Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: BJL on January 30, 2018, 09:43:32 pm
-
In an attempt to move this discussion to a more appropriate place than the thread
What is Sigma up to? (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=122676.0), here is Thom Hogan's speculation, based on some inside sources I think:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/nikon-mirrorless-rumors.html
In summary: he expects an initial launch in the 24x16mm "DX" format with about three lenses in a few months' time, followed later this year by offerings in 36x24mm "FX" format. So rather less ambitious than Bernard Languillier's predictions/hopes, while expecting 36x24mm format to arrive sooner that I have been predicting.
-
This all makes sense to me. What I'm wanting is a small system, mostly for travel. I'm not really interested in "FX" unless the price is reasonable and the lenses are small. If Nikon made a mirrorless FX camera the size of their F3HP or the Leica IIIc I would definitely be interested in that!
Kent in SD
-
Makes sense. After the debacle of the "1" system, they are now catching up with Canon, Sony, and Fuji, who have mature APSC MILC systems.
-
The question is, for somebody who has already invested in Fuji or Sony APS-C, what would be the incentive to buy the Nikon?
-
I think it would be a good idea to combine a mirrorless Nikon with a curved sensor.
If Nikon can achieve that it would make lenses smaller and better, exactly what this system would need.
-
Makes sense to start with APSC. A few things need to happen to make it attractive to me in the long run. I would want to see a roadmap to FF. lenses would need to be able to be used on the FF same as Sony. Dedicated small lenses for the APSC format would need to be recognised by the FF as the Sony does and the FF lenses must fit on APSC. Flashes must work across the system.
Actually that’s a lot of work for Nikon. Essentially two new systems with flashes and lenses working together with a working range of lenses. A huge job.
-
The question is, for somebody who has already invested in Fuji or Sony APS-C, what would be the incentive to buy the Nikon?
I'd say none.
There seem to be people here wanting and hoping Nikon can do something really special so they can banish any thought of having to suffer a Sony/Fuji/Panny/Oly and I just don't get it but maybe not caring who makes the kit or what the name on the kit is does put me in a minority on camera forums :D
-
I'm a Nikon DSLR user, but I also have an X100s. I've been thinking about maybe an XPro2 or XT2 as a more flexible replacement for carrying in the mountains. The reason I'd prefer a Nikon is the investment I have in Nikon lenses.
-
The question is, for somebody who has already invested in Fuji or Sony APS-C, what would be the incentive to buy the Nikon?
for example - some people have enough money to have fun ... plus it depends what do you call by investment ? I can't imaging anybody investing any serious amount of money in lenses and still using Sony _APS-C_ (not FF) ;D ... with Fuji it is easier to imagine, but not with Sony APS-C...
-
Well, I was out today in some less friendly conditions in Iceland shooting with both Fuji and Nikon. As the weather wasn't pretty I kept the lenses I started with, the 55-200 F4.5-4.8 on Fuji X-T2 and the 24-120 F4 on Nikon D750, both handheld and tripod, but mostly tripod. The weather was bad and the tripod way flimsier than what I hoped. At the end of the day I have significantly more usable shots (as in sharp enough) on the Fuji, and not just because of the more favorable focal length. For various reasons I couldn't get the Nikon to compensate for the suboptimal conditions despite having a clearly better sensor and the advantage in resolution (less pixel density which in their should be more tolerable to shake and requiring less sharp lenses). I probably would have been better with another X-T2 with the 18-55/ 16-55 instead of the D750 with 24-120. Or maybe even the E-M1ii with 12-100.
The reason I used the Nikon with the 24-120 was because I trusted it would not likely fail in that weather (was also snowing). So far the 55-200 is holding but I took some chances.
-
1) At the end of the day I have significantly more usable shots (as in sharp enough) on the Fuji, and not just because of the more favorable focal length. For various reasons I couldn't get the Nikon to compensate for the suboptimal conditions despite having a clearly better sensor and the advantage in resolution (less pixel density which in their should be more tolerable to shake and requiring less sharp lenses).
2) The reason I used the Nikon with the 24-120 was because I trusted it would not likely fail in that weather (was also snowing). So far the 55-200 is holding but I took some chances.
1. If I remember correctly, the Fuji has in-body stabilization? Also, what I found when I went to the Nikon D800E is it was far less tolerant of even the slightest shake because the 36mp magnified it. Last time I was in Iceland at one point I was taking photos at the base of a glacier. The wind was coming off it so hard that I ended up abandoning my Gitzo 1325 tripod and simply lay on the ground with elbows firmly planted on the ground to take photos.
