Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on January 11, 2018, 05:34:42 pm
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/01/11/nikons-upcoming-mirrorless-camera-rumored-to-have-a-new-z-mount-with-16mm-flange-focal-distance.
It may even be possible to adapt E mount lenses to it since it is 2mm shorter and has a wider diameter.
Considering the larger diameter, it sounds like compactness may not have been the driving force of the design. I bet they have looked carefully at what Sony has been doing lensewise during the past 6 years since E mount was released and have designed the most future proof possible mount with lens performance and look as their number one design objective.
We should see soon enough. I am really looking forward to this. In the past 10 years since the D3 Nikon engineering has always managed to release the best product on the market for serious shooters in the segments they were targeting (bodies and lenses). Let’s see if they have managed to outdo Sony or not.
It seems obvious that a me too product would kill the company. The key question is therefore what features they have come up with to attract users from Canon, Nikon DSLR and possibly existing Sony mirrorless users. My guess is unique/outstanding lens designs.
What's yours?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It surely shouldn't be beyond the realms of Nikon engineering to ensure a straightforward compatibility with current Nikon lenses. Fingers crossed.
-
a straightforward compatibility with current Nikon lenses. Fingers crossed.
Mine, too.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/01/11/nikons-upcoming-mirrorless-camera-rumored-to-have-a-new-z-mount-with-16mm-flange-focal-distance.
Considering the larger diameter, it sounds like compactness may not have been the driving force of the design. ...
If true, this sounds like a sensible decision. Not only does the short flange-focal distance allow more flexibility in lens design, so does the wider diameter. The F mount is unusually narrow at 44mm, particularly compared to Canon EF mount's 54mm, which has made some fast lens designs harder or impossible for Nikon. (Canon flaunted this with extreme designs like its 50mm f/1.0 and 85mm/1.2)
-
Indeed.
F mount has been around for 50 years, I can only imagine the amount of attention they have put in this new mount. It is by far the most important design decision the Nikon employees in charge (engineers and higher mgt) will have taken by the time they retire.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would be sceptical of any company's announcements until they have proven their capability in the field. So far, Nikon has not demonstrated that.
It's taken Canon the better part of a decade to refine their dual-pixel system; as yet, they haven't put it in a full-frame mirrorless camera, but we know it works well from its implementation in crop-sensor and video cameras. We don't know whether it works well enough for fast action yet, though.
It took Sony several years, and several generations of cameras, to develop their mirrorless AF into an action-capable system, and, until the A9 was actually released, it was not certain whether the current generation of bodies would be action-capable (like the 1Dx2) or more in line with the 5D4-style general-purpose bodies.
It's good that they're making moves in this direction, but Nikon has to demonstrate this mirrorless capability first before I would take their announcements seriously. They will likely get there, but possibly (probably) not in the first generation.
The problem for Nikon - as it was with SLRs - is incumbency. Sony has incumbency with full-frame mirrorless cameras, just as Canon had incumbency with full-frame SLRs. This lets them build up early market share. It takes a lot of effort, as well as stagnation on the part of the incumbent, to overcome this early advantage - people won't switch systems unless Nikon provides them a compelling reason to, and, with the exception of the 70-200 f/2.8, Sony's mirrorless lenses are equal to their Canon and Nikon counterparts and are growing in number. Once again, Nikon may have arrived late to the party.
It surely shouldn't be beyond the realms of Nikon engineering to ensure a straightforward compatibility with current Nikon lenses. Fingers crossed.
It will need an adapter.
The performance of adapter-mounted EF and A-mount lenses on Canon and Sony mirrorless bodies is underwhelming, compared to native lenses.
-
The problem for Nikon - as it was with SLRs - is incumbency. Sony has incumbency with full-frame mirrorless cameras, just as Canon had incumbency with full-frame SLRs. This lets them build up early market share. It takes a lot of effort, as well as stagnation on the part of the incumbent, to overcome this early advantage - people won't switch systems unless Nikon provides them a compelling reason to, and, with the exception of the 70-200 f/2.8, Sony's mirrorless lenses are equal to their Canon and Nikon counterparts and are growing in number. Once again, Nikon may have arrived late to the party.
I don't think so.
Mirrorless is just starting, the amount of a7x vs the amount of full frame DSLRs outthere is just very tiny, probably no more than 2-3% at most.
The DSLR replacement market is there to be taken and the best solution is going to win.
The early start Sony took is good, but I believe it has also helped Nikon and Canon understand what they could do better. The a7x for sure have some loving customers, but they have also many users unhappy about the experience. They are far from perfect cameras and the system as a whole is even less perfect. There is clearly room for improvement and both Canon and Nikon have a very large base of users who would rather stay in the family because it is likely to be cheaper. Both companies do also IMHO have superior lens technology, better tracking AF algorithms, a better understanding of ergonomics, better weather sealing, better ruggedness,...
Yes, adpated lenses AF performance may not be good for all lenses, but then again few people need great AF performance on all their lenses. AF performance is basically irrelevant for anything wider than 50mm for example. So a majority of users would be fine with buying 2-3 mirrorless lenses and adapting their existing ones.
Think also that Nikon users would finally be able to mount some fine Canon glass without having to spend too much also. The major migration on-going from Canon to Sony would also be greatly slowed down and the need for Canon users to access good sensors has clearly helped Sony a lot move in faster.
