Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: BJL on July 10, 2017, 12:52:54 pm
-
"I will give out a "Nikonashii" mirrorless camera that made a difference to other companies in terms of performance." — https://nikonrumors.com/2017/07/08/nikons-president-confirms-new-mirrorless-camera-in-an-interview.aspx/
I presume he does not mean another "One" system body, so I would guess at 24x16mm "APS-C" format.
The original interview article in Japanese is at http://newswitch.jp/p/9613
and the above article quotes from the Google translation at
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnewswitch.jp%2Fp%2F9613
-
I presume he does not mean another "One" system body, so I would guess at 24x16mm "APS-C" format.
Why not FF?
-
Why not FF?
It could be 36x24mm format instead, but I am guessing on the more mainstream 24x16mm because:
(a) It is a far larger market sector.
(b) First-time ILC camera buyers are the most likely to go for a new system with an all-new lens line-up, which initially will not have such a wide range, and these first-timers mostly choose the smaller, less expensive formats.
(c) The 36x24mm format user-base has a higher proportion of OVF-clinging curmudgeons :)
-
It could be 36x24mm format instead, but I am guessing on the more mainstream 24x16mm because:
(a) It is a far larger market sector.
(b) First-time ILC camera buyers are the most likely to go for a new system with an all-new lens line-up, which initially will not have such a wide range, and these first-timers mostly choose the smaller, less expensive formats.
(c) The 36x24mm format user-base has a higher proportion of OVF-clinging curmudgeons :)
Indeed.
On the other hand, what are the odds that Nikon would release 2 new range of lenses within one+ year?
Besides, why focus on mid-range when their intend has clearly been to deliver high margin products with unbeatable product appeal?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It could be 36x24mm format instead, but I am guessing on the more mainstream 24x16mm because:
(a) It is a far larger market sector.
(b) First-time ILC camera buyers are the most likely to go for a new system with an all-new lens line-up, which initially will not have such a wide range, and these first-timers mostly choose the smaller, less expensive formats.
(c) The 36x24mm format user-base has a higher proportion of OVF-clinging curmudgeons :)
I disagree, all camera makers are focusing in the high-end market, it is were really the money is, you sell less units, make more money.
I don't think it will be newcomers that buy this camera, it will be people using other full frame camera that will come here, like it is happening, in my mind, with the Sony FE camera system, it is more people jumping ship from Canon (mainly, my opinion, maybe wrong), than new people coming to photography... and looks like Sony is doing well economically selling those full frame mirrorless.
If they release a new lens mount, it will be probably be Full frame compatible...
-
I see this pretty much in the lines of Canon tentative steps, so something like the EOS M. The EOS M has taken time to mature, in baby steps, but mature it has, and offers a good range today.
-
This will not be a "tentative" thus the long waiting time. It will be a mature product in line with the new team, less conservative, and it will be 24x36. They understood what kind of impact a brutal transition between DSLR and mirror-less can induce. They worked hard on mirroless AF system since a very long time with the V serie, it is mature and more than efficient. Many never tryed or owned a Nikon 1 V1. The AF in those machines is just perfect, in par with the D4 and somehow different than the fuji or sony AF system. When you use it you feel it. I completely trust Nikon on this step, more than many "hyped" brands.
-
Whether this new camera is full frame or APS-C is not terribly relevant to me. I've shot with both formats using Nikon DSLRs. The most critical matter is size and weight. My wife and I just got back from a 2 1/2 week holiday in Ireland with a first stopover in London for a wedding. When I packed up my d810 with just the single zoom lens along with my carry on luggage things were just too heavy! >:( Because we would be on the move a lot, I didn't want to have so much heavy stuff to manage. I ended up taking only my pocket Canon S90 that was reviewed on LuLa back in 2009 and does RAW captures. I ended up with some decent images and sure they can't be printed up big but I also didn't have to wrestle with the Nikon.
I've had some good discussions with a well known member of LuLa who pretty much uses a Sony A6300 exclusively and he gets excellent results. I can reduce the camera weight by more than half by moving to that system. While it would be nice if Nikon maintains compatibility with existing F mount lenses, one cannot ignore the weight of some of the zooms. My 24-120 f4 zoom is 710g which is only slightly lighter than a Sony a6500 with the Zeiss Tessar 16-70 zoom mounted (760g). For us 'senior citizen' photographers, weight is the bottom line! ;D
I don't know what the timing of the new Nikon mirrorless offering is but it's likely that I will get the Sony a6500 this summer.
-
It seems pretty likely that whatver Nikon decides to release will be best in class.
The question is what they decide to release and when. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd hope that Nikon produce an excellent new system but they are still going to have to push hard to persuade folks to buy Nikon in a now-crowded field and to win back some of those who have left for Sony, Fuji and co. For some of us there may be no going back since light and small are primary considerations and the only way to get most of that is going with a smaller sensor like M43. It's by no means a done deal for Nikon. They are up against mature mirrorless systems with full or nearly full catalogues of lenses and accessories and several generations in to iron out the technology and build out the customer base. You can't do all that in a few months.
-
It seems pretty likely that whatver Nikon decides to release will be best in class.
they will create a class of their own then naturally will be the best there... System 1 v2.0... oops, what happened with the best in class v1.0 ?
-
On the other hand, what are the odds that Nikon would release 2 new range of lenses within one+ year?
What are the two new ranges of lenses that you refer to? If you mean lenses for mirrorless systems in both 24x16mm and 36x24mm format, I doubt that Nikon will launch both such system within a year or each other. I expect Nikon to follow the pattern seen with Canon, Fujifilm and Sony: mainstream 24x16mm format first, and then some years later (if ever!), a larger, lower volume, higher margin system. Even Leica started in the smaller format (T), then upsized (SL), and has so far three bodies in the smaller format (T, TL, TL2) and only one in the larger.
As far as lens roll-outs, it is easier for the smaller format aimed at less demanding customers: a standard zoom, telephoto zoom, one small prime and an SLR-mount lens adaptor for the first year has been the typical start.
A number of people seem convinced that the higher margins for a larger format (36x24) outweigh the greater unit sales of a smaller format (24x16), leading to great profitability and better ROI. What, if any, is the evidence for or against this claim?
-
A number of people seem convinced that the higher margins for a larger format (36x24) outweigh the greater unit sales of a smaller format (24x16), leading to great profitability and better ROI. What, if any, is the evidence for or against this claim?
It's all going to depend on the physical size/weight of the camera/lens combination. As I noted in my earlier post, F mount lens weights, especially for zooms, will have an extreme impact as far as I'm concerned. I would assume that a Nikon mirrorless body would weigh less than a d810, but how much less? For those of us who travel internationally and want a decent 1-3 lens system that won't weigh one down is the important question. In the US when I'm going by car, the d810 and associated lenses is a non-issue.
-
I am curious to see what comes out. Today, MILC systems cover the entire range from "retro" to "futuristic"; for example, from stuff like the Fuji X and Sony ILCE, to stuff like Leica TL.
Size-wise, we have pretty much everything covered, from small (Fuji, Sony, EOS M, Nikon V1) to large (Leica SL).
I think that the big added value from Canon and Nikon is the multi-million number of lenses that are out there being used. Renegading that, nothing stops current users from moving to other MILC brands.
-
We can see that Nikon covered any needs in dslr lenses since years and continue to provide new lenses once in a while. If they want to make a new system from scratches I do not see any problem with that. We know that the best way for a mirror-less camera is to have dedicated lenses with short flange distance. If they come out with an inspiring body oozing Nikon soul + a good stater selection of lenses + an adapter, the transition will be easy.
It is not because a bunch of drama queens on forums jumped on other brands that Nikon is going to die. Most photographers aren't on forum, hopefully.
Let's have a bit of faith.
