7DmkII or 70D?

[photo_chick]

I wrote this nice post this morning on the topic because I really want to hear from those who are a bit obsessed with specs like me. But it seems to have disappeared! So if it reappears, admin please delete the duplicate.

I've been out of the loop for the the better part of the last year. I haven't kept up with what the latest and greatest is. But I know some members here do. So I'm asking your opinion. Obsess over those specs with me. I'm torn between a 7DmkII and a 70D.

What I need.... a backup, alternate, crop body for my bag. A body to put in my husband's hands so I stop complaining when he uses his cell phone to shoot important events. A camera that's got solid video performance, since hubs is a video guy and our old Canon pro camcorder is about 10 or so years old now. I'm going crop for a second body because I have crop lenses I still love and want to use that are gathering dust since I sold my 50D. I am going Canon because I've got a 6D and a nice collection of glass I'm not willing to part with. I'd like solid ISO performance, up to 6400. It doesn't have to be outstanding because I have a 6D for that, but sometimes I want a second body that can easily handle lower lighting situations with the right lenses.

Things that aren't a huge issue for me.. .fast burst rate and a bazillion AF points.

I know which way I'm leaning, but I really want to hear other real world opinions and not just reviews. I have not had my hands on either of these yet. And what about the T6i? Am I missing something by overlooking it?

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

While I can't give you specs about either camera, I can tell you that two pros that I shoot with both have the 7d mkii and are absolutely in love with it. One shoots a lot of video in conjunction with stills and states he can't believe how superior it is compared to the original 7d. Both are motorsports photographers who shoot fast action in lowlight if that helps any.

 

[havoc315]

Long time no see. Hope you're well.
I can't think of many advantages of the 70d over the 7dii, other than a substantially lower price.
I'd also wait for some reviews on the newest Rebels.

 

[jec6613]

I'd look at the T6s (not a typo, the T6s) or 70D, and if I were in your shoes I'd be getting the 70D. You said it yourself, burst rate and AF points aren't important, but the 70D has the same control layout as your 6D. The 7D Mk II has a different pro-style control layout, multiple card slots, and so on. It will make you stop and think which camera is in your hand before you can use it, and that's something you'll want to avoid.

The 70D also nets you a rotating screen, better for video work. The 7D Mk II is good at video, but it's designed as a stills powerhouse.

If you had a 5D or 1D, I'd say get the 7D Mk II, but as you don't, I'd stick in the same family.

 

[photo_chick]

Good point about the controls. A different layout is not a big issue for me, but my husband picks up my gear and it would be an issue for him. This will be his camera more than mine.

Thanks for the heads up on the T6s. The Rebels do have a size advantage and that would be another justification to placate the husband. There are too many choices!

And thanks havoc. I'm good. Just been insanely busy but now that school is out I can breathe again and start planning the next WDW trip. It's only 3 years out now so I gotta get cracking. LOL

 

[elmoandzoey]

Funny that you posted this because I have been pondering the same thing since last week. My backup bit the bullet.... What appeals to me on the 70D is the wifi function and the flip-out screen. My current main is a 60D which will the become the backup. Of course if I buy another body, I want it to be better than the 60D (and as much as I love full frame, it is not in my budget right now as I have no ff capable lenses except the 50mm 1.8). I just don't know if the 7D II is worth the extra $$ over the 70D when it comes to picture quality. If it was, I'd gladly sacrifice the tilt screen and wifi for it.

 

[jec6613]

FYI: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...EOS-70D-versus-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II___895_977
A good spec-by-spec comparison. The 70D and 7D Mk II are much more similar than different. They even use the same sensor, although the 7D Mk II uses a better high ISO noise reducing algorithm.

 

[havoc315]

Truthfully...... I fully understand your reason to get a crop Canon dSLR.

But you want to know what has really changed in tech in the last 6-18 months..... I actually find it hard to recommend a traditional crop dSLR to most shooters, for most types of shooting. Especially for pre-dominant video. Personally, I switched to a Nikon D750, but I've been doing some pro work, and I do only stills (about 3 minutes of video in a whole year would be a lot using my dSLR).