2. The weather I routinely encounter on the Northern Plains is much more extreme than what's seen in Iceland. I've not had trouble with any Nikon gear and that's going back to the good old N90s. (I have had two camera and three lenses damaged when left unattended on a tripod and 60-70mph wind gusts blew them into the next county though.)
Kent in SD
-
What I'm trying the say are several things.
1. Top of the line in Fuji is competitive with the mid DSLR from Nikon. If Nikon gets a demoded mirrorless to preserve their DSLR they will fail. They need something at least as good as the Fuji. Than it will my next point and the fact they have Bayer and not X-trans which I think it only complicates things.
2. They need good versatile lenses. Their APS-C line up is why I bought into the Fuji system despite starting on a Nikon APS-C.
3. Their lenses should include some with WR as well as their body. I'm not sure it's a good idea for then to compete both on APS-C with Fuji/Canon and full frame with Sony and possible Canon. Without a full frame mirrorless they will fall behind.
4. This is as BTW, Fuji G format will only get cheaper and with few lenses it might not be that much more expensive.
-
1. If I remember correctly, the Fuji has in-body stabilization? Also, what I found when I went to the Nikon D800E is it was far less tolerant of even the slightest shake because the 36mp magnified it. Last time I was in Iceland at one point I was taking photos at the base of a glacier. The wind was coming off it so hard that I ended up abandoning my Gitzo 1325 tripod and simply lay on the ground with elbows firmly planted on the ground to take photos.
2. The weather I routinely encounter on the Northern Plains is much more extreme than what's seen in Iceland. I've not had trouble with any Nikon gear and that's going back to the good old N90s. (I have had two camera and three lenses damaged when left unattended on a tripod and 60-70mph wind gusts blew them into the next county though.)
Kent in SD
Fuji has no IBIS yet.
I got more sharp shots with Fuji. Laying on the ground would have been the best option but I need the higher point of view. Basically I tried both with OIS on/off and the Fuji did better. And shouldn't have had.
-
The question is, for somebody who has already invested in Fuji or Sony APS-C, what would be the incentive to buy the Nikon?
It is still the case that the great majority of ILC owners have an SLR but no mirrorless; in fact SLRs still sell in higher numbers than mirrorless bodies. So I doubt that current Fujifilm/Sony owners are a high priority as potential customers for the next Nikon mirrorless system. The time has probably come for Nikon and Canon to work on keeping owners of their SLRs from switching to another brand for the sake of going mirrorless.
There are also all the first-time ILC buyers, who are sometimes overlooked in these discussions. They are a big reason why Nikon probably needs one entry-level priced "DX" format body, along with the higher spec. gear that people in this forum are more interested in.
-
I have read Thom's post also. I assume he is pretty sure about his forecast and that we can consider it a fact.
I personally find this disappointing, and it seems that a majority of posters at Nikon rumors would also have preferred a FF offering according to an on-going survey.
We'll see what they come up with, but I don't see myself investing into an APS-C body at this point in time.
Me investing in an a9r after it is announced is the likely next move. Bye bye Nikon... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are also all the first-time ILC buyers, who are sometimes overlooked in these discussions. They are a big reason why Nikon probably needs one entry-level priced "DX" format body, along with the higher spec. gear that people in this forum are more interested in.
Exactly. For example, take the entry level Rebel DSLRs from Canon, that sell really well because they provide good quality and are really cheap. Similar story with Nikon. They can not afford to replace their Rebels with a less-attractive-to-first-buyers MILC; can they make a price competitive entry-level MILC?
Canon have their EOS M line up, but it still sells less than the Rebels. Nikon no doubt has some good indicators from that.
-
My only comment regarding Nikon and Canon and the rumors of them making a true mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and lens system, is, it has to be 35mm FF, with a complete proper pro series of native 1.2 and 1.4 prime lenses, and a lens roadmap.
They need to pull a "Fuji" only better.
Otherwise I will not be interested.
-
it has to be 35mm FF, with a complete proper pro series of native 1.2 and 1.4 prime lenses, and a lens roadmap.
They need to pull a "Fuji" only better.
you mean "m43" - because "Fuji" does not have complete proper pro series - m43 does ...
-
you mean "m43" - because "Fuji" does not have complete proper pro series - m43 does ...