-
A number of people seem convinced that the higher margins for a larger format (36x24) outweigh the greater unit sales of a smaller format (24x16), leading to great profitability and better ROI. What, if any, is the evidence for or against this claim?
I don't have numbers, so it is more my personal speculation from what I'm seeing in the market. Two cases:
- Sony released their Sony E system (24x16), going for the low cost market. In 2013 they decided to try with the A7 to test the full frame mirrorless waters... releasing their FE mount (36x24, compatible with the E mount). With the exception of two cameras in 24x16... they have basically pursued the A7/A9 series with cameras and lenses... with each new camera and model more expensive than the previous one... if you believe Sony, they are doing quite ok with it.
- Fuji, they released their X mount system in ASP-C format... and they are still heavily pushing it... but they decided to open new market. Probably seeing the Sony already has a strong position in full frame mirrorless, they jumped to medium format with their GFX mirrorless...
But it is not only this going to higher format... if you see the releases of cameras from all brands, you can clearly see a high focus in releasing pro-enthusiast cameras than entry level ones...
-
It would make very little economic sense to start mirrorless with APS-C at this point in time.
Besides, Nikon has been trying to push their DSLRs users up to FF for years now, stopping almost completely to release high quality APS-C specific lenses as Thom Hogan has been complaining about for years too.
The time it took to see a D500 is another proof of this.
Future will tell, but odds are high that we see a FF mirrorless Nikon with a set of uber lenses judging from their recent releases.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't have numbers, so it is more my personal speculation from what I'm seeing in the market. Two cases:
- Sony released their Sony E system (24x16), going for the low cost market. In 2013 they decided to try with the A7 to test the full frame mirrorless waters... releasing their FE mount (36x24, compatible with the E mount). With the exception of two cameras in 24x16... they have basically pursued the A7/A9 series with cameras and lenses... with each new camera and model more expensive than the previous one... if you believe Sony, they are doing quite ok with it.
- Fuji, they released their X mount system in ASP-C format... and they are still heavily pushing it... but they decided to open new market. Probably seeing the Sony already has a strong position in full frame mirrorless, they jumped to medium format with their GFX mirrorless...
But it is not only this going to higher format... if you see the releases of cameras from all brands, you can clearly see a high focus in releasing pro-enthusiast cameras than entry level ones...
The Sony ILCE cameras were initially APSC format, and were launched in 2010, the now renamed NEX series. Some good lenses were released for those, including ZA 24 f1.8, and the Zeiss Touits. Also, some cameras were not inexpensive, e.g. NEX-7.
Being a not so risk averse company, the ILCE mount moved to FF in 2013, indeed. Again, with a mix of cheaper and expensive lenses, e.g. FE 28-70 kit zoom, and a couple of ZA lenses, FE 35 f2.8 and FE 55 f1.8. One thing they do quite well is to keep on selling older cameras, for example the original A7 and A7R can still be bought new, they still make those.
-
David and Bernard,
There is another way to interpret the same facts! Sony, Nikon and everyone else started in a more mainstream "APS-C" format, launched an array of lenses for it, and then added the larger 36x24mm format (Sony did this twice: first with SLRs/SLTs, then with mirrorless). So for obvious reasons, with the larger format system arriving later, it needs to catch up on lens offerings, while there is less need to add lenses to the earlier, more mature "APS-C" lens system. There is also the fact that many lenses for the larger format are also perfectly suitable with smaller format bodies, such as primes about 60mm and up, so many lenses double count for both formats. Also, there is no question that the larger format calls for more high quality lenses than the smaller format, and its users will eventually demand a wider range of lenses than the more "entry level" smaller format cameras—at least once a camera maker deprecates the smaller format to a lower quality tier, as Nikon for example has done to Thom Hogan's chagrin. (On the other hand, Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm are still active in providing high quality "enthusiast to professional" quality bodies and lenses for their smaller format systems. A famous quote: "to succeed with Plan A, you must have no Plan B".)
Another way to measure the camera makers' interest in these two sensor formats is the number of bodies and frequency of their updates. For both Sony mirrorless and Nikon SLRs it is about equal, while Canon releases far more SLRs in its smaller EF-S format than in EF. (Maybe Sony and Nikon could take a tip from their more successful rival!)
Overall, I still see no resolution of the question as to which format is likely to contribute more to revenues and profits of a mirrorless camera system.
-
David and Bernard,
There is another way to interpret the same facts! Sony, Nikon and everyone else started in a more mainstream "APS-C" format, launched an array of lenses for it, and then added the larger 36x24mm format (Sony did this twice: first with SLRs/SLTs, then with mirrorless). So for obvious reasons, with the larger format system arriving later, it needs to catch up on lens offerings, while there is less need to add lenses to the earlier, more mature "APS-C" lens system. There is also the fact that many lenses for the larger format are also perfectly suitable with smaller format bodies, such as primes about 60mm and up, so many lenses double count for both formats. Also, there is no question that the larger format calls for more high quality lenses than the smaller format, and its users will eventually demand a wider range of lenses than the more "entry level" smaller format cameras—at least once a camera maker deprecates the smaller format to a lower quality tier, as Nikon for example has done to Thom Hogan's chagrin. (On the other hand, Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm are still active in providing high quality "enthusiast to professional" quality bodies and lenses for their smaller format systems. A famous quote: "to succeed with Plan A, you must have no Plan B".)
Another way to measure the camera makers' interest in these two sensor formats is the number of bodies and frequency of their updates. For both Sony mirrorless and Nikon SLRs it is about equal, while Canon releases far more SLRs in its smaller EF-S format than in EF. (Maybe Sony and Nikon could take a tip from their more successful rival!)
Overall, I still see no resolution of the question as to which format is likely to contribute more to revenues and profits of a mirrorless camera system.
It could be but the market has significantly changed. As it was previously said, Sony released its Sony E system in 2010, Fuji released the X-Pro 1 in 2012 as Canon did the first EOS M camera. 2012 was the start of the decline of camera sales that seems that have touch bottom this year. It was a different market, where made much more sense to sell a lot of small price cameras, because they were selling lots of them, that a few of higher price cameras...
Now, for me it makes more sense to go high quality first, but again, Nikon is the second biggest camera seller in the market. For them, with a really good brand... maybe DX will do and will attract a lot of buyers.
But also Nikon made the mistake of ignoring the high end market two times. First when they were saying last decade that in digital DX format was enough before releasing the D3 and losing sales to Canon 1D series. And with the 1 series mirrorless camera format that it is not selling well at all.
-
It seems pretty likely that whatver Nikon decides to release will be best in class.
The question is what they decide to release and when. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeh, but what class? Kindergarten or masters level university.
-
One tiny bit of extra information: a Nikon statement in English:
"While details are confidential, we can say that we are currently developing new mirrorless products that build upon Nikon's strengths, and offer the performance prospective customers expect, including the ultimate optics performance, image-processing technologies, strength and durability, and operation." — https://www.dpreview.com/news/9148147105/official-statement-nikon-currently-developing-new-mirrorless-cameras
But note again the reference to the "smart-phone generation" and "fun" in the earlier statement, this time translated by a human (native Japanese speaker) — and with a previously suppressed and rather unfortunate last sentence about "girly cams"!
"For a smartphone generation, we [will] put out a very Nikon-ish mirrorless camera which is superior to rivals in quality. Making the best use of industrial lens technology, we would like to overwhelm them in lens quality. On the other hand, we need fun. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a project like “an easy-to-use DSLR for girls”?" — loc. cit.
(The previous Google translation puts this in the future tense, so I added the "will".
I am not sure that wording like "smart-phone generation" and "we need fun" fit the hopes for 36x24mm format, but hopefully we will know before too long.
-
I doubt anything but a well designed FF mirrorless body where Nikon lenses can be used without the need of an adaptor, will make any difference in an already crowded mirrorless market. Not at least as a serious replacement for current pro DSLR bodies.