Future will tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I hope the Nikon arrives soon and I hope it’s a killer. Will I drop Sony after the past year of working with the cameras? Hell no, but the the competition will be great.
I am betting on Sony long term. If it doesn’t pan out I will switch but I have doubts. Sony have massive resources in AI from their manufacturing and robotics industries. I think this is a big future trend in photography and Sony has the edge here. We are not far off being able to set up a camera on the side of a field and tell it to follow a particular cricketer or rugby player. AI will then take care of the rest. Eye focus, nose focus, lion focus, it’s on the way
-
AF performance is basically irrelevant for anything wider than 50mm for example. So a majority of users would be fine with buying 2-3 mirrorless lenses and adapting their existing ones.
Future will tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think a lot of people will disagree with that statement. I'm also not entirely sure that Canon and Nikon have superior lens technology, I'd rather judge individual lenses rather than make a blanket statement and some of the Sony lenses are simply outstanding.
I had a Nikon SLR for decades before switching to Canon DSLR's and then to Sony mirrorless and I frankly don't care who makes the kit but many people do seem to buy into brands and I can see a Nikon or Canon FF CSC doing very very well even if it's a mediocre product, just because of the badge.
Time will tell.
-
Zeiss Otus is outstanding, Rodenstock HR is outstanding,...
I would agree that the G Master 85mm f1.4 is close to outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Zeiss Otus is outstanding, Rodenstock HR is outstanding,...
I would agree that the G Master 85mm f1.4 is close to outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
12-24 is outstanding...beats the he'll out of the fabulous Nikon 14-24.
Batis 135 is outstanding.
The Loxia 21 is outstanding.
I also find the Batis 25 and 85 outstanding...has delivered amazing photos for me.
-
I truly don't understand the obsession with "full frame". I shoot a lot of different "frames"--DX, 35mm, 828, 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, and am thinking of some day trying 8x10. None of these are any "better" than the other--it depends on what I'm using the camera for. What I want Nikon to make is a small camera. A "full frame" would be much larger than what I'm looking for. My favorite small system camera, the one I often take for "street shooting" and travel? The Leica IIIc with tiny Leica lenses 28/35/50/90mm. All of this was made in the 1940s. In the 1950s Nikon made the excellent SP camera. How come they can't make something that small and excellent today? I'm most likely going to pass on any "full frame" mirrorless they come up with.
https://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm
Kent in SD
-
I truly don't understand the obsession with "full frame". I shoot a lot of different "frames"--DX, 35mm, 828, 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, and am thinking of some day trying 8x10. None of these are any "better" than the other--it depends on what I'm using the camera for. What I want Nikon to make is a small camera. A "full frame" would be much larger than what I'm looking for. My favorite small system camera, the one I often take for "street shooting" and travel? The Leica IIIc with tiny Leica lenses 28/35/50/90mm. All of this was made in the 1940s. In the 1950s Nikon made the excellent SP camera. How come they can't make something that small and excellent today? I'm most likely going to pass on any "full frame" mirrorless they come up with.
https://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm
Kent in SD
A big part of the challenge is making optical design that can satisfy modern high resolution sensor. If you take those wonderful 1940 and 1950 lenses and shoot them on a modern camera, the results will be not acceptable by many. Add to that the current fashion of shooting wide open, and you end up with what is talked about in a recent LuLa Leica interview video from Kevin: it is very difficult to design and fabricate lenses that have top notch performance wide open.
I fully agree that folks should use what they need or require for their profession.
-
I see no reason why Nikon couldn't produce a digital SP in an APS-C format, and a DSLR-replacing FX mirrorless. If they could make it about the same size as my old FM or FE, that would be great.
-
I don't think so.
Mirrorless is just starting, the amount of a7x vs the amount of full frame DSLRs outthere is just very tiny, probably no more than 2-3% at most.
The DSLR replacement market is there to be taken and the best solution is going to win.
Probably more like 10% if you're talking about full-frame only.
Thing is, Sony owns 100% of that 10%. And, more significantly, the percentage of new sales is far more than 10% - at the moment, they are not selling 9 full-frame SLRs for every one full-frame mirrorless body. Most of that 90% is made up of pre-existing/legacy bodies.
The early start Sony took is good, but I believe it has also helped Nikon and Canon understand what they could do better. The a7x for sure have some loving customers, but they have also many users unhappy about the experience. They are far from perfect cameras and the system as a whole is even less perfect.
Sony's experience may help Canon and Nikon get started more quickly, but it has helped Sony even more. It's not like Sony doesn't also know what else could be improved. And, from their own experience, they would also know how to do it.
Expect future Sony bodies to be more A9-like and less A7-like, with improved weather sealing and connectivity. Looking at the trend since the launch of the initial A7, you can expect them to increase in width and height to something similar to an SLR (probably D7500 dimensions rather than D850 dimensions), but retaining a saving in depth, since there is no need for a mirror box. Expect the weight to be more like 700-800g, instead of the A7r3/A9's 600-700g or the D850's >1kg. But expect them to use the increase volume and weight to deliver performance, not just empty weight or bigger batteries.
And that's just the camera bodies. The lens incumbency is probably even more important, since lenses tend to stay around for several cycles of bodies. Sony has all the major bases covered (superteles, tilt-shifts and fast medium-teles (e.g. 200mm f/2) are still to come, but they represent a very small proportion of the overall market). Unless the Canon and Nikon bodies launch with a new 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, some sort of fast UWA zoom and an 85 f/1.4 (or similar), they will find it difficult to make significant headway until those bases are covered, regardless of what the bodies are like.
There is clearly room for improvement and both Canon and Nikon have a very large base of users who would rather stay in the family because it is likely to be cheaper.
Sony also knows how to price-match. They can ask what they do now because there is no competitor. When there is one, they will reduce their prices, like everyone else. Remember the prices of the early Canon full-frame SLRs, before Nikon started making them?
Both companies do also IMHO have superior lens technology, better tracking AF algorithms, a better understanding of ergonomics, better weather sealing, better ruggedness,...
Lens technology is arguable. Sony certainly knows how to design them well - on paper, they are as good or better than the others. Their manufacturing tolerances, though, probably leave something to be desired (which is probably what leads to such things as the 70-200 f/2.8 underperformance, and the 16-35 f/2.8's sample variation).
But the 12-24 f/4 is the equal of the Canon 11-24 (if not slightly better) and soundly beats the Nikon 14-24. The 24-70 GM is as good as any other 24-70 out there. The 100-400 GM is sharper than the Canon 100-400, and much sharper than the Nikon 80-400 - indeed, sharper at the same aperture than the Canon 200-400 f/4.
Better AF tracking? Certainly not in the case of the 1Dx2 - the A9 is right up there. Even compared to the D5, the A9 is not as fast, but probably even more accurate. As in, when tracking a fast-moving object, it will have more frames out-of-focus than the Nikon (usually lagging behind the subject's movement), but, when tracking a slow-moving object, it is more likely to remain focused directly on the targeted part of the subject rather than being slightly front- or back-focused (e.g. focused on the subject's ear, nose or eyelashes, rather than the eye).
And that is just 'dumb' AF - tracking a moving point in space, without any system knowledge of what it's actually tracking. Sony is well ahead in 'smart' AI - things like eye focus - which are only going to become more and more prominent in the future.
I'd say Sony understands plenty about ergonomics and ruggedness. Look at their video cameras. Just that the A7 series was designed - initially, at least - with small size in mind. But they are becoming bigger, heavier and more rugged, as they trade small size for increased usability. The A7r was 465g. The A7r3 is 657g. The trend will probably continue, up to around D7500-size. They wouldn't want to go too big, either. I'd much rather shoot an A7r3 or A9 than a D850 or D5 - the grip on those cameras is far too large, leading to a precarious grip. Many others are in the same situation. Not everyone has huge hands and difficulty manipulating small objects.
Yes, adpated lenses AF performance may not be good for all lenses, but then again few people need great AF performance on all their lenses. AF performance is basically irrelevant for anything wider than 50mm for example. So a majority of users would be fine with buying 2-3 mirrorless lenses and adapting their existing ones.
Think also that Nikon users would finally be able to mount some fine Canon glass without having to spend too much also. The major migration on-going from Canon to Sony would also be greatly slowed down and the need for Canon users to access good sensors has clearly helped Sony a lot move in faster.
Yes, Canon's sensor weakness was Sony's strength. If Canon's sensors had been up to scratch, I doubt the A7 series would have been anywhere near as successful as it has been.
But that won't be repeated. Sony's system doesn't have a fundamental weakness that they refuse to correct which can be similarly exploited by Canon and Nikon as they launch their mirrorless systems. The 'leakage' to Sony may slow, but won't stop until Canon and Nikon both manage to match Sony in mirrorless body capability and lens offerings. Unless they make a major effort and launch 6 high-end lenses at the same time, this is unlikely to happen for a few years.
-
Sony have massive resources in AI from their manufacturing and robotics industries. I think this is a big future trend in photography and Sony has the edge here. We are not far off being able to set up a camera on the side of a field and tell it to follow a particular cricketer or rugby player. AI will then take care of the rest. Eye focus, nose focus, lion focus, it’s on the way
Been saying that for years.
If you can program a camera to focus on a human eye, you can just as easily program it to focus on a particular person (using facial recognition like in security systems), an animal or type of animal or a vehicle. Programming it to seek certain compositions (close-ups, whole-body shots, etc.) is even easier.
Combine it with a motorised gimbal mount, or even a drone (connected to, and controlled by, the camera) and you'd have a system that can track, follow and compose, rather than just focus. Combine it with drone-mounted flash units and you get even more options.
Then you might have a single sports photographer covering an entire stadium, overseeing a network of autonomous cameras from a laptop or remote workstation, telling the cameras what to do and who/how to shoot, rather than doing it directly. One photographer could replace many.
Or, for individual rather than commercial applications, you might have one photographer controlling multiple Gopro-type cameras and mobile flash units, shooting a scene from multiple angles simultaneously.
AI is the future of photography. The individual photographer will no longer be a grunt directly controlling a single camera, but the 'commanding officer' coordinating a whole squadron of autonomous or semi-autonomous cameras. And that gives you far more options and far more flexibility than being restricted to a single camera in hand.
The Nikon-like ability to rapidly track the movements of an otherwise-anonymous (as far as the computer is concerned - obviously the photographer knows what is being tracked) point in 3D space is primitive in comparison, even if it can track that anonymous point in an anonymous 3D space faster than anyone else. Nikon may have perfected previous-generation AF technology, but that's not far from reaching a dead end.
-
It may even be possible to adapt E mount lenses to it since it is 2mm shorter and has a wider diameter.
Conversely, it would make Nikon “Z” lenses non-adaptable to other mirrorless cameras.
