Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: John Camp on July 09, 2010, 05:16:12 pm
-
I saw on Bloomberg (financial website) that Nikon is planning to release what looks like an m4/3 competitor, but I haven't seen it discussed anywhere on camera forums. Have I missed it?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-08/n...imura-says.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-08/nikon-plans-new-concept-slr-camera-as-early-as-this-year-kimura-says.html)
-
This is the same idea behind point and shoots, and the Sony F828 etc. This will also shrink camera bodies substantially. The Sony F828 had a tiny LCD screen that substituted for the mirrors, when you looked through the viewfinder. It also allowed one to move the focus point, via a tiny joy stick, anywhere on the "eye piece" to any location the eye could see. You could put it right on the edge if you wanted.
-
To go with this vague mention of a possible mirrorless system, I suggest considering Nikon's half dozen or so patents last year for lenses for a mirrorless system of roughly 17mm image circle (so called 1" format). Maybe there will be something truly mid-way between fixed lens, small sensor compacts and DSLRs.
-
To go with this vague mention of a possible mirrorless system, I suggest considering Nikon's half dozen or so patents last year for lenses for a mirrorless system of roughly 17mm image circle (so called 1" format). Maybe there will be something truly mid-way between fixed lens, small sensor compacts and DSLRs.
Interesting. So something like the Canon G11, but w/o the mirrors?
-
Interesting. So something like the Canon G11, but w/o the mirrors?
I think less like G11 and more like u43 sized EVIL. My surmisal is that the new mount might be compatible with DX lenses (and other f mount lenses), which would breathe additional life into that lens line.
I wish they'd come up with a medium format camera already. Just saying.
-
I think less like G11 and more like u43 sized EVIL. My surmisal is that the new mount might be compatible with DX lenses (and other f mount lenses), which would breathe additional life into that lens line.
I wish they'd come up with a medium format camera already. Just saying.
If they did, it probably wouldn't be any less expensive or better than the MF offerings already out.
-
If they did, it probably wouldn't be any less expensive or better than the MF offerings already out.
Then Pentax can bring it on as far as I'm concerned. Let the MF throwdown commence!
-
The concept of a Nikon mirrorless is pretty clever as a business strategy. I am just wondering whether a new mirrorless Nikon with sub APS sensor would accept u43 lenses with a simple adaptor for full functionality, and whether the new nikon lenses would adapt to the u43 similarly. If the lenses would interchange, Nikon could entice u43 users to Nikon bodies if they put up a good camera. It would have to do 1080 video, and I'll bet it will. And that would entice existing D40/50/60/80/and even 90 users, along with D3000/and some D5000 users to adopt it's next-generation tech. With the good tech, they'd be getting into the critical zone where the camera is a super point-and-shoot and in the critical size range of the iPhone -- the kind of object you can accessorize, unlike the DSLR which is more or less strictly for the camera bag set. But this one they can sell lenses for. Very interesting situation.
-
Interesting. So something like the Canon G11, but w/o the mirrors?
But with interchangeable lenses and over twice the sensor area, but about half the sensor area of Micro Four Thirds. By the way, the lens selection in those Nikon patents is heavily skewed towards long telephoto zooms, suggesting that "compact super-zoom upgraders" are a significant target market: that fits with the choice of a format smaller than 4/3" or DX.
As to cross-system lens compatibility, I am mostly skeptical:
- Nikon F mount lenses could surely be used with adaptors, but probably with inferior AF performance due to not being well adapted to the needs of CD AF (same reasons as the sluggish AF performance of most 4/3 SLR lenses on m4/3 bodies.)
- Adaptors for m4/3 lenses are unlikely: Nikon would not have access to the protocols for electronic body-lens communication, and m4/3 lens-body communication is all electronic.
- Adaptors in the other direction are even less unlikely if the format is indeed "one inch": same reasons as above, and also the smaller image circle would cause vignetting with at least some lenses and choices of focal length.
The bottom line for me is that these new mirror-less CD AF digital camera systems will overwhelmingly be used with lenses designed for them -- legacy lens nostalgia notwithstanding. Forums give a very biased view of the market, skewed towards experienced photographers with large lens investments and far-greater-than-average willingness to do without automation of focus, aperture stop-down, sensor cropping and so on, for the sake of using those old lenses.
-
How about an S2-like sensor in a rangefinder body, a la Mamiya 7 <drool>
-
How about an S2-like sensor in a rangefinder body, a la Mamiya 7 <drool>
That's what I would want. A larger-than-35mm version of the D3x sensor, with lenses that aren't limited by the design constraints of having a mirror box between the sensor and lens; that would be very interesting. But I don't see them doing it.