You made me curious, what exactly is Fuji missing as "pro" lenses that m43 provides?
-
You made me curious, what exactly is Fuji missing as "pro" lenses that m43 provides?
Probably the super tele?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... it seems that a majority of posters at Nikon rumors would also have preferred a FF offering according to an on-going survey.
Disappointment at Nikon Rumors is not surprising, but surely you recognize that participants in photography-oriented forums like NR are a severely skewed sample of potential camera system customers as a whole: skewed towards lower volume, higher end gear, and towards backward compatibility more than future market success. An amusing and telling part of the survey responses is that, after "full frame or no sale!", the other most popular response is the quixotic desire for the new system to stay with F-mount.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/nikon-mirrorless-camera-poll-results.aspx/
-
Disappointment at Nikon Rumors is not surprising, but surely you recognize that participants in photography-oriented forums like NR are a severely skewed sample of potential camera system customers as a whole: skewed towards lower volume, higher end gear, and towards backward compatibility more than future market success. An amusing and telling part of the survey responses is that, after "full frame or no sale!", the other most popular response is the quixotic desire for the new system to stay with F-mount.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/nikon-mirrorless-camera-poll-results.aspx/
Indeed, but I believe that this may be result of various rumors having been circulated about the ability to mount F mount lenses thanks to an adapter.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What would be the reason to buy an "FF" Nikon mirrorless, unless it was noticeably smaller than what's currently available? We already have great cameras such as the D8xx series. If a mirrorless camera is neither much smaller nor having better AF nor having better image quality, what would be the motivation to buy it? I am happy with the D8xx series for the times I want maximum performance. What Nikon isn't giving me is a small camera with small lenses for travel. At one time this was Nikon's forte--the Nikon SP camera and its small buy highly competitive lens selection.
Kent in SD
-
What would be the reason to buy an "FF" Nikon mirrorless, unless it was noticeably smaller than what's currently available? We already have great cameras such as the D8xx series. If a mirrorless camera is neither much smaller nor having better AF nor having better image quality, what would be the motivation to buy it? I am happy with the D8xx series for the times I want maximum performance. What Nikon isn't giving me is a small camera with small lenses for travel. At one time this was Nikon's forte--the Nikon SP camera and its small buy highly competitive lens selection.
The same reason people buy a7rIII instead of D850?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Before nikon ever introduces a FF Mirrorless camera, they need to come up with a lighter option of their 24-70 zoom. How about a more compact f4 zoom perfect for landscape photographers. The 70-200 f4 is a real gem! Until then, for mirrorless I grab my Olympus because it is significantly smaller and I hate to say, but the lenses are sharper than any of my Nikon lenses.
-
The same reason people buy a7rIII instead of D850?
Smaller lenses?
Kent in SD
-
You made me curious, what exactly is Fuji missing as "pro" lenses that m43 provides?
"pro series of native 1.2 and 1.4 prime lenses" ... are you able to count 1.2 lenses yourself
M43 : M.ZUIKO ED 17MM F1.2 PRO - weather proof, M.ZUIKO ED 25MM F1.2 PRO - weather proof, M.ZUIKO ED 45MM F1.2 PRO - weather proof, Panasonic 42.5/1.2 non weather sealed (but w/ OIS that can work along IBIS too in their recent cameras)
Fuji : 2 x XF56mmF1.2 lenses (same lens - with and w/o apodization) - neither weather proof
Fuji : 1.4 - only XF16mmF1.4 R WR is weather proof, XF23mm F1.4 R and XF35mm F1.4 R - both are non weather proof)
M43 : 12/1.4 from Panasonic and 25/1.4 from Panasonic - both non weather proof
so which one looks like a "pro series of native 1.2 and 1.4 prime lenses" here ... more so most of Fuji bright (1.2/1.4) lenses are primitive 7 blade ugly bokeh designs - one only has 9 - if I am not mistaken only "XF16mmF1.4 R WR"...
;D
-
What would be the reason to buy an "FF" Nikon mirrorless
I'd say if C 'd make a FF dSLM with IBIS & EFCS I 'd consider switching from Sony FF dSLM to Canon FF dSLM ... I only use few primes (35mm-5*mm-85/90mm) and Canon simply has a better support for example from 3rd party strobe/flash vendors...
We already have great cameras such as the D8xx series.
it depends... dumb OVF, mirror slapping, shutter shocking, etc dSLRