want without the lack of IQ getting in the way and I'm willing to balance some tiny loss of IQ for the ease of carrying the stuff around.

I had an eye-opening experience in about 2008 when I bought a D700, a 24-70 and a 70-200 and compared those pictures to what I had been getting with a D200 and 18-200.

So, after my last trip when I schlepped two bodies, three lenses + stuff around all day, walking up to 10 miles in tropical heat, I knew I had to make another move and I would rather give up photography than give up the sparkling look at 100% crop one gets with good glass on a decent sensor.

After I took an EP 3 and a 20 1.7 as a walk-around on a trip to Italy, the clearness of the images and the surprising dynamic range, specifically how the highlights held made me think of the OMD.

Since virtually all of my photography is in uncontrolled, usually crappy, light, I had become used to overexposing a bit to get the eye shadows exposed and then pulling down the highlights in PPing. It was stunning to see that with the OMD, the exposures seems better, more controlled with less needed PPing.

My intent now is to get another OMD body. After two outings I am convinced that one can shoot all day with an omd with 12-35 and another with 35-100 and never be disappointed.

 

[The_Traveler]

A small but crucial issue.
One feature of mirror-less that was a huge seller for me was that one can see the effects of Exposure Compensation real time.
Since that is my most used feature besides the shutter button I welcomed that with joy.

 

[Derrel]

And April Makes Four | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

"For the fourth consecutive month, mirrorless shipments from camera makers in 2013 trailed shipments in 2012. The April 2013 number is 95.6% of the April 2012 number. That's an improvement from February and March, but to call mirrorless cameras a growth market is now clearly a misnomer. "

"The production number for mirrorless in April was only 58.7% of last year, while the production number for DSLRs was 102.5% of last year. In other words, the DSLR camera makers are still making cameras at the same volume as last year, while the mirrorless makers have cut back. "

" ...mirrorless cameras will not overtake DSLR sales any time in the near future. The initial high growth rate of mirrorless was a false one: the camera makers overzealously produced them when the demand wasn't really there. "

 

[amolitor]

I kind of feel like the manufacturers are being half hearted about marketing the mirrorless cameras. The Nikon 1, for instance. I am certainly not everyone in the world, but this sample size of one saw basically very little push from Nikon on this thing, and it's frankly an awesome piece of tech with some seriously great ideas in it.

This is normal, though.

There's a cash cow business somewhere, and it's well funded and has a lot of political pull inside the company. Whether they're acting consciously or not, this will create forces inside the company that try to destroy anything new or innovative. New ideas will be underfunded and undermarketed because the C-level officers are conservative and the powerful forces (the directors and VPs of the division that is Making All The Money) will push subtly or overtly for a conservative approach to testing the market demand for the new thing.

This, as often as not, results in there being little perceived demand for the new thing. So we go back to making the old thing, only even harder, because now we've proved that there's no market for the new thing.

See also: Kodak, film.

 

[The_Traveler]

I would guess that the initial surge of buys represents new buyers plus a significant proportion of those who are switching in whole or part from existing dslr users.
dSLR buys represent new users and those upgrading from an enormous user base.
As m4/3 images become more ubiquitous and identifiable and new - and old - users realize that they can get damn nice image quality and only sacrifice weight, cost and strutting around points, I think m 4/3 will grow.

And if not, doesn't bother me.

 

[Antithesis]

I like four-thirds and m4/3rds for landscape and street photography. For most of my work, I prefer the look of a narrow DoF which is pretty much impossible to achieve on a smaller sensor (without going macro). There also isn't a true 'professional' m4/3rds camera.