Nikon and Canon don't really innovate and take risks. If they're getting on the m4/3 bandwagon now it's only because the smaller players have proven that there's a market for it.
The notion of a m4/3-sized (or smaller) sensor in a mirrorless design from Nikon doesn't appeal at all to me. And using F-mount lenses would pretty much defeat the whole size/weight advantage of a mirrorless camera so I'm not really sure what you'd be gaining. It would just be a "me-too" product, and IMHO too late to the game.
-
That's what I would want. A larger-than-35mm version of the D3x sensor, with lenses that aren't limited by the design constraints of having a mirror box between the sensor and lens; that would be very interesting. But I don't see them doing it.
Nikon and Canon don't really innovate and take risks. If they're getting on the m4/3 bandwagon now it's only because the smaller players have proven that there's a market for it.
The notion of a m4/3-sized (or smaller) sensor in a mirrorless design from Nikon doesn't appeal at all to me. And using F-mount lenses would pretty much defeat the whole size/weight advantage of a mirrorless camera so I'm not really sure what you'd be gaining. It would just be a "me-too" product, and IMHO too late to the game.
Couldn't agree more on both larger then 35mm and smaller then 35mm. :-)
My view is that Nikon will:
1. Want to release something with a clear differentiator compared to DX size, so it will be smaller than 4/3 (the 17mm rumor makes a lot of sense),
2. Has some sensor technos down their sleeves that could make such a small format perform very well at high ISO -> they will target the high end/high price segment that most people here have been requesting (read 1000+ US$ for the body).
The delay in new DSLR release makes me think that they probably involved their DSLR team in the design of this camera (they are much more competent than their compact camera team judging from the cameras they have released so far). So I do expect a rugged body (maybe fully immersible), with pro looks,
3. Will make it possible to re-use F mount lenses somehow. Either by equiping this small camera directly with an F mount (see Sony NEX) or by delivering a suitable adaptor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some background reading on those Nikon patents for lenses for a possible 17mm diagonal format mirror-less interchangeable lens digital camera system, with links to all the patents:
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/10/16/its-a-ni...ens-camera.aspx (http://nikonrumors.com/2009/10/16/its-a-nikon-patents-friday-nikon-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera.aspx)
Some highlights:
focus length: 14.26, f stop: 2.8, FOV (deg): 62, 35 mm equiv: 35
focus length: 18.4 f stop: 1.4, FOV (deg): 50, 35 mm equiv: 45
focus length: 30-107 f stop: 4-5.6, FOV (deg): 31.9-8.8, 35 mm equiv: 75 – 270
focus length: 10.5 – 107 f stop: 3.3 – 6, FOV (deg): 81 – 9, 35 mm equiv: 26 – 270
focus length: 10.5 – 108 f stop: 2.8 – 6, FOV (deg): 81 – 8.9, 35 mm equiv: 26 – 270
focus length: 9 – 42.6 f stop: 2.8 – 5.6, FOV (deg): 89.8 – 22.3, 35 mm equiv: 22 – 105
focus length: 10.5 – 107 f stop: 2.8 – 5.9, FOV (deg): 80.7 – 8.8, 35 mm equiv: 26 – 270
-
I personally was wondering when they would realize that a mirror system was essentially useless and dead weight. Without one, the camera operates much more efficiently, is smaller, and costs less to make. I suspect that in the future maybe only MF systems will still have them. After all, we're soon to see HD quality viewfinders and screens on the cameras anyways(1mp+ isn't hard to find even now). Our eyes really don't resolve much better than that anyways in a typical SLR type arrangement.
-
I personally was wondering when they would realize that a mirror system was essentially useless and dead weight. Without one, the camera operates much more efficiently, is smaller, and costs less to make. I suspect that in the future maybe only MF systems will still have them. After all, we're soon to see HD quality viewfinders and screens on the cameras anyways(1mp+ isn't hard to find even now). Our eyes really don't resolve much better than that anyways in a typical SLR type arrangement.
Autofocus performance is going to have to improve a whole lot before mirrorless designs can full replace SLR's for all types of shooting, I don't see that happening very soon.
-
Autofocus performance is going to have to improve a whole lot before mirrorless designs can full replace SLR's for all types of shooting, I don't see that happening very soon.
What if PD AF sensors are put into the image sensors of mirrorless cameras, as Fuji is doing with the new F300 EXR, and as Sony and Canon apparently have patents for too? PD AF with no risk of front- or back-focus problems and not mirror slap is tempting.
-
Although bringing the lens closer to the sensor removes a lot of constraints for the lens design, it can often be counter-productive when doing this with a digital sensor, because of the extreme angles of light at the edges of the sensor. This is what Leica has been tackling with offset microlenses and software correction in the M9.