-
Conversely, it would make Nikon “Z” lenses non-adaptable to other mirrorless cameras.
Probably both ways.
2mm is too thin to realistically make an AF-supporting adapter. It's smaller than the 2.5mm difference between Canon EF and Nikon F mounts, and manufacturers struggled even with that. So E-mount bodies may not be able to use Z-mount lenses, but Z-mount bodies probably won't be able to use E-mount lenses either.
-
Nikon has a huge (potential) advantage in capturing the existing F mount installation base, as they are likely to be able to engineer a superior adaptor that will appeal to existing lens owners over adaptors to other systems. Given the experience of the 1 Nikon system, where they deliberately crippled the adaptor, it’s unknown if they will execute this to the market’s satisfaction.
They have a huge (actual) disadvantage arising from their previous abandonment of said 1 Nikon system. And their stillborn DL line. While I might be willing to sample a reasonably priced mirrorless body that worked seamlessly with my existing lenses, I’m not sure how willing I might be to invest in lenses that have no future.
-
Nikon has a huge (potential) advantage in capturing the existing F mount installation base, as they are likely to be able to engineer a superior adaptor that will appeal to existing lens owners over adaptors to other systems. Given the experience of the 1 Nikon system, where they deliberately crippled the adaptor, it’s unknown if they will execute this to the market’s satisfaction.
They have a huge (actual) disadvantage arising from their previous abandonment of said 1 Nikon system. And their stillborn DL line. While I might be willing to sample a reasonably priced mirrorless body that worked seamlessly with my existing lenses, I’m not sure how willing I might be to invest in lenses that have no future.
What makes you think Nikon can do it when neither Canon nor Sony could (the adaptors for EF-M and E mounts don't work nearly as well as native lenses)? An adapter is a mechanical and electronic device, not an optical one, so it's not like Nikon has a particular strength in that area. And to make it perform like an SLR would essentially mean putting in a pellicle mirror (and losing 1/3 of a stop of light) and a full off-sensor AF system, resulting in an adapter that costs as much as a high-end lens and still isn't as good as an SLR (since greater tolerances and movement in a mount system reduces accuracy, and makes microadjustment more difficult, compared to a fixed system where the AF system and sensor can't move relative to each other).
-
My experience with the 1 Nikon was that the adaptor worked extremely well, although they crippled some of the features. And that was a mirrorless camera, with outstanding focus capabilities. For instance, only the central focusing area was supported. With the new AF-P lenses, I expect the electronic interface will be even better.
-
My experience with the 1 Nikon was that the adaptor worked extremely well, although they crippled some of the features. And that was a mirrorless camera, with outstanding focus capabilities. For instance, only the central focusing area was supported. With the new AF-P lenses, I expect the electronic interface will be even better.
You're talking about a budget 2.7x crop camera, which not only doesn't need to be nearly as precise (the available depth of field being a lot wider), but also isn't held to the same standard as a full-frame action camera would be.
When you say a camera has 'good' AF, what do you actually mean? What is it capable of tracking, and what can it not track? What resolution can it focus accurately to, and at what point does misfocus become apparent? And are you applying the same standard to all cameras, or are you applying different standards, based on the class and age of the camera?
Does the Nikon D3 have a good AF system? What about the Canon 5D4? What about the D750? The D3 had a 'good' AF system for its time. But that of the 5D4 and D750 are, objectively, even better. Yet you probably wouldn't regard the latter two as having particularly 'good' AF systems. Why? Because different standards are being applied - the 5D4 and D750, being much newer cameras, are being held to a much higher standard.
Does the 800D have a good AF system? Does the 6D2? Reviews tend to say that the 800D has a good AF system - and it does, compared to its peers. But that of the 6D2 is objectively better, yet the AF system of that camera is often panned as subpar. Why? Because the 6D2, as a higher-tier camera, is being held to a much higher standard.
'Good AF' for a Canon Rebel camera isn't the same as 'good AF' for a 1Dx- or A9-level camera. 'Good AF' for a budget camera was considered to be the ability to quickly and accurately lock onto someone's face for a portrait, or to competently track a slow-moving person. No-one was asking for a 90% hit rate on a moving, dodging, camouflaged subject with the Nikon J5. No-one expected it to accurately track a running dog or erratically-moving child at short range, even with a native lens - and it can't. But that's essentially what is being asked - and should be asked - of top-tier cameras like the A9. And it can meet that standard - but only with a native lens.
And what passes as 'in-focus' for a 2.7x crop sensor shooting at 100mm f/2.8 is likely to be way out of focus with a full-frame sensor shooting at 270mm f/2.8, with a much narrower depth of field (you're not going to get a 100mm f/1.1 lens for the crop sensor, which would call for a similar degree of precision).
-
I see no reason why Nikon couldn't produce a digital SP in an APS-C format, and a DSLR-replacing FX mirrorless. If they could make it about the same size as my old FM or FE, that would be great.
Exactly. The current FX cameras are just too damn bulky and heavy. Cripes, my Chamonix 4x5 with three lenses actually weighs less than my D800E with three lenses. I just see no need for me to replace a Nikon FX DSLR with a Nikon FX mirrorless. I'm actually now using two Nikon systems, depending on my needs. I use D800E for astro, landscapes, paid work, and a D5300 for travel & hiking. What I want from Nikon is something to replace the D5300 with something even smaller and even smaller lenses. As I said, I really have no loyalty at all to the over 100 yr. old 35mm frame dimensions. It's nothing special. My favorite frame is 6x6, even.
