M.I.L.C. Gap Filler or Disruptive Innovation ?

THE  MIRRORLESS  INTERCHANGEABLE  LENS  CAMERA  [MILC]

GAP  FILLER  OR  DISRUPTIVE  INNOVATION ?

By AndrewS  December 2011

Revised with postscript November 2012

The Panasonic Lumix G5 is a capable Micro 4/3 type MILC

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.

Excerpts from Wikipedia 2011, under  "Disruptive Innovation"

A ...... disruptive innovationis an innovation that helps create a new market  and value network and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology.
In contrast to disruptiveinnovation, a sustaining innovation does not create new markets or value networks but rather only evolves existing ones with better value, allowing the firms within to compete against each other's sustaining improvements.
Christensen and colleagues have shown .......... that good firms are usually aware of the innovations, but their business environment does not allow them to pursue them when they first arise, because they are not profitable enough at first and because their development can take scarce resources away from that of sustaining innovations (which are needed to compete against current competition). In Christensen's terms, a firm's existing value networks place insufficient value on the disruptive innovation to allow its pursuit by that firm. Meanwhile, upstart firms inhabit different value networks, at least until the day that their disruptive innovation is able to invade the older value network. At that time, the established firm in that network can at best only fend off the market share attack with a me-too entry, for which survival (not thriving) is the only reward.

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 2012
The 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.