-
Then Pentax can bring it on as far as I'm concerned. Let the MF throwdown commence!
Duh. I wasn't even thinking about that. Sure, lower the price of MF to something more people can afford, and if it can perform most of the behavior a DSLR can, I'll sure purely MF--I mean why not?
-
This is the same idea behind point and shoots, and the Sony F828 etc. This will also shrink camera bodies substantially. The Sony F828 had a tiny LCD screen that substituted for the mirrors, when you looked through the viewfinder. It also allowed one to move the focus point, via a tiny joy stick, anywhere on the "eye piece" to any location the eye could see. You could put it right on the edge if you wanted.
I enjoyed my 828 and wish that Sony had continued on this theme.
One disadvantage for me was that the screen was toggled with a switch, and required discapline to switch it over before looking through the viewfinder. Since you can't teach this old dog new tricks I frequently missed shots, or took too long.
Is the Nex5 a suitable replacement for the 828?
DaveL
Tornto
-
I enjoyed my 828 and wish that Sony had continued on this theme.
One disadvantage for me was that the screen was toggled with a switch, and required discapline to switch it over before looking through the viewfinder. Since you can't teach this old dog new tricks I frequently missed shots, or took too long.
Is the Nex5 a suitable replacement for the 828?
DaveL
Tornto
Did you not like the Sony R1? I have had two. I still love it, with the rear element 2mm from the sensor...distortion? What distortion!
It always felt like my old Mamiya 645 pro. in use. I just tried a NEX-5 today... the only problem with it was that I hated it... it felt like a mobile phone stuck on a mid range zoom, great if you're addicted
to button pushes though.
-
Did you not like the Sony R1? I have had two. I still love it, with the rear element 2mm from the sensor...distortion? What distortion!
It always felt like my old Mamiya 645 pro. in use. I just tried a NEX-5 today... the only problem with it was that I hated it... it felt like a mobile phone stuck on a mid range zoom, great if you're addicted
to button pushes though.
I regret that I didn't buy an R1. At that point I was still trying to simplify my life. The focal length of the 828 lens matched my shooting needs.
We were in California and I had problems with birds in flight photos with the 828. Came home and bought a D80 to use lenses that I had stored for some time, and an 18-200VR that I bought (attempt to simplify my life). Recently the D80 morphed into a D300S, and I'm much happier with that choice. However, once again, I've made my life more complicated.
History---bought an F2 when they were first announced. F3 same story; Leica systems (M3; M4P) too.
I still have my 828. I wonder at the Panys out there, but Canadian pricing seems strangely expensive.
DaveL
-
I regret that I didn't buy an R1. At that point I was still trying to simplify my life. The focal length of the 828 lens matched my shooting needs.
We were in California and I had problems with birds in flight photos with the 828. Came home and bought a D80 to use lenses that I had stored for some time, and an 18-200VR that I bought (attempt to simplify my life). Recently the D80 morphed into a D300S, and I'm much happier with that choice. However, once again, I've made my life more complicated.
History---bought an F2 when they were first announced. F3 same story; Leica systems (M3; M4P) too.
I still have my 828. I wonder at the Panys out there, but Canadian pricing seems strangely expensive.
DaveL
The R1 was a 'failure' (as a money spinner for Sony) but now they're available at a quarter of their launch prices and are real value for money.
Like you, I bought Nikon gear...D5000 + 16-85mm and a D90 + 70-300mm VR and discovered the R1 vs. the D5000 + 16-85 is a close run thing. I did consider the Panasonic G1 but found the front
control wheel too easy to move accidentally, now the G2's got it in a different position but still, lens availability's never going to be on a par with Nikon.
My history mirrors yours with the addition of Hasselblad, Linhof, Mamiya and Sinar.
Yes, Canadian pricing does seem strange... is it the tax system?
P.S. Sorry for digressing from the original post somewhat!
-
Did you not like the Sony R1? I have had two. I still love it, with the rear element 2mm from the sensor...distortion? What distortion!
It always felt like my old Mamiya 645 pro. in use. I just tried a NEX-5 today... the only problem with it was that I hated it... it felt like a mobile phone stuck on a mid range zoom, great if you're addicted
to button pushes though.
I also had a brace of R1s. It's unfortunate that Sony decided to abandon the project to concentrate on DSLRs after acquiring Minolta. It handled well, produced excellent images, and you could put the histogram in the EVF. With the ability to work exposure compensation with your thumb, you could dial the exposure in on the fly. And then there was that brilliant fast lens...
Who knows what it would have become if they had continued development with constantly improving technologies.