Kent in SD
-
The 1 series AF was competitive with the DSLRs of its time on both static and moving subjects.
It was the best mirrorless AF at the time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 1 series AF was competitive with the DSLRs of its time on both static and moving subjects.
It was the best mirrorless AF at the time.
Cheers,
Bernard
Best mirrorless doesn't mean much when you're competing against first-generation A7 bodies and budget Olympus M43 cameras. Any new model is going to need to match the A9, 1Dx2 and D5, unless Nikon specifically goes after the high-resolution, low-speed, non-action market with its first efforts (which would actually be a good way to break into the mirrorless market, since it would reduce the performance burden while capitalising on Nikon's strength in optics).
It was in no way competitive AF-wise with the 5D3, D750, 7D2 and even D7200 it was up against, let alone the D4 and 1Dx. The only reason it appeared to perform as well as it did was because, with a 2.7x crop, pretty much everything was in focus most of the time anyway - it could be out by a long way and you'd never notice.
This sounds like just another case of Nikon users thinking that Nikon is somehow special and won't have to deal with the difficulties that Canon and Sony have both faced (some successfully, some not so successfully) - all with the resources of a much smaller company than the other two.
-
I am impressed by your intimate knowledge of most camera on the market. ;)
I owned a J1, a V3 and the AW1 and my first hand experience (which includes taking the first pictures of my daughter minutes after she was born) tells me that, with the best 1 lenses, the AF was DSLR class.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am impressed by your intimate knowledge of most camera on the market. ;)
I owned a J1, a V3 and the AW1 and my first hand experience (which includes taking the first pictures of my daughter minutes after she was born) tells me that, with the best 1 lenses, the AF was DSLR class.
Cheers,
Bernard
Firstly, which SLR? A Canon Rebel, or a D5?
Secondly, with a 2.7x crop, it's not going to miss focus, since everything's in focus anyway, and the lens elements are small and light. Just like how phone cameras also rarely miss. Even Olympus M43 cameras, with their 2x crop, rarely miss. Focusing large lenses on a full-frame sensor is a whole lot more difficult.
Thirdly, newborn babies are hardly challenging subjects autofocus-wise.
-
Zeiss Otus is outstanding, Rodenstock HR is outstanding,...
I would agree that the G Master 85mm f1.4 is close to outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
The 55mm f1.8 is... oh what's the word... outstanding :D
-
The 55mm f1.8 is... oh what's the word... outstanding :D
I think that sometimes people forget that it's a bit harder to move all that FF heavy glass about quickly and accurately.
Off on a bit of a tangent...
What I'd like to see is relatively well made nice handling manual lenses of good enough quality which could mount directly onto my A7 or some other FF mirrorless camera without an adapter. Just new made versions of the Minolta Rokkors, Zuiko's and FD's etc. The old ones are a joy to use but of course need an adapter which adds to the bulk.
-
Probably both ways.
2mm is too thin to realistically make an AF-supporting adapter. It's smaller than the 2.5mm difference between Canon EF and Nikon F mounts, and manufacturers struggled even with that. So E-mount bodies may not be able to use Z-mount lenses, but Z-mount bodies probably won't be able to use E-mount lenses either.
Yes, for Sony lenses to Z system, but I expect third party manufacturers, once reverse engineer the protocol, can adapt their third party Sony lenses to Nikon. Probably with the exception of Zeiss Batis line, they were always reticent to reverse engineer EF or F protocols to start now with the Z ones...
This is also good for Sony, more manufacturers will start doing more third party lenses compatible with both systems (well... I think only Tamron doing the Batis lenses for Zeiss was the only missing doing FE lenses...)
Enviado desde mi iPad utilizando Tapatalk
-
The 55mm f1.8 is... oh what's the word... outstanding :D
Yes, that’s the second lens I had in mind.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Two points that I take from this thread so far and that I think are being ignored: larger format size is creatively important if for no other reason than the more shallow DOF with open, fast optics, which as has been pointed out some, myself included, prefer. The other point that sort of amuses me, is in connection with zooms: desire for fast, good ones, if that's not still a paradox, means that instead of being able to go out to shoot with one body and a single prime that suits one's mood that day, one is condemned to carry both the bulk and weight of a zoom; bulk, as in length, is possibly even less friendly to holding and accurate framing that pure weight. Of course, I am not thinking about those who have tripods in place of instincts.
Rob
-
Two points that I take from this thread so far and that I think are being ignored: larger format size is creatively important if for no other reason than the more shallow DOF with open, fast optics, which as has been pointed out some, myself included, prefer. The other point that sort of amuses me, is in connection with zooms: desire for fast, good ones, if that's not still a paradox, means that instead of being able to go out to shoot with one body and a single prime that suits one's mood that day, one is condemned to carry both the bulk and weight of a zoom; bulk, as in length, is possibly even less friendly to holding and accurate framing that pure weight. Of course, I am not thinking about those who have tripods in place of instincts.
Rob
Depends what you shoot and the environment you are in. Shooting a play from a stationary position, I will use a zoom so I can follow the action as it moves around the stage. Walking the streets I shoot with a prime as I can foot zoom.
To categorize zooms as big and bulky and useless is very short sighted.
-
Depends what you shoot and the environment you are in. Shooting a play from a stationary position, I will use a zoom so I can follow the action as it moves around the stage. Walking the streets I shoot with a prime as I can foot zoom.