And the same applies to Canon FF mirrorless. Time will say.
Regards
-
I am not sure that wording like "smart-phone generation" and "we need fun" fit the hopes for 36x24mm format, but hopefully we will know before too long.
Nikon's president clearly said, "We are currently developing new mirrorless products ...", which has an 's' at the end of it.
Therefore, it seems pretty clear they intend to develop both high-end, serious mirrorless cameras with "the ultimate optics performance, image-processing technologies, strength and durability" ... and consumer level-options.
-
I doubt anything but a well designed FF mirrorless body where Nikon lenses can be used without the need of an adaptor,
Please explain this insistence on prioritizing backward compatibility over future design flexibility, by making bodies work very slightly more easily with legacy lenses at the expense of hampering options for future lens and body designs by imposing an necessarily large distance between lens mount and sensor. Are adaptors really so evil? As I have said before, what you propose can be achieved more flexibly by bundling an adaptor with the body in an "F-mount curmudgeon kit"!
And the same applies to Canon FF mirrorless.
Notwithstanding that Canon has so far instead done what I propose, with the EOS-M mount. (Along with Sony in both 24x16 and 36x24 formats, and everyone else except Pentax.)
Time will say.
I hope so!
-
Nikon's president clearly said, "We are currently developing new mirrorless products ...", which has an 's' at the end of it.
Therefore, it seems pretty clear they intend to develop both high-end, serious mirrorless cameras with "the ultimate optics performance, image-processing technologies, strength and durability" ... and consumer level-options.
Indeed: the products could range like those of Olympus and Panasonic in MFT, or in the way that 35mm film SLR gear from companies like Nikon ranged from entry-level to professional, with a price range for bodies of about ten-fold within the same format, and a vastly wider range in price and performance for lenses. Whichever format Nikon chooses initially, I predict that it will not over-stretch it resources by launching two mirrorless system formats at once.
-
Please explain this insistence on prioritizing backward compatibility over future desigflexibility
Very simple, it is not backward compatibility, it is preexisting customer base compatibility. Without that advantage Nikon really needs to do it much better than any other mirrorless camera maker to succeed. Pleasing its current customers just needs a good product to ease the transition from DSLR to mirrorless.
I wish I were wrong, and I would love to be able to enjoy a brand new digital native mirrorless FF system from Nikon, but would be (happily) surprised if Nikon took that way.
Regards
-
Very simple, it is not backward compatibility, it is preexisting customer base compatibility.
Firstly, you keep not responding to my point that such compatibility can be provided with a mount adaptor, which at worst just makes the camera body with adaptor about as bulky as an F-mount mirrorless body would be.
Secondly, surely it is a matter of balancing, not declaring that one factor (accommodating lenses that people already own) takes absolute priority over the other (making the new system better in the long run, and immediately better for people without legacy lenses). That balance is between the cost of an adaptor for some customers and the permanent disadvantage of a bulkier body and more restricted lens design options.
Let me add the cynical point that Nikon has more incentive to sell new lenses than to help customers keep using ones they already have!
Why do you expect Nikon to take a different course than every other vaguely successful mirrorless system (i.e. not the failed Pentax K-01). Is backward compatibility so much more important to Nikon?
-
Firstly, you keep not responding to my point that such compatibility can be provided with a mount adaptor, which at worst just makes the camera body with adaptor about as bulky as an F-mount mirrorless body would be.
I have opened surveys in other forums: Canikon users DON'T like adapters. Full stop. They are usually endogamic and don't want to be fiddling with adapters. It's a matter of concept and lazyness rather than performance itself. They love their bulky lenses and don't need another mount.
A solution based on adapters will have other disadvantage I already explained: OK Nikon has a new FF mirrorless mount. What about the new lenses? they'll be replicated both in the old and new mount doubling production effort? they will be developed only for the new mount letting down the huge DSLR customer base? or nonsensically designed for the old system perpetuating the old mount?. All that is no problem if you keep the same mount.
IMO any Canikon mirrorless body designed to replace current FF DSLR's will be straight compatible with the F and EF mounts. A different story is a new APS mirrorless system (e.g. EOS M) aimed at those occasional users wanting to travel light.
Regards
Enviado desde mi ALE-L21 mediante Tapatalk
-
Indeed: the products could range like those of Olympus and Panasonic in MFT, or in the way that 35mm film SLR gear from companies like Nikon ranged from entry-level to professional, with a price range for bodies of about ten-fold within the same format, and a vastly wider range in price and performance for lenses. Whichever format Nikon chooses initially, I predict that it will not over-stretch it resources by launching two mirrorless system formats at once.
I would actually like to see Nikon offer two different systems: one, in a smaller format, with smaller lenses ... so that we could carry a smaller rig (if we so choose).
The other I am hoping will be their 'top-tier' ... compatible with existing Nikkor E lenses (allowing for an AI-S implementation) ... either directly-attached ... or through Nikon-engineered adapters which ought to be superior to 3rd-party adapters ... in the same fashion Nikon TCs allow for the same level/performance of auto-focus as do lenses without the TC.
-
I have opened surveys in other forums: Canikon users DON'T like adapters. Full stop. They are usually endogamic and don't want to be fiddling with adapters. . . .
Given that most CaNikon users have no experience with adapting mbetwen mirrorles and SLR bodies (with Canon EOS-M and Nikon One users a small fraction of CaNikon users), I will go with your second comment
. . . It's a matter of concept and lazyness rather than performance itself. They love their bulky lenses and don't need another mount.
In other words, it sounds like an ignorant and irrational objection to something they have not experienced, based perhaps on the idea that the majority of usage of a mirrorless body will be with SLR lenses. These sound like the sentiments of people who are not much interested in the advantages of a mirrorless system, beyond a more comfortable way to use Live View—Nikon and Canon would be better of serving this group with accessory EVFs for DSLRs, and aiming its mirrorless system at the next generation. Planning around the desires of existing well-established users at the expense of what will be most attractive to future customers would be a recipe for a Kodak-like fade into irrelevance.
-
I simply do not see the majority of DSLR buyers (who buy entry to mid-level DSLRs) fidgeting with adapters and the like. The latter are more the purview of enthusiasts. As for pros, they make a small part of the market, but they to do not like or wish to fumble with adapters.
It is mostly enthusiasts that enjoy playing around with such stuff. For the rest of users, they just want to take the shot as simple as possible.
-
It can't be beyond Nikon to build a mirrorless camera without the need of a separate adaptor - you just build the mount assembly a little differently. If that means a slightly fatter camera, so be it; reduce the dimensions elsewhere and you still get a smaller, lighter camera.
-
I simply do not see the majority of DSLR buyers (who buy entry to mid-level DSLRs) fidgeting with adapters and the like.
Agreed! Internet forums seem to be awash with talk of using adaptor mounted lenses ("Canon glass on my Sony A9", "I can use EF lens on my EOS-M", etc.) all out of proportion to actual patterns of usage.
My prediction is that the next Nikon mirrorless system will use the 24x16mm "DX" format—I'll call the new system "DX-M"—with the entry- to mid-level buyers mostly equipping the new bodies with lenses designed for that new system and its new, far shallower lens mount and so not using adaptors at all. Either because this is their first ILC, or they are coming from another brand and so have no F-mount lenses, or because they sell their DX gear on the second-hand market. Adaptor users will be very much in the minority, for less common cases like occasionally using an SLR lens that is already owned and too expensive to replace quickly, or a lens that fills a gap in the new "DX-M" lens line-up. (I do that with my most expensive Four Third SLR lens—the 50-200/2.8-3.5—and there is almost no fiddling with an adaptor, because it just stays on that lens.)