For full frame shooting, one can certainly say that mirrorless isn't quite there -- the only options are the Sony A7 series, with lacking native lenses, inferior autofocus capabilities, etc.
But in terms of APS-C shooting, for people sticking to mid-quality lenses, mirrorless has really leap-frogged over traditional dSLR. The exception may be heavy duty sports and wildlife shooting where you might want premium long telephoto lenses, but as I said, for daily shooting with mid quality lenses... It's hard to think of many disadvantages of the Sony A6000, Fuji XT, and Samsung NX1 over a traditional crop dSLR. Particularly for video, the mirrorless cameras are simply better. And for still shooting, they really have caught up to dSLRs.

The most intriguing (but still untested and over-priced) bit of tech news, is the new Sony A7rii, which *might* essentially be a universal mount that can fully support Canon EF lenses, with fast autofocus and stabilization.

 

[jec6613]

I would think that one disadvantage would be that you'd have to purchase all new lenses, where a crop DSLR will work with full frame and crop lenses (EF and EF-S in Canon, FX and DX in Nikon), and all of the lenses you already own. Also, as a kit, a lightweight Rebel or a D5x00/D3x00versus a Fuji XT or Sony A6000, when you add in lenses and batteries, ends up weighing pretty much the same (mirrorless means more battery weight). Oh, and the control layout and other accessories can be the same between your FF and crop bodies, so you don't have two chargers, two sets of cables, et cetera.

On the video side, for continuous video AF, Canon is pretty much on par with the mirrorless camp when you use their STM lenses, and unlike Nikon they have powered apertures during movie recording on all bodies, while Nikon only has it on the D750 on up (unless you use E lenses). As for why crop video vs full frame video, it's simple: Super 35 24.89x18.66 mm, which is very close to an APS-C crop sensor size.

Another choice of course is an EOS M3 camera, but as that's not available in the US it's not really an option. If Nikon had come out with something like the EOS M and shipped it with an F mount adapter, they could have just shut up and taken my money right then and there.

 

[mom2rtk]

I would think that one disadvantage would be that you'd have to purchase all new lenses, where a crop DSLR will work with full frame and crop lenses (EF and EF-S in Canon, FX and DX in Nikon), and all of the lenses you already own.

OP used to shoot a Canon crop sensor and said she already had some glass to use.

I know I shoot Canon full frame now and could absolutely see myself going through this same decision process in a year or two. I have several EF-S lenses I love so much I couldn't bring myself to sell them. So adding a new Canon crop sensor would be a logical next step for me.

Danielle, I think @WilsonFlyer has a 6D and maybe a 70D. I think he loves the combo. I hope he chimes in here for you.

 

[havoc315]

I would think that one disadvantage would be that you'd have to purchase all new lenses, where a crop DSLR will work with full frame and crop lenses (EF and EF-S in Canon, FX and DX in Nikon), and all of the lenses you already own. Also, as a kit, a lightweight Rebel or a D5x00/D3x00versus a Fuji XT or Sony A6000, when you add in lenses and batteries, ends up weighing pretty much the same (mirrorless means more battery weight). Oh, and the control layout and other accessories can be the same between your FF and crop bodies, so you don't have two chargers, two sets of cables, et cetera.

On the video side, for continuous video AF, Canon is pretty much on par with the mirrorless camp when you use their STM lenses, and unlike Nikon they have powered apertures during movie recording on all bodies, while Nikon only has it on the D750 on up (unless you use E lenses). As for why crop video vs full frame video, it's simple: Super 35 24.89x18.66 mm, which is very close to an APS-C crop sensor size.

Another choice of course is an EOS M3 camera, but as that's not available in the US it's not really an option. If Nikon had come out with something like the EOS M and shipped it with an F mount adapter, they could have just shut up and taken my money right then and there.

All true --- I meant no disadvantage for someone who isn't already invested into a system.

You are further correct that the size savings is not necessarily significant. Though it depends on the body and lens choices. The smaller possible mirrorless combos tend to still be significantly smaller than the possible dSLR combinations.
But that misses the point -- 2-5 years ago, the only real advantage of mirrorless was size. Now, the newest mirrorless have a ton of advantages over dSLR, beyond just potential size:
-Even compared to STM lenses, mirrorless offer better video. Including the ability to use the viewfinder during video, which can be huge on a bright day or to add additional stabilization.
-Even compared to STM lenses, mirrorless offer a superior live view.
-The NX1 shoots at 15fps, much faster than the similarly priced 7dii. The Sony A6000 shoots slightly faster, at 11 fps, at a fraction of the price.
-In good light, the newest mirrorless have AF that can surpass traditional dSLRs -- particularly wider coverage across the frame and better tracking, plus greater accuracy. Though they struggle a bit in lesser light.
-EVF has gotten to the point where it is better than OVF for most purposes, except for tracking action and battery drain. Though it may take some "getting used to."
-Truthfully, the Sony and Samsung sensors are better performers than the Canon crop sensors.