To categorize zooms as big and bulky and useless is very short sighted.
I'm having difficulty finding the place where I branded zooms "....and useless" so perhaps you can help me here.
Of course it depends on what you shoot, but then if a pro, on a pro assignment, such things don't often matter. I tended to take all that I could carry on some assignments, including a variety of formats.
From my wording, I'd have hoped anyone reading about "that suits one's mood that day" would have understood that I was addressing the casual shooter's situation, where it's about some sort of perverted pleasure called photography, rather than bringing home the bacon.
Such is Internet life.
:-)
Rob
-
Firstly, which SLR? A Canon Rebel, or a D5?
Secondly, with a 2.7x crop, it's not going to miss focus, since everything's in focus anyway, and the lens elements are small and light. Just like how phone cameras also rarely miss. Even Olympus M43 cameras, with their 2x crop, rarely miss. Focusing large lenses on a full-frame sensor is a whole lot more difficult.
Thirdly, newborn babies are hardly challenging subjects autofocus-wise.
Fairly close to the D800 which was only behind the D4 and 1DX at the time.
The 32mm f1.2 used as a portrat lens offered very limited DoF, as anyone who has actually shot with a 35mm f1.4 at close range should be able to figure out.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Firstly, the evidence behind the rumor—such as it is—does not explicitly involve a 36x24mm "FF" body; just a lens mount that could accommodate such, to allow lens sharing between different sensor formats if and when several are offered. The first bodies could well be in the far better selling 24x16mm "DX" format. IIRC, Sony took that path with E mount.
Also, it does seem at least plausible that adaptor mounting of SLR lenses will give performance that is good enough for many uses but not a match for the very best of SLR AF speed and such. If so, it would make sense for the first generation of bodies to target users who are not so bothered by that because (a) they intend to use new "Z-mount" lenses, not legacy SLR lenses, and/or (b) their plans for usage of SLR legacy lenses do not depend on extremes of AF speed and such. So:
- Entry level bodies, most likely in 24x16mm format.
- Bodies oriented more to high resolution and careful execution than to fast moving action.
- Maybe also bodies oriented to video, where the combination of an EVF and linear stepping AF motors seem the best tools.
-
The 32mm f1.2 used as a portrait lens offered very limited DoF, as anyone who has actually shot with a 35mm f1.4 at close range should be able to figure out.
Yes: as some larger format users seem to overlook, DOF can be quite shallow in close range shooting even with phone-cameras, let alone the relatively huge 1" format. For example, f/1.2 in 1" format gives DOF comparable to about f/10 in 36x24mm format, and macro shots can call for stopping down well beyond that. So there is room to learn something about Nikon mirrorless AF accuracy with its 1" format cameras.
-
All formats are relative. All are ultimately based in history, art history, movie history, or photographic history. Going up or down in format size inevitably involves changes in DOF and resolution. There is no question that APS-C cameras can do technically outstanding work but objectively they cannot compare to technologically equivalent full frame sensors which suffer when compare to the best medium format digital sensors. All things being equal there's no substitute for film/sensor real estate.
A limiting factor for all of this though is print/display size. At smaller sizes, eg 9x13 it's can be hard to see differences in prints (without a magnifying glass) between an excellent APS-C (eg Fuji) and an excellent full frame sensor, (Nikon or Sony.) Another question is whether it really matters. I just saw the Minor White show at the Portland Art Museum. His images are superb, some are a bit fuzzy when one's nose is really close to the glass, but their architectural and compositional perfection is not to be denied. He, as would Ansel, would likely have loved to use today's modern equipment. His magical vision would remain unchanged, his results "better."(?)
Photography, for those of us who do not earn our living from it is a process, to be enjoyed. In the day, I thoroughly enjoyed the convoluted process of using my 4x5 view camera. I no longer use it. I made very different images then than I do now with my iPhone. Unlike many, I actually enjoy working in Photoshop with digital images. We sometimes resemble the Middle Ages priests arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I often laugh at myself when I get too involved with the minutiae of resolution and microscopic differences between lenses and cameras. It is and should be fun though. But is it art?
-
All formats are relative. All are ultimately based in history, art history, movie history, or photographic history. Going up or down in format size inevitably involves changes in DOF and resolution. There is no question that APS-C cameras can do technically outstanding work but objectively they cannot compare to technologically equivalent full frame sensors which suffer when compare to the best medium format digital sensors. All things being equal there's no substitute for film/sensor real estate.
A different POV. I choose photo gear based on what I want to do with it, and with the resulting image. I have a number of different interests in photography, so I have a number of different outfits. I love to play with historical lenses and have begun shooting dry plate. For that i have lenses 1845-1860 and 1905-1925. I really love the look it gives! Sometimes I just want something small, such as "street shooting" in a big city. Don't carry anything rare or expensive because it will get stolen. For that I take either Nikon D5300 with Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 or Leica IIIc with 28/35/50/90mm, or Nikon F3T with AiS 28/50/105mm. Sometimes I hike in the mountains. For that I take the D5300 or maybe a 1937 voigtlander Bessa RF (a folding 6x9.) Sometimes I shoot weddings or family portraits. For that I use a pair of Nikon D800E. Generally I shoot at f5.6 (smaller formats) or f32 (4x5, 5x7) Even though I shoot at night a lot I don't often use f1.4. I'm not at all loyal to any format either. I'll have to wait and see what a Nikon mirrorless offers me, but I'm guessing it will be too large & expensive for a "street" or travel camera, and really offer no advantage over the D800E for weddings etc. All of my lenses for D800E are f2.8 or f1.4, but I very rarely shoot that open. I conclude that I really hate spending $$ on new camera gear. Rarely does it make a difference in my images, and I've come to the conclusion the money is better spent on travel.