The question I have for all those predicting that Nikon will keep the F-mount in its next mirrorless system is why do you think that, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony (even with all those Alpha-mount SLR lenses going back to the Minolta days) and Canon (even with all those EF-S and EF lenses) instead went for new mirrorless lens mounts far shallower than their previously-used SLR mounts?
Is it because you also expect Nikon to differ from those other companies by skipping the main-stream digital ILC formats and starting with a 36x24mm format system aimed primarily at people who already have most or all of the lenses they need, and who want to keep using them? I would dub that camera the "Df-M".
-
The question I have for all those predicting that Nikon will keep the F-mount in its next mirrorless system is why do you think that, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony (even with all those Alpha-mount SLR lenses going back to the Minolta days) and Canon (even with all those EF-S and EF lenses) instead went for new mirrorless lens mounts far shallower than their previously-used SLR mounts?
Because Panasonic, Olympus, Sony had a minuscle or no customer base on which to rely, so they were free to start from scratch. In fact it was their only choice after losing the DSLR battle. And Canon's EOS M is not intended as a serious replacement for their DSLR's, specially FF models. It's just an easy to carry complement for already Canon DSLR users. Just ask yourself how many non-Canon users are buying an M5 as their main camera or replacing their Canon DSLR's by a M5 with the adapter.
In addition to that, by the time all those companies launched their systems the mirrorless market was completely non-existent or immature. Now it is not, that is why Canon and Nikon shouldn't afford to obviate perfect compatibility with their current DSLR mounts, it's their main stronghold!. They have more choices than mirrorless makers, but unluckily they will maintain their mounts. This is my prediction and I hope to be wrong.
Regards
-
It would be a good moment for Nikon to come with a FF Mirrorless exactly on the 100 years anniversary.
Already 18 years ago since the former cornerstone the D1
-
Because Panasonic, Olympus, Sony had a minuscle or no customer base on which to rely, so they were free to start from scratch. In fact it was their only choice after losing the DSLR battle. And Canon's EOS M is not intended as a serious replacement for their DSLR's, specially FF models. It's just an easy to carry complement for already Canon DSLR users. Just ask yourself how many non-Canon users are buying an M5 as their main camera or replacing their Canon DSLR's by a M5 with the adapter.
Good point.
In addition to that, by the time all those companies launched their systems the mirrorless market was completely non-existent or immature. Now it is not, that is why Canon and Nikon shouldn't afford to obviate perfect compatibility with their current DSLR mounts, it's their main stronghold!. They have more choices than mirrorless makers, but unluckily they will maintain their mounts. This is my prediction and I hope to be wrong.
Regards
It is also possible that they will use their existing lens excellence and just offer them in a "new" mount also. Sigma makes lenses and sells the same lens in several different mounts.
I posted this on another thread topic, but Nikon could (1) make their existing lenses in a new mount, and (2) offer a "mount-conversion" service in the future, albeit only on the E lenses.
In fact this article on Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/nikon-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6e-vr-af-p-announcement) is about a new Nikkor lens that does not work an any of Nikon's older cameras (D7200, D750, D810) ... but only on Nikon's newest and DX only. It is a new-generation lens with a stepping motor (AF-P) ... and Nasim Mansurov predicts it will be usable on the new Nikkor mirrorless (https://photographylife.com/nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-is-on-its-way) as well.
-
my prediction :
It will be like the Nikon1 series- but FF
Different mount with some good lightweight f2.8 lenses to start with- making it a kind of sony 7
and an adapter for the F-mount lenses- making it still smaller than the DSLR.
I only hope they introduce two adapters- one normal and one TS.
It would be nice to use all nikkors with T+S, and there is enough space for it.
(What i could use is a silent camera/ a less obtrusive camera with good quality that i can use with all my nikkor lenses)
-
Because Panasonic, Olympus, Sony had a minuscle or no customer base on which to rely, so they were free to start from scratch.
Isn't the argument for sticking with the SLR mount that it provides backward compatibility with exiting SLR lenses (both ones owned by potential customers and the ones that the camera maker has available to sell), rathe than with existing DLSR bodies? If so, there are a great many Canon EF and EF-S lenses and quite a lot of Alpha mount SLR lenses too (from Sony and Konica-Minolta and back to Minolta), so a similar argument for sticking with EF-S, EF, and Alph mounts on those mirrorless systems.
P. S. On the the hand, if Nikon does surprise me and go straight to a 36x24mm format mirrorless system, the argument for keeping the existing mount and relying more heavily on existing SLR lenses and gets stronger, because (a) it might take a lot more resources to develop an array of lenses sufficient for that more demanding market, and (b) a higher proportion of potential customers are more heavily invested in SLR lenses. (Though Hasselblad and FujiFilm have launched their 44x33mm format systems with just a few lenses plus adaptors. I could add Hasselblad as another example of a well-established SLR maker that decided to go the "new mount plus adaptors" route for its mirrorless system.)
-
The more I think about it, the more I don't see Nikon 'replacing' DSLRs with mirrorless ... but, instead, simply offering them as an expanded selection option amongst many, due to their growing popularity.
It occurs to me that 3 things are true:
- It will be easier for Nikon to create 1 or 2 top-tier mirrorless cameras ... than it will be for Sony to come close to equaling Nikon's multi-dimensional, class-leading lens portfolio.
- By bringing in 2 really-good mirrorless cameras (DX/FX), Nikon would immediately be 'ahead of the game,' because no other mirroless company can touch Nikon's lens line-up. Why should an A7RII person limp long, using adapters + 'other company's lenses' ... and wait ... and wait ... for Sony to come out with 2nd/3rd-best glass ... when they could immediately use a panacea of the best glass available, the second they bought a Nikon mirrorless, when they arrive? Same with Fuji. They have, what? 3 good lenses ... and not much else to offer. By contrast, Nikon has no holes in its lens line-up.
- Smaller is not always better. My girlfriend's new D5600 is a lot smaller than my D810 (and smaller still than a D5), and she loves it compared to her discarded 7D. But the D5600 is ridiculous to put on my 300mm VR II. It would be even more ridiculous to put this tiny camera on a 600/800mm. I don't think the whole world really wants "smaller" ... small cameras are really only good for tourists, or those who walk-around and hand-hold. Telephoto shooters actually need big glass + big cameras. I don't think it's possible to create "world-class mini-lenses" ... at least not yet ... and big glass need big cameras in back of them.
So I think I think large DSLRs and telephotos are here to stay, at least for a long while.
And I think a couple of really good mirrorless cameras would instantly make Nikon a thousand times more complete/attractive mirrorless option than the lens-bereft Sony.
Thoughts?
-
I simply do not see the majority of DSLR buyers (who buy entry to mid-level DSLRs) fidgeting with adapters and the like. The latter are more the purview of enthusiasts. As for pros, they make a small part of the market, but they to do not like or wish to fumble with adapters.
It is mostly enthusiasts that enjoy playing around with such stuff. For the rest of users, they just want to take the shot as simple as possible.
That's what Sony people have to do: fiddle with adapters, taking them off for Sony glass, and putting them on again for other brands.
It would be different with Nikon, because they don't need to panhandle to other companies for "help" in the glass department. Nikon already has a full complement of glass.
A user of a new Nikon mirrorless would either (a) buy one adapter ... and keep it on his mirrorless, to allow for the existing F-mount lenses ... or (b) I can envision a Nikon mirrorless camera having a built-in mount adapter.
Imagine a thinner mirrorless camera, with only the mount-area thick enough to deal with the flange issue. The mirrorless camera would have the best of both worlds: thinner/lighter overall ... and yet with the best lens portfolio available. The raised mount area would also create its own unique 'look' to boot ...
Anyway, just thinking out loud, but Nikon has the potential to offer totally different solutions than what Sony's lens limitations forces them to offer.
-
That's what Sony people have to do: fiddle with adapters, taking them off for Sony glass, and putting them on again for other brands.