Outside of lens selection, possible past investment, and battery life, it's hard to think of any advantages of a crop dSLR over a crop mirrorless anymore.

The EOS M is still a generation behind the leading mirrorless. No EVF. Performance that lags the competition while being priced higher than the competition. And not even released in the USA market -- Canon is kinda offering the product to Canon loyalists who really really want a Canon mirrorless option, but they aren't exactly trying to position it for long term success. They are acting like they are afraid of undercutting their traditional dSLR market base.
At the same time, there is some scuttlebut of Canon users considering the Sony A7rii, as they might be able to get full use of their lenses on the system.

 

[photo_chick]

Yeah... new lenses are a non-issue. I've got EF-S lenses and a good stash of EF glass as well as some L series pretties in my bag. I've been shooting Canon EOS since the 90's so I've had a lot of time to collect toys. In fact, having a few EF-S lenses I love is the reason I still want a crop. There's just a different look in the subtitles of some of them that I love. I also keep coming back to size. It wasn't a huge issue when I first started this search. And now, looking at the new Rebels a little closer, it's becoming a bigger issue. I still own a Rebel XT (I will never part with it)and still occasionally take it out with the old 18-55 or a wide prime to have a small, light camera. It'd be nice to have that capability in an updated body.

Let me claify... this is not for predominately video shooting, video is just for the first time a major consideration for me. I actually have used my 6D for some serious video work and it's great on a tripod with a more static setup. We used it for a series of web videos not too long ago. But I want more auto focus flexibility for on the go family videos.

mom2rtk... I'll keep an eye out for a response from WilsonFlyer.

To the specs... the old 7D, the 60D, and some of the Rebels shared a nearly identical sensor except for a feature for video... the 7D had a slight improvement to it's sensor that helped with video. Does anyone know if the 7DmkII has this advantage?

I will also not go EVF. I have a DSLR because I want real TTL viewing. EFV kills that. I know it has it's advantages, it's just not the way to go for me.

Thanks for all the responses. I knew this was the place to bounce some ideas and get some more updated info from! You guys are the best!

 

[havoc315]

I will also not go EVF. I have a DSLR because I want real TTL viewing. EFV kills that. I know it has it's advantages, it's just not the way to go for me.

I suspect in just a few years..... OVFs will be like physical smart phone keypads... like record players... VHS tapes... typewriters...
Truthfully, with the newest EVFs, you don't even realize it isn't an optical view most of the time, except when you start actually using its advantages.

It's primarily sentimentality holding on toe preferences for OVF. Not that there is anything wrong with personal subjective sentimentality. But outside of when I need to track action at a high FPS rate, I miss the EVF. I would guess that in 5 years, there will be few remaining OVF cameras, if any. Imagine you could take your 6d/7dii body, all the same features, all the same performance except for the following improvement: Full time phase detect AF in live view and video, using viewfinder for video, more accurate autofocus, wider autofocus coverage, cheaper, elimination of mirror vibrations, faster shooting speeds, a larger viewfinder, focus peeking and magnification in the viewfinder, ability to view and control all settings without removing your eye from the viewfinder, the ability to chimp your shots in the viewfinder immediately after taking them, the ability to view the histogram in the viewfinder as you compose the shot, etc. etc...

Combine that, with a generation of buyers who have been raised on "screens"..

I think the demand for OVFs will dry up pretty quickly. It will happen suddenly, if and when Canon and Nikon offer serious EVF options.

But which would you take: Canon 6d- OVF, identical to the current Canon 6D. Or Canon 6d-EVF -- 20% cheaper than the 6D-OVF, with no mirror vibrations, with 8 fps, with full time live view phase detect AF, faster AF with superior tracking, etc, etc, etc.

 

[SkaGoat]

They even use the same sensor, although the 7D Mk II uses a better high ISO noise reducing algorithm.

They use similar sensors, not the same sensors (clearest give away is they're different physical dimensions).

Some of the better IQ can be attribute to the 7D Mk II has a newer version of Canon's Dual Pixel AF (DPAF) tech, as well as dual Digic 6 processors (vs. a single Digic 5+ in 70D).