Kent in SD
-
[...] spending $$ on new camera gear. Rarely does it make a difference in my images,
Now go and sit quietly by yourself and think about what you've just said. Come back when you're truly sorry.
-
Now go and sit quietly by yourself and think about what you've just said. Come back when you're truly sorry.
He very apparently spends $$ on old gear instead...
-
Now go and sit quietly by yourself and think about what you've just said. Come back when you're truly sorry.
Yes, really! ;)
As if being at the right place at the right time had anything to do with successful photography...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, really! ;)
As if being at the right place at the right time had anything to do with successful photography...
Cheers,
Bernard
That's the only reason all lenses worth tuppence are fitted with a magical f8 number on the barrel!
These technically-obsessive "conversations" get more funny by the day.
Anybody wanting to buy an Atget should be certified! The man used such primitive equipmemt his work simply can't be any good. As for poor old Michael Kenna, he uses 6x6 film, and that's so bad he can almost never enlarge above 8"x10"!
;-)
Rob
-
vision would remain unchanged, his results "better."
Gratified to see “better” in quotes. Lately I’ve been looking at images from my favorite photographers of previous generations and am beginning to feel as though the “imperfections” (often a bit soft, limited dynamic range, etc.) actually add to their visual impact. I wonder, if those same images had been produced with the best modern digital equipment, might look a bit sterile?
Rand
-
Gratified to see “better” in quotes. Lately I’ve been looking at images from my favorite photographers of previous generations and am beginning to feel as though the “imperfections” (often a bit soft, limited dynamic range, etc.) actually add to their visual impact. I wonder, if those same images had been produced with the best modern digital equipment, might look a bit sterile?
Rand
+ 100%
Yes, I think that underlines so much that I feel is missing in contemporary photography: soul. Who ever saw a crisp spirit?
Rob
-
Yes, but then the question presents itself: what digital cameras from recent past exhibit actual character? And perhaps more importantly: what lenses?
-
Yes, but then the question presents itself: what digital cameras from recent past exhibit actual character? And perhaps more importantly: what lenses?
Forget the bodies, they're all perfect and perfectly boring. The lenses are key.
For example the Noctilux 50 & now 75, both sadly out of my price range, but the 50 Zeiss Sonnar is affordable and has bags of character. Or use bodies and or adaptors that allow the use of vintage lenses.
That said, it seems the majority of users here pray at the altar of perfection.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/C'mon_Baby_Drive_My_Car.jpg)
-
Yes, but then the question presents itself: what digital cameras from recent past exhibit actual character? And perhaps more importantly: what lenses?
I don't think your question has a positive answer, Oscar, and neither do I think Keith has quite put his finger on it. It is not, IMO, bodies or lenses, but digital capture that is the weak stage in this particular goose chase.
The problem is that many of us still associate "character" with film photography and film fomat. Digital is another beast entirely, and a wonderful one at that, but it is a different one. A horse, not even Moira - and she's white - can ever be a zebra. Only half a zebra.
And I don't think it's anything much to do with that magical quality, bokeh. I never in my life heard about it when working. Which isn't to say we didn't know about the effects of DOF, OOF areas and how these looked in the highlights, and how wide apertures could add a little magic to some images. We just used the lenses we had, and were happy enough with that without adding layer upon layer of doubt onto ourselves. Bokeh obsession is just another thing that can make people victims of this pixel-peeping society where nothing is ever good enough to be the picture you needed or want. That seems to be the challenge: fight yourself until you drop; much more fun than making photographs to show something that you had in your mind or just stumbled upon. Always find a reason why the thing isn't great, and the brand that would make it great.
That's partly why I almost always try to eff-up the otherwise clinical look of my photography. But I'm not working to sell anything, so my take today is probably the opposite of what it might have been many years ago when all of us in commercial work tried for reasonably fine grain unless for specific uses.
Rob
-
I don't think your question has a positive answer, Oscar, and neither do I think Keith has quite put his finger on it. It is not, IMO, bodies or lenses, but digital capture that is the weak stage in this particular goose chase.
The problem is that many of us still associate "character" with film photography and film fomat. Digital is another beast entirely, and a wonderful one at that, but it is a different one. A horse, not even Moira - and she's white - can ever be a zebra. Only half a zebra.
And I don't think it's anything much to do with that magical quality, bokeh. I never in my life heard about it when working. Which isn't to say we didn't know about the effects of DOF, OOF areas and how these looked in the highlights, and how wide apertures could add a little magic to some images. We just used the lenses we had, and were happy enough with that without adding layer upon layer of doubt onto ourselves. Bokeh obsession is just another thing that can make people victims of this pixel-peeping society where nothing is ever good enough to be the picture you needed or want. That seems to be the challenge: fight yourself until you drop; much more fun than making photographs to show something that you had in your mind or just stumbled upon. Always find a reason why the thing isn't great, and the brand that would make it great.
That's partly why I almost always try to eff-up the otherwise clinical look of my photography. But I'm not working to sell anything, so my take today is probably the opposite of what it might have been many years ago when all of us in commercial work tried for reasonably fine grain umless for specific uses.