It would be different with Nikon, because they don't need to panhandle to other companies for "help" in the glass department. Nikon already has a full complement of glass.
A user of a new Nikon mirrorless would either (a) buy one adapter ... and keep it on his mirrorless, to allow for the existing F-mount lenses ... or (b) I can envision a Nikon mirrorless camera having a built-in mount adapter.
Imagine a thinner mirrorless camera, with only the mount-area thick enough to deal with the flange issue. The mirrorless camera would have the best of both worlds: thinner/lighter overall ... and yet with the best lens portfolio available. The raised mount area would also create its own unique 'look' to boot ...
Anyway, just thinking out loud, but Nikon has the potential to offer totally different solutions than what Sony's lens limitations forces them to offer.
I don't think "fiddling with adapters" is really the issue you appear to be trying to make it out to be. I have the A7R2 + a full range of Sony E mount primes and zooms and couldn't be happier. I tried several Canon lenses when I initially got the camera and bought one adapter and left it on the lens, if I wanted to change lenses I removed the Canon lens including the adapter and put the next lens on, if the next lens was a native mount lens then it was just like changing lenses normally, if the next lens was another Canon then I leave the adapter on the camera and disconnect the lens from the adapter, no issue.
In the end I bought all native mount (E mount lenses) as I preferred them for my purpose.
I see the Sony E mount with the ability to be able to use any lens from the Canon and or Nikon range via an adapter an advantage adding versatility to the E series bodies.
As far as size goes the A7xx/ A9 series of cameras is just perfect for me, large enough to be comfortable to use but small enough to still be a fairly compact body.
The native E system lens lineup is growing all the time, I remember a few years ago when m43 was only a few years old and folk were complaining of the lack of lenses, look at that system now....
-
Imagine a thinner mirrorless camera, with only the mount-area thick enough to deal with the flange issue.
Precisely. There is no need for new lenses or adapters. As I said previously, all Nikon have to do is make the camera a little deeper front to back than would be necessary with a new range of lenses, and its current range will be fine. They could even just enlarge the mount area & incorporate aperture control around the throat, so that G lenses effectively have an aperture ring for that 'retro' feel.
-
Precisely. There is no need for new lenses or adapters. As I said previously, all Nikon have to do is make the camera a little deeper front to back than would be necessary with a new range of lenses, and its current range will be fine. They could even just enlarge the mount area & incorporate aperture control around the throat, so that G lenses effectively have an aperture ring for that 'retro' feel.
I may be quite wrong, but my impression has been that to get the best from modern mirrorless one really needs lenses designed for it. This has to do with the way contrast detect AF works off the sensor. A lens does best when the key focal group inside the lens is light in weight and so can be moved very fast. Traditional DSLR lenses with heavier focal groups aren't so good at this. In which case, starting over with a new design is best. But maybe this is nonsense?? I see over on "TOP" that the veteran analyst Eamon Hickey thinks Nikon will produce both new mount and F mount mirrorless cameras in time. Anyway, there's probably no free lunch here and mirrorless cameras aren't some miracle cure even though they may be great to have, imho.
-
That's what Sony people have to do: fiddle with adapters, taking them off for Sony glass, and putting them on again for other brands.
one can only wonder where did a nikon dSLR user get that idea ? adapter stays on the lens and becomes a just part of it... Sigma MC-11 was once on sale for ~$160 - so people w/ many needs purchased a bunch... I simply have adapters on each non E-mount lens...
-
one can only wonder where did a nikon dSLR user get that idea ? adapter stays on the lens and becomes a just part of it... Sigma MC-11 was once on sale for ~$160 - so people w/ many needs purchased a bunch... I simply have adapters on each non E-mount lens...
I have zero issues using my Canon mount Zeiss lens on my A7R. Most people that complain do not actually use the gear...they just parrot what they read.
-
. . . all Nikon have to do is make the camera a little deeper front to back than would be necessary with a new range of lenses, and its current range will be fine. They could even just enlarge the mount area & incorporate aperture control around the throat, so that G lenses effectively have an aperture ring for that 'retro' feel.
I agree that body design is not much of an issue, especially for 36x24mm format, where Sony's body down-sizing seems overdone. And as @JKoerner007 says, when using big lenses like telephotos, smaller bodies are no advantage (though I do not see them as a disadvantage either, so long as the grip is deep enough.)
Lens design is instead the advantage of not having the lens mount so far from the sensor, in particular for anything offering wide-angle coverage, including the #1 lens in most kits: a standard zoom.
Here is the comparison of two 12-60/2.8-4 standard zooms for 4/3" format: the Olympus in SLR mount and Panasonic on MFT mount (with in-lens IS added): https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=olympus_12-60_2p8-4&products=panasonic_leica_dg_12-60_2p8-4p0_asph
-
I don't think "fiddling with adapters" is really the issue you appear to be trying to make it out to be. I have the A7R2 + a full range of Sony E mount primes and zooms and couldn't be happier. I tried several Canon lenses when I initially got the camera and bought one adapter and left it on the lens, if I wanted to change lenses I removed the Canon lens including the adapter and put the next lens on, if the next lens was a native mount lens then it was just like changing lenses normally, if the next lens was another Canon then I leave the adapter on the camera and disconnect the lens from the adapter, no issue.
In the end I bought all native mount (E mount lenses) as I preferred them for my purpose.
I see the Sony E mount with the ability to be able to use any lens from the Canon and or Nikon range via an adapter an advantage adding versatility to the E series bodies.
As far as size goes the A7xx/ A9 series of cameras is just perfect for me, large enough to be comfortable to use but small enough to still be a fairly compact body.
The native E system lens lineup is growing all the time, I remember a few years ago when m43 was only a few years old and folk were complaining of the lack of lenses, look at that system now....
Makes sense. The same way I keep my 2xTC on my 300mm.
However, what this doesn't address is the fact AF is no good with 3rd party adapters trying to adapt Canon lenses to Sony bodies.
(It's a non-issue with MF lenses, but it's a big issue for very expensive super-telephotos suddenly losing their AF ability.)
If Nikon directly made the lens, the camera, and the adapter (either external or internal to the camera), AF ought to be much better than what a hodgepodge of unrelated gear pieced together.
Similarly, my 300mm with 2xTC III, mounted to my Nikon camera, offers very responsive AF.
However, if I tried to implement a 3rd party adapter, hooking a non-Nikon lens, to my Nikon camera, it probably wouldn't work as well.
-
Precisely. There is no need for new lenses or adapters. As I said previously, all Nikon have to do is make the camera a little deeper front to back than would be necessary with a new range of lenses, and its current range will be fine. They could even just enlarge the mount area & incorporate aperture control around the throat, so that G lenses effectively have an aperture ring for that 'retro' feel.
We agree.
I am thinking, however, that any camera-built adapter will probably only mount to E lenses.
There are a lot of G lenses on sale of late ... as the E lenses keep coming out.
-
However, what this doesn't address is the fact AF is no good with 3rd party adapters trying to adapt Canon lenses to Sony bodies.
You know for a fact that no adapted Canon lens works well on Sony?
On another forum there are people using Canon lenses and reporting near Canon body speed. I'd assume that some lens and adapter / firmware combinations work well whereas some others don't but as in all things maybe it's best to be specific if we can rather than make sweeping statements.
-
You know for a fact that no adapted Canon lens works well on Sony?
On another forum there are people using Canon lenses and reporting near Canon body speed. I'd assume that some lens and adapter / firmware combinations work well whereas some others don't but as in all things maybe it's best to be specific if we can rather than make sweeping statements.
Yes, there are many Canon lenses that AF very well with adapters and both Sigma and Metabones release new firmware on a regular basis which not only enhances existing AF, but also enable AF with lenses which did not AF that well previously.