If I was in your shoes, I'd get the 70D, it's better for video, and is a little lighter, if you say high burst rate, and a billion AF points aren't important to you, then why pay for them.

But also there are only $500 separating them in price.

You get a flippy touch screen, WiFi with the 70D.

With the 7D Mk II
You get slightly better IQ, higher burst, more AF points, much better focus tracking, GPS, tougher construction, higher max ISO, better light meter, higher capacity battery, Digic 6 processor, 1080P/60 FPS video mode.

So you get a lot for your $500, now that I look at it, I'd probably go for 7D Mk II... but my current camera is a 7D.

 

[bob100]

I

Another choice of course is an EOS M3 camera, but as that's not available in the US it's not really an option. If Nikon had come out with something like the EOS M and shipped it with an F mount adapter, they could have just shut up and taken my money right then and there.

yes, Canon not selling their latest mirrorless models (M2, M3) in the US seems short sighted and strategically wrong.

But I really like the original mirrorless Canon M which you can still buy in the US. It's lightweight, fits in a shirt pocket and takes all the non-M lens with a small adapter. it's literally pocket size and only $250 with the 22mm pancake lens.

The mirrorless M is now my walking around event camera, I still use a DSLR for sports and other things but I can see a future with mirrorless

some photos with the Canon M1
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless/

 

[havoc315]

yes, Canon not selling their latest mirrorless models (M2, M3) in the US seems short sighted and strategically wrong.

But I really like the original mirrorless Canon M which you can still buy in the US. It's lightweight, fits in a shirt pocket and takes all the non-M lens with a small adapter. it's literally pocket size and only $250 with the 22mm pancake lens.

The mirrorless M is now my walking around event camera, I still use a DSLR for sports and other things but I can see a future with mirrorless

some photos with the Canon M1
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless/

Imagine if Canon took mirrorless seriously...

Fact is, camera market is shrinking at all levels. And switching to mirrorless honestly won't do much to change the losses. Reports are mixed on whether Sony market share is actually growing, and they have a monopoly on full frame mirrorless ILC. But ordinary consumers are still reluctant to spend $1000+ on a camera, and enthusiasts are already invested in an existing system, and reluctant to change.

But a camera like the a6000 has been a best seller continuously.

While mirrorless won't save camera sales, they simply make sense once the tech is fully mature, -especially- if fully compatible with existing lens systems.
The reflex mirror is a archaic solution to a problem that no longer exists -- the ability to get a ttl view. Evf/lcd may be electronic, but it is ttl.
The biggest true technological drawback of mirrorless was very slow contrast detect af systems, especially in a camera like the m1.

But once af is even faster than a dslr -- with wider coverage and greater accuracy, then there are almost no disadvantages of a mirrorless camera. I suspect my Nikon d750 will be my last traditional dslr. At most, maybe 1 more generation in 2-4 years. But after that, I doubt the camera makers will be continuing many, if any, traditional dslrs.

Right now, dslrs outsell mirrorless 2:1. One could think that change is a long way off. But I expect a very fast change once Canon/Nikon introduce a serious product. If Canon or Nikon introduced the Samsung Nx1 or Sony a7rii, it would quickly become a dominant product.

 

[jec6613]

But a camera like the a6000 has been a best seller continuously.

It's not. It's not even close to a best seller. Worldwide, Nikon shipped more D3300 and D5500 cameras year to date than the entire mirrorless market put together, according to CIPA. Canon is even bigger, and in North America, the numbers are skewed even more towards DSLRs. Among mirrorless cameras, it's a hot commodity, but in the scheme of ILCs, it's peanuts. QVC alone sells more of a single SKU of DSLR than the a6000 has sold worldwide in the same period.

I'll post a longer reply later, but suffice it to say: I like mirrorless a lot, but a full DSLR replacement it is not, and may never be (and I'll back it up).

 

[havoc315]

It's not. It's not even close to a best seller. Worldwide, Nikon shipped more D3300 and D5500 cameras year to date than the entire mirrorless market put together, according to CIPA. Canon is even bigger, and in North America, the numbers are skewed even more towards DSLRs. Among mirrorless cameras, it's a hot commodity, but in the scheme of ILCs, it's peanuts. QVC alone sells more of a single SKU of DSLR than the a6000 has sold worldwide in the same period.

I'll post a longer reply later, but suffice it to say: I like mirrorless a lot, but a full DSLR replacement it is not, and may never be (and I'll back it up).