Rob
Actually when I look at the majority of my work shot on film it looks very clinical.
Anyways, here's to effing it up.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/L1001831_Retouch_Crap.jpg)
There again perhaps this is too clinically effed ;-)
-
... A horse, not even Moira - and she's white - can ever be a zebra. Only half a zebra.
Apparently, zebras are black with white stripes, so Moira would be better off starting out as black rather than white. I'll let you tell her.
-
Well, clinical or not, this from today and as effed as I thought I could get away with effing it up! Probably would have been effed without my indulgence, but hey, it's all in the mind! Innit?
:-)
Rob
-
Apparently, zebras are black with white stripes, so Moira would be better off starting out as black rather than white. I'll let you tell her.
Poor cow - then she hasn't a chance of retiring at Whipsnade!
:-)
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/01/14/nikon-1-the-little-camera-that-could.aspx/#more-118855
A timely contribution that hghlghts both the qualities of the Nikon 1 series and the possbility to take great images with a sensor that’s behind the cutting edge.
Chees,
Bernard
-
Fairly close to the D800 which was only behind the D4 and 1DX at the time.
The 32mm f1.2 used as a portrat lens offered very limited DoF, as anyone who has actually shot with a 35mm f1.4 at close range should be able to figure out.
Cheers,
Bernard
AF-wise, the D800 was also behind the 5D3, 7D and D300s, (not to mention the older D3x, D3, D3s, D700 and 1D4, which were still around at the time and represented the older generation the D800 and D4 replaced). AF was not a strength of the D800 - the D810 corrected that. Fine for still subjects, even at shallow DOF, but not so fine for tracking moving ones.
32mm f/1.2 gives you the equivalent of around 85mm f/3.2. That's not a particularly shallow DOF, and, combined with not having much glass to move, doesn't make for a particularly challenging task for an AF system. Even my (very) old Canon 300D - pretty much bought as an experiment while moving away from film - could focus accurately with that (50mm f/1.8, stopped down to f/2, would be the equivalent for a 1.6x crop camera such as the 300D).
Yes, really! ;)
As if being at the right place at the right time had anything to do with successful photography...
Better gear increases the opportunities and expands the definition of 'right time'.
The relevant question is not whether you can get good shots with old gear, but how many opportunities were missed - or not even considered opportunities in the first place - because they were outside the shooting window of the gear available at the time. It's not for no reason that many old-time sports shots were non-action shots on the winning podium, or taken during the daytime in good light.
-
AF-wise, the D800 was also behind the 5D3, 7D and D300s, (not to mention the older D3x, D3, D3s, D700 and 1D4, which were still around at the time and represented the older generation the D800 and D4 replaced).
Absolutely not, the D800 was clearly ahead of the 5D3, 7D and D300s. This was totally clear in all objective tests performed at the time and matches my own experience as well.
Let's not re-write history.
Anyway, this is drifting pretty far from the topic of this thread but my point remains that Nikon has excellent credentials also in mirrorless AF, and already had these 6+ years ago when the 1 series was introduced. Even at a slow pace of innovation odds are that their first serious mirrorless body will have excellent AF performance.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Absolutely not, the D800 was clearly ahead of the 5D3, 7D and D300s. This was totally clear in all objective tests performed at the time and matches my own experience as well.
Uh, no. AF and high ISO were the D800's two deficiencies compared to the 5D3. It was better in every other area. Read almost any comparison from 2012.
I was hoping to use the D800 as a combined landscape and wildlife camera at the time (given its high pixel density). It didn't live up to that expectation - I kept going with the 7D for wildlife, since everything else either lacked the AF or the pixel density (1Dx for larger animals and closer distances).
The D850 and A7r3 are a completely different story. I would use either of those bodies for almost everything.
-
Now go and sit quietly by yourself and think about what you've just said. Come back when you're truly sorry.
I assume you're being tongue in cheek. ;D I do spend money on photo gear of course, both old and new. I used to chase the latest "hot" camera of the year, only to find not only did the resell value drop like a rock, they just didn't improve my photos. I mean, not that anyone could really tell. We've reached a sort of plateau where the difference in image quality from gen-5 camera and gen-6 just isn't there (or at least not worth the $3,200 price tag.) So, about six years ago I began diving into photo history and discovered all kinds of famous photographers I've never heard of before--Brassai, FJ Haynes, AJ Russell, E.O. Hoppe, E. Anthony.....the list is long! Their images and stories have truly inspired me! I began buying a few old cameras here and there, starting innocently enough with a 1904 Kodak Brownie #2. I really enjoy learning about them & their times, and using them to create my own images. The most expensive lens I own doesn't say "Nikon" on it--it says "Voigtlander & Sohn." It's a Petzval made in Wien (Vienna) in 1847! While my Nikon gear (including Sigma ART lenses) steadily loses value, my ancient stuff has slowly increased. In the end, for me, it's all about going out into the world, having something catch my eye (or imagination,) and then try to capture it so I can share it with others later. Once I came to understand that it's possible to make interesting images with any camera gear from any age, I feel like I've been somehow liberated. :)
Below photo:
Corporal Brad of the 143rd Minnesota Volunteers
Camera: Chamonix 045n
Lens: 1845 Ross Petzval (6 inch, f3.5)
Film: Efke 25
Q: would my Nikon D800E with 50mm Sigma ART have captured this "better"?
Kent in SD