There is even an adapter which allows AF of manual focus lenses...kind of neat to see my old Zuiko lenses autofocusing.
-
However, what this doesn't address is the fact AF is no good with 3rd party adapters trying to adapt Canon lenses to Sony bodies.
(It's a non-issue with MF lenses, but it's a big issue for very expensive super-telephotos suddenly losing their AF ability.)
The reviews seem mixed: the DPReview article https://www.dpreview.com/videos/4134648312/video-sony-a9-falls-short-with-canon-300mm-and-400mm-lenses-attached reports that the Sony A9 gives poor AF performance with tracking AF and the outer AF points on Canon's 300/2.8 and 400/2.8, but does fine with other shorter lenses, and is fine on those long lenses for single-shot AF using the central AF point.
A related question is whether there will continue to be a split of ultrasonic AF motors ("Silent Wave", "USM") giving best AF on SLRs while linear stepper motors are best for mirrorless (and also best for video AF), or if eventually one lens AF motor design will be state-of-the-art for both SLR and mirrorless AF systems.
These raise some pro and cons for Nikon staying with F-mount vs. going to a new, shallower mirrorless mount if and when it produces mirrorless bodies in 36x24mm format:
- a new mount would allow use of many third party lenses via adaptors: attractive to some customers, but less so if AF is sometimes poor, and a disadvantage to Nikon which wishes to sell is own lenses.
- If it continues to be the case that mirrorless bodies get the best performance with linear stepper motors while SLRs get best AF with ultrasonic motors, then Nikon would be better off with two separate high-end lens systems, and then persisting with the F-mount on mirrorless bodies makes less sense. On the other hand, if Nikon can get the full AF performance of its high-end lenses on both types of body, there is more incentive to make them usable on both types with minimum hassle, which weighs in favor of persisting with the F-mount.
-
The reviews seem mixed: the DPReview article https://www.dpreview.com/videos/4134648312/video-sony-a9-falls-short-with-canon-300mm-and-400mm-lenses-attached reports that the Sony A9 gives poor AF performance with tracking AF and the outer AF points on Canon's 300/2.8 and 400/2.8, but does fine with other shorter lenses, and is fine on those long lenses for single-shot AF using the central AF point.
A related question is whether there will continue to be a split of ultrasonic AF motors ("Silent Wave", "USM") giving best AF on SLRs while linear stepper motors are best for mirrorless (and also best for video AF), or if eventually one lens AF motor design will be state-of-the-art for both SLR and mirrorless AF systems.
These raise some pro and cons for Nikon staying with F-mount vs. going to a new, shallower mirrorless mount if and when it produces mirrorless bodies in 36x24mm format:
- a new mount would allow use of many third party lenses via adaptors: attractive to some customers, but less so if AF is sometimes poor, and a disadvantage to Nikon which wishes to sell is own lenses.
- If it continues to be the case that mirrorless bodies get the best performance with linear stepper motors while SLRs get best AF with ultrasonic motors, then Nikon would be better off with two separate high-end lens systems, and then persisting with the F-mount on mirrorless bodies makes less sense. On the other hand, if Nikon can get the full AF performance of its high-end lenses on both types of body, there is more incentive to make them usable on both types with minimum hassle, which weighs in favor of persisting with the F-mount.
The other key feature of redesigning a mount soecifically for mirrorless is the ability to design smaller and lighter lenses. Lenses such as the Sony 12-24 or the Zeiss Loxia 21 are smaller and lighter than their DSLR designed lenses. For me, that possibility of a lighter package ( camera and lens ) is one very attractive feature over a DSLR package.
-
When Mirrorless cameras first came out the sensor only had Contrast Detect not Phase detect focus thus they needed to redesign lenses to be able to move faster during focusing. Adapted phase detect lenses would work but were very slow partly due to the extra mass of the moving parts and a stepper motor not designed for CD.
The new mirrorless cameras now incorporate phase detect on the sensor as well as contrast detect so it should be possible to use lenses designed for phase detect auto focus (i.e. ones for use with DSLR's) with reasonably good performance. So I imagine it's possible the existing range of Nikon lenses could still work quite satisfactorily on a new mirrorless camera.
-
That's what Sony people have to do: fiddle with adapters, taking them off for Sony glass, and putting them on again for other brands.
It would be different with Nikon, because they don't need to panhandle to other companies for "help" in the glass department. Nikon already has a full complement of glass.
Not really. Sony's ILCE system has a very full complement of lenses today. The ones missing are essentially long tele primes, and for those, users can mount A-mount lenses via Sony adapters. Similar to Nikon users mounting Nikon F lenses in the current Nikon V1 system, or in a future Nikon MILC system.
-
When Mirrorless cameras first came out the sensor only had Contrast Detect not Phase detect focus thus they needed to redesign lenses to be able to move faster during focusing. Adapted phase detect lenses would work but were very slow partly due to the extra mass of the moving parts and a stepper motor not designed for CD.
The new mirrorless cameras now incorporate phase detect on the sensor as well as contrast detect so it should be possible to use lenses designed for phase detect auto focus (i.e. ones for use with DSLR's) with reasonably good performance. So I imagine it's possible the existing range of Nikon lenses could still work quite satisfactorily on a new mirrorless camera.
Makes sense.
-
The new mirrorless cameras now incorporate phase detect on the sensor as well as contrast detect so it should be possible to use lenses designed for phase detect auto focus (i.e. ones for use with DSLR's) with reasonably good performance. So I imagine it's possible the existing range of Nikon lenses could still work quite satisfactorily on a new mirrorless camera.
Yes, I am an optimist about the progress of the newer technologies like on-sensor AF making existing SLR lenses work fine with Live View. It could even be that this is one of the factors dictating Canon and Nikon's relatively late move to take mirrorless options more seriously.
One complication for future lens system evolution is that, while ring-type ultrasonic motors give the speediest AF for still photography, they are not the best for AF during video recording, and so Nikon and Canon are now both offering some video-oriented SLR lenses with linear AF motors. (This is apart from all of Canon's EOS-M lenses using STM linear AF motors.)
-
I don't think it's possible to create "world-class mini-lenses" ... at least not yet ... <snip>Thoughts?
Leica would disagree. Their Summicrons are pretty decent, and not very big. It all depends on how much the customer is willing to pay.
I have two systems, a Nikon D3 and D-800 with several lenses including all three f2.8 zooms, and a couple of Panasonic GX8 bodies with a good selection of m4/3 lenses. When I went to Iraq as a reporter, I took a D3 with the zooms and a couple other lenses, and with all the other crap I had to carry like the armor, helmet & water, the weight damn near killed me. For the shots I took, I could easily replace that system with the GX8s and four or lenses that in total wouldn't probably weigh half as much...and for news purposes, the m4/3 is every bit at usable as the Nikons. (Actually the Nikon V system would have been even better than the Pannys, if it had a more complete selection of lenses...for news purposes.)
I don't see *any* advantages to a new APS-C system from Nikon -- I certainly wouldn't buy one. It doesn't have the weight advantages of the V system or the m4/3 systems, nor does it offer the quality of the FF or Fuji MF systems, so exactly what would be the point? A more interesting option from my point of view would be a Fuji-like MF mirrorless with a new lens mount that could also be used on a later FF offering...as a way to edge away from the F mount without really saying so, plus an upgraded V system with more lenses. The V is really a terrific little camera, and the 1-inch sensors are getting really good for what they are. They could cover selected pro work and virtually all news work, if they had a wider selection of lenses. And if Nikon really wanted to stay on top of the high-end, high-quality stuff, why not a sensor larger than FF? The Fuji, fully tricked out, is only a bit heavier than a D810, and with further miniaturization, I think Nikon could produce a MF body the same size as the 810.