Never seen individual breakdown by models. As I said, dSLRs *currently* outsell mirrorless by 2:1, but that's without the big players even having any major mirrorless models.

The closest I can get to objective USA data, is Amazon sales rankings:
In Camera & Photo, the A6000 is ranked #198
The D3300 is ranked #80. The D5500 is ranked is #1140.

So the A6000 is selling pretty close to the D3300 and way ahead of the D5500...

Another good measure of camera popularity is flickr..

The A6000 has 977 users on flickr just yesterday.
The Nikon D3300 has 579 users yesterday. The D5500 has 99 users yesterday (newer camera). The D750, my camera, had 977 users yesterday..

So on flickr, the A6000 is more popular than the D3300 and about as popular as the D750.

So not talking about all mirrorless versus all dSLRs. But the A6000 is a model that has taken off, and is as popular as currently dSLRs.

So not sure what imaginary sales figures you have for the A6000, but please post a source if you have one.

Now, TECHNOLOGICALLY, can a mirrorless replace dSLR? The answer is absolutely yes!!! It's like asking whether a computer and printer can ever replace a typewriter. A mirrorless can do EVERYTHING that a dSLR can do, or at least is very very quickly approaching that point.

What are the advantages of dSLR?
Some people prefer bigger bodies? Well, you can build a mirrorless with a bigger body, and we are starting to see it. (The A7 series are not small cameras, the NX1 is the same size as many dSLRs).
Better lens selection? That's just maturity, not a technological limitation. And mirrorless cameras are gaining the ability to fully support every lens out there (see the A7rii). So cross lens limitations off the list
Auto focus capabilities? That was true 2 years ago... maybe even 1 year ago. But we are getting to the point where mirrorless cameras are surpassing dSLRs in terms of total AF capability.

It really is like asking whether computers will replace typewriters. While some people may have some subjective preference for the clickety clack of typewriters, computers were destined to replace them.

It won't happen tomorrow. Mirrorless will just inch along, closing the gap super super slowly at the current pace of change. But I suspect eventually one of the 2 big players will introduce a SERIOUS mirrorless model, and that will cause a major shift.

If you had 2 cameras next to each other, exact same camera body (except the mirrorless version has a bigger and brighter viewfinder), exact same lens selection, but the mirrorless had superior image quality (no mirror slap vibration affecting IQ), the mirrorless was cheaper (cheaper to produce without expensive mirror mechanism), faster frame rate, better AF, bigger viewfinder, better live view, better video, longer durability (the A7rii is rated to 500,000 clicks), which camera would most objective people choose?

 

[jec6613]

Okay, so to those joining this thread us unfamiliar with this, the SLR, popularized by the Nikon F of 1959, solves the problem of the film days of getting true through the lens viewing, with a reflex mirror that swings out of the way of the film just before the shutter fires. Usually it's attached to a pentamirror or pentaprism, that pronounced, "Hump," on top of an SLR. Over time, other features were added: automatic lens indexing, auto aperture control, autofocus, and so on. Features that virtually no interchangeable lens camera today could function without.

In the digital era, of course, there's no reason we can't have the image sensor exposed nearly all of the time, and this is the premise of the mirrorless camera. You can gain several advantages by doing this, in no particular order (and they're all theoretical, practical discussion comes later):

• Shorter flange focal distance, caused by removal of the mirror
• Exposure preview in real-time
• Removal of the pentamirror/pentaprism viewfinder hump
• Theoretically more accurate autofocus because the AF sensor is integrated with the taking sensor
• No moving mirror to get misaligned or cause vibration
• Easier to design wide angle lenses as they don't need to be severely retrofocal
• Wider AF area coverage (mostly on full frame)
• Higher burst rates are possible

In practical usage, these tend to lead to slightly smaller cameras (no, not lighter cameras, just thinner) with shorter battery life caused by needing to have the image sensor and a screen constantly powered. There are also items which are a wash between mirrorless and DSLRs:

• Lens size is nearly identical, as it's dictated by the minimum clear aperture (focal length divided by f-stop) of a lens, and the sensor size

It does still leave the SLR with a very sizable advantage in certain areas:

• Zero lag TTL viewing (even a Genlocked EVF like the Samsung NX is still 1/60 of a second delayed)
• Less heat coming off the sensor and electronics allows the user to use the unit continuously for longer
• Battery life is substantially longer, as very few electronics are powered most of the time. Most DSLRs clock in at 4-5 times as many photos as a mirrorless of the same size battery
• Much faster autofocus with all lenses, but especially telephoto, caused by the separate light path to the AF sensors allowing for a longer lens to PD sensor distance (the primary factor in PDAF discrimination). Mirrorless PDAF are using the microlenses on the image sensor as their splitter, not the 5-10 mm distance used in DSLR PDAF systems. Unless mirrorless resolve this, they will never be able to discriminate as well as a DSLR, particularily at distance ... and if they're adding that distance between lenses and sensor, then you might as well go back to the F and EF mounts because they end up just about as deep.

And then there are also practical differences caused by the camera market:

• DSLRs have much larger lens sets offering a huge variety of glass to resolve any particular need. Off of the top of my head, Nikon has a half dozen exotic telephotos, four teleconverters, five Macro, three perspective control, four f/2.8 zooms, five f/4 zooms, and a full stable of non-exotic primes from 14 mm through 300 mm, including ones that allow discrete bokeh control ... and that's just in current production.
• DSLR ergonomics are developed over decades of experience, and on mid to high end ones everything can be adjusted with the viewfinder to your eye and by feel, and the camera is designed to get out of the way and just shoot.

Now, the practical summary of all of this:

Modern mirrorless cameras, with or without EVF (it's a preference, although I'd take an EVF any day) have reached the point of diminising returns, like a DSLR. They can track kids at short telephoto distances (out to about 150-200 mm) well enough, the viewfinders are fast enough for most uses, and the battery life is long enough for most people. That does *NOT* mean that they can replace them for everything. For one front of my mind example:

Yesterday, a hawk flew over. I swung my camera up, mashed AF-ON and my shutter as soon as it was at all in my viewfinder, and my D7200 rattled off 43 perfectly in focus shots from a 300 mm f/4 with 1.4x teleconverter as it flew over. Even the Nikon 1 system, holder of the fast focus crown for mirrorless (smaller lenses, after all), can't compete with that, and I know it, as my fiance owns one (that I'm a bit jealous of, might I add, but that's another story). Every single one, it didn't even miss the first shot, at 7 FPS, when the lens was focused at 10 feet and the hawk was at 200 feet.

As I said before, if Nikon had made something like the EOS M, or any of the modern APS-C mirrorless cameras, it would be in my bag today. No, it wouldn't be the one I'd take out for many types of serious shooting, but you can bet that it would be my second body going to Africa, not my D5100, and would sit equipped with the wider lens, while my long tele went on the DSLR. And my fast normal prime to have for snapshots? That would be in EF-M mount, not regular EF or EF-S. At wider angles, the focus systems are more than enough to keep up, and in a pinch it'll do backup duty with a low keepr rate on the longer teles.

You keep banging on about mirrorless like it's the second coming - it's not, and it has quite a ways to mature. But it's good enough for you and a lot of other people, and is rapidly going to have a larger market penetration and in 5 years (my guess) surpass DSLRs in sales. But they can never completely replace SLRs, simply because to do so, they must give up all of their inherent mirrorless advantages and incorporate a long throw PDAF sensor.

 

[jec6613]

Never seen individual breakdown by models. As I said, dSLRs *currently* outsell mirrorless by 2:1, but that's without the big players even having any major mirrorless models.

The closest I can get to objective USA data, is Amazon sales rankings:
...
Another good measure of camera popularity is flickr..

The A6000 has 977 users on flickr just yesterday.
The Nikon D3300 has 579 users yesterday. The D5500 has 99 users yesterday (newer camera). The D750, my camera, had 977 users yesterday..

So on flickr, the A6000 is more popular than the D3300 and about as popular as the D750.

I'm going to address this directly: CIPA just released total sales figures for Jan-April. For Nikon bodies, you can track by serial numbers seen in the pipe, as they're produced sequentially (even as they're regionalized), and Nikon themselves gives some indication as well in their financial reports. You and I both know that the D750 doesn't sell nearly as much as the D3300. As for QVC, Thom Hogan did that that research, and had it up on his front page for a week or two. Amazon and Flickr are pretty much small peanuts in the camera market, even though they're highly visible ones.

In total sales, mirrorless is peanuts. Now, that's not to say it is in total shutter clicks, just in sales, but a best-seller it is not in the ILC market. The good news for mirrorless moving forward is that sales of bodies are not the be-all-end-all, as the more clicks on any given mount, the more lenses tend to be sold (all else equal ... which it isn't, but that's another story).