-
Leica would disagree. Their Summicrons are pretty decent, and not very big. It all depends on how much the customer is willing to pay.
Good point. Would purchase a Summicron 50mm over an Otus any day ... if only they fit Nikons.
I suppose I should clarify: I don't think it's possible to create "world-class mini-super-telephoto lenses" ... at least not yet.
I may be wrong in that regard though ... but haven't seen one yet.
I have two systems, a Nikon D3 and D-800 with several lenses including all three f2.8 zooms, and a couple of Panasonic GX8 bodies with a good selection of m4/3 lenses. When I went to Iraq as a reporter, I took a D3 with the zooms and a couple other lenses, and with all the other crap I had to carry like the armor, helmet & water, the weight damn near killed me. For the shots I took, I could easily replace that system with the GX8s and four or lenses that in total wouldn't probably weigh half as much...and for news purposes, the m4/3 is every bit at usable as the Nikons. (Actually the Nikon V system would have been even better than the Pannys, if it had a more complete selection of lenses...for news purposes.)
Interesting.
I don't see *any* advantages to a new APS-C system from Nikon -- I certainly wouldn't buy one. It doesn't have the weight advantages of the V system or the m4/3 systems, nor does it offer the quality of the FF or Fuji MF systems, so exactly what would be the point? A more interesting option from my point of view would be a Fuji-like MF mirrorless with a new lens mount that could also be used on a later FF offering...as a way to edge away from the F mount without really saying so, plus an upgraded V system with more lenses. The V is really a terrific little camera, and the 1-inch sensors are getting really good for what they are. They could cover selected pro work and virtually all news work, if they had a wider selection of lenses. And if Nikon really wanted to stay on top of the high-end, high-quality stuff, why not a sensor larger than FF? The Fuji, fully tricked out, is only a bit heavier than a D810, and with further miniaturization, I think Nikon could produce a MF body the same size as the 810.
My reason for being with Nikon is macro and telephoto. If I shot standard focal lengths (35mm-135), I agree there are many tempting brand options these days. But for sports/wildlife (extreme macro + extreme reach) the premium quality options are pretty much either Canon or Nikon, of which I prefer the latter.
In this capacity, the APS-C D500 is tough to beat. The most obvious advantage it has is reach + speed + features. I recently sold mine, waiting for the D850 to come out, but after missing it for a month ... I re-ordered another. It is just too good, too fast, and too capable. Blows the D810 out of the water for action. Has better reach than the D5. Has better image quality than the D5 + the 1.4x TC to equal the D500's reach advantage. The D500 is IMO the most bang-for-the-buck, attractive wildlife camera I have seen.
I agree with you that MF will eventually shrink down to D810 size. At 46-50mpx, the D850 will, essentially, be a MF camera of 2 years ago.
However, thinking about that, this is another reason I went back to the D500. It is all I need for what I do.
Do I really want to riddle-off hundreds of 100MB images on my cards, and then process/save them, etc.? The D500 files are all anyone needs for magazines or internet presentation ... which is where 99.9% of bird photos, and wildlife photos, are going to be. Maybe if I want to blow-up some kind of incredible lion photo, to canvass a living room wall, then maybe shooting with the D810/D850 would be the choice. But for the most part internet/magazine articles are where wildlife photos go ... so the D500 is all the camera anyone needs for wildlife IMO.
Nikon should be announcing something this month, and I think the next year + early 2018 are going to reveal alot of cool offerings from multiple manufacturers.
-
@JKoerner007: yes, removing the OVF only has much overall camera size advantage with normal to wide focal lengths including standard zooms. For us long telephoto and macro nature photography fans, far more is to be gained from higher sensor resolution—meaning smaller photo-sites, not more of them—and that continues to favor 24x16 and 4/3 over 36x24 and up.
-
I don't see *any* advantages to a new APS-C system from Nikon -- I certainly wouldn't buy one. It doesn't have the weight advantages of the V system or the m4/3 systems, nor does it offer the quality of the FF or Fuji MF systems, so exactly what would be the point?
John,
Don't take this wrong, but I call this familiar reasoning "the extremist argument"—that the only good options are at one extreme or the other, where one attribute is optimised (size, weight and convenience vs image quality). Instead, a lot of customers reject those extremes because they are also the worst in some other attributes, and go for an intermediate balance.
Though I think Nikon could produce a great system based on 4/3" or even maybe by working harder on 1", I see the appeal of better compatibility with DX lenses already owned, and sensors that it is also acquiring for DX SLRs.
-
The only case where Nikon could produce an APS-C mirrorless in my book would be along with a 33x44mm sensor based MF camera, similarly to Fuji.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just don't see why Nikon would want to go with a 1" or 4/3 sensor. They seem to have dropped the 1" line, so why go with another inferior sensor like a 4/3? They could probably get away with an APS-C, but they need to go with FF or larger.
-
I just don't see why Nikon would want to go with a 1" or 4/3 sensor. They seem to have dropped the 1" line, so why go with another inferior sensor like a 4/3? They could probably get away with an APS-C, but they need to go with FF or larger.
I do wish we could get away from language like this.
I've been a MFT user since pretty much day one and I could be dismissed as having a vested interest but trust me on this... I'm mostly format and brand agnostic :D
Looking back at my 35mm film days I think that MFT is superior in every way. Maybe it's just me but I do wish that people could stay away from statements like "inferior" and if they want to point our weaknesses or indeed strengths why not be a little more specific?
MFT lacks a touch of DR when compared to the best modern "FF" systems, the very high ISO performance isn't so good and you can't print as large or crop as much and retain the quality as you can with a larger format. Isn't that better than just saying "inferior"? Many people wouldn't even see the deficiencies :D
-
Less DR, noisier etc., but 'inferior' isn't the right word? I'll have a word with the OED & see if they do something about that.
-
Less DR, noisier etc., but 'inferior' isn't the right word?
"Inferior" as you're using it is clearly intended to be derogatory.
-Dave-
-
"Inferior" as you're using it is clearly intended to be derogatory.
And it should be frankly speaking. Writing that 4:3 sensors are inferior is only stating an obvious fact. That doesn't mean it isn't possible to capture amazing images with these cameras.
What is abnormal here isn't to call a cat a cat, is for cat owners to interpret their cat not being called a dog as an insult to their ability to be a great cat.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I thing that the objection to the phrase "inferior sensor" should be easy to understand by any user of 35mm film who heard trash-talk from medium format snobs about 35mm being inferior.
One problem is ignoring the fact that higher resolution (lines per mm) is a very valuable attribute of sensors for many photographers, increasing the amount of telephoto reach and macro detail that can be got from lenses of a given size and focal length. And unlike the case with film, larger format sensors persist in being "inferior in resolution", requiring a bulkier kit in some situations. The resolution ratio between ILC formats has been fairly steady ever since the first 11 and 14 MP 36x24mm format DSLRs arrived in 2003, with all formats roughly doubling their resolution (quadrupling pixel count).
Another humble sensor attribute is cost: since we are discussing the commercial wisdom of various format choices that Nikon might make, this is a legitimate factor is judging the "inferiority" of one sensor size over over another. Given that the cheapest 36x24mm format body costs about three times as much as the cheapest "APS-C" body (not to mention 44x33mm format pricing) there is clear trend of larger sensors being "inferior in cost".
Related is the persistent imbalance of looking at selected sensor characteristics (but not all: see above!) in isolation when assessing a format choice. The argument seems to be that smaller sensors are inherently inferior, so a smaller format is inherently inferior, and therefore for Nikon to choose a smaller format for its next mirrorless system would be an inherently inferior decision—ignoring any factors that weigh in favor of a smaller format for a great many potential customers. Stated this baldly and absolutely, this is an obvious fallacy; else medium format would have trounced 35mm in film, and would be doing so again in digital, while 36x24mm digital would be dominating the market over smaller ILC formats, and so on.
-
Less DR, noisier etc., but 'inferior' isn't the right word?
What about "higher resolution" (lp/mm), as mentioned in my more long-winded post? It matters to some of us!
-
I just don't see why Nikon would want to go with a 1" or 4/3 sensor. They seem to have dropped the 1" line, so why go with another inferior sensor like a 4/3? They could probably get away with an APS-C, but they need to go with FF or larger.
As I mentioned in my post above, I would have greatly preferred my current m4/3 system to my FF Nikon system because reproduction in most online and newspaper media can't take advantage of FF quality, while, at the same time, some photographers can really, really use the lighter weights of m4/3. There are some, but really very few uses, for which m4/3 isn't as good at FF. And there are some uses for which M4/3 has great advantages over FF. All of that is tied to the sensor; saying one sensor is inferior to another is like saying a pickup truck is inferior to a 5.0 Mustang...but for what?
-
Nikon should be announcing something this month, and I think the next year + early 2018 are going to reveal alot of cool offerings from multiple manufacturers.
I hope you're right. There's been a fairly length pause in digital camera development, which I think the manufacturers need to sort of catch their breath and figure out where to go next, but it feels like that is ending. Sony has made some interesting products but now needs to consolidate and create a really professional system, if it plans to do that; and I think Nikon needs to lead the way out. Canon...I don't know what Canon does. There are some disadvantages to being part of a large company that makes most of its money doing other things...
-
And there are some uses for which M4/3 has great advantages over FF. All of that is tied to the sensor; saying one sensor is inferior to another is like saying a pickup truck is inferior to a 5.0 Mustang...but for what?
It all comes down to choosing the right tool for the right job. My principal interest right now is finding a good lightweight mirrorless set up for travel. Weight matters for those of us who are no longer on the youth side. I ended up not taking my Nikon on our trip to London and Ireland because of the weight. Since we had a wedding to attend in London I had to take more clothes than I normally would for a Euro holiday. Nikon body + 24-120 f4 zoom comes in at 1600g whereas a Sony a6500 + Tessar 16-70 f4 weighs just over 700g. This is a huge difference when one is in transit as much as we were during this trip. If the new Nikon comes in at the same weight as their DSLRs, I'm not interested (despite having lots of good Nikon lenses).
-
. . . saying one sensor is inferior to another is like saying a pickup truck is inferior to a 5.0 Mustang...but for what?
Yes, though I have been using almost the opposite analogy: some people say that everyone is better off with a full-sized pickup, while a more maneuverable and fuel-efficient compact car serves my purposes better.
-
Less DR, noisier etc., but 'inferior' isn't the right word? I'll have a word with the OED & see if they do something about that.
I tend to dislike sweeping unsupported generalities. Yes, the bigger the sensor the better may be true in some circumstances but I still think it's worthwhile thinking about what those circumstances may be and if they're real world or not and day to day or not and then there's the question of if the smaller system can ever be superior. As we're using that sort of language.
Coming from film and going though APS-C digital with a Canon 300D, 10D and 20D (because there were no FF digital cameras back then and then going "FF" with a Canon 5D and on to MFT with Panasonic G1, GX7 and GX80 and to FF again with an A7 I've been able to see the changes with the various bodies and the effect on image quality and IMO a lot of people a lot of the time will have a hard time telling what gear was used for what picture.
There are a lot of people on line who insist that they must have gear that'll track a gnats you know whats at midnight in a thunderstorm at ISO 1 million and they'll say that they need to be able to pixel peep the results at 400% and print 6m wide gallery quality prints but I don't know how realistic the extreme needs we see on line are. My own needs are a little more forgiving and I find that even the inferior MFT is good enough for a whole image at what used to be thought of as very high ISO and good enough for 100% crops at more normal ISO's.
I just think that a little less hyperbole and a little more considered and moderated opinion together with supporting reasoning and detail might be a good thing.
-
And it should be frankly speaking. Writing that 4:3 sensors are inferior is only stating an obvious fact.
"Inferior" for what purposes? If sheer technical image quality is your overriding concern, then yes. But dig this: sheer technical image quality isn't everyone's overriding concern. Not even close to it. It certainly isn't mine. More precise language is needed to avoid coming across as a snob or status posturer.
-Dave-
-
"Inferior" as you're using it is clearly intended to be derogatory.
-Dave-
If I intended to be derogatory I'd have used different words. I meant precisely what I said
-
Really strange to me....
After shooting for over 20 years, and going from Canon to Nikon and then Canon again, and now Canon and Sony, I thought for sure for the 100th anniversary Nikon would do something radical with the D850, yet, really nothing that that makes me want to jump out anywhere.
The D810e was a close one that I almost took a plunge, but not good timing for me. I love both systems, and love Canon service more, but after a while you want some excuse to get excited again. Sadly, its just not there from Nikon...
Maybe Fuji GFX, or the like is all I see in my VF ? :-)
-
After shooting for over 20 years, and going from Canon to Nikon and then Canon again, and now Canon and Sony, I thought for sure for the 100th anniversary Nikon would do something radical with the D850, yet, really nothing that that makes me want to jump out anywhere.
The D810e was a close one that I almost took a plunge, but not good timing for me. I love both systems, and love Canon service more, but after a while you want some excuse to get excited again. Sadly, its just not there from Nikon...
The D850 is the ultimate DSLR, the end of a line. It is miles ahead of anything Canon has to offer and combines the best AF there is (the 3D AF mode is pretty much magical), excellent resolution, great speed, the best viewfinder, great usability (tilt screen),.... but I do agree with you that it isn't exciting.
This being said, I'll add one to my line up and will take great images with it until something with better abilities shows up.
As a system, in combination with lenses such as the 19mm T/S, 28mm f1.4, 105mm f1.4, 70-200 f2.8E,... and the only pro spec 24-70 f2.8 that is both stabilized and rugged. it is really hard to beat. Not only do these lenses deliver best in class detail and overall technical excellence, the images captured with these have a look that is to die for.
Now, the real question is... what is exciting. I thought the GFX and X1D would excite me... played with both. Nice camera but I didn't feel anything special. My H6D-100c offer amazing image quality, but can I honnestly say it excites me? No...
A Sony a9r perhaps may, but I never felt any vibe using the a7rII, although I admit it is a great technological achievement.
Is the D850 reponsible for our lack of excitement, or is it just that we have grown out of photographic equipment?
I am still excited by photography, sweet light, a magic moment. But by cameras? Not sure I'll still be.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...I am still excited by photography, sweet light, a magic moment. But by cameras? Not sure I'll still be.
Cheers,
Bernard
And I'd make the case that that's how it ought to be. The camera can go back to being just a tool, as it was in the pre-autofocus film days. Much of the gear/spec debate that goes on in photo forums is just silliness.
My personal standard is that as soon as the phase "shot noise" makes an appearance in a thread it ceases to have any photographic value. :)
-
It could be 36x24mm format instead, but I am guessing on the more mainstream 24x16mm because:
(a) It is a far larger market sector.
(b) First-time ILC camera buyers are the most likely to go for a new system with an all-new lens line-up, which initially will not have such a wide range, and these first-timers mostly choose the smaller, less expensive formats.
(c) The 36x24mm format user-base has a higher proportion of OVF-clinging curmudgeons :)
I note the smiley!
As mentioned before, the only thing wrong with contemporary slr cameras - the dslr variety, is that they have lousy screens often lacking both 100% coverage and the good old split-image device that made manual focussing not a problem at all.
Through failing eyesight I have learned to value af; however, where not in any particular hurry, I still enjoy the physical and visual pleasure of running through focus fields as I operate the focussing ring. Especially so with longer lenses. Rapid af takes that optical buzz clean away.
There's more pleasure in making pictures than meets the post-exposure eye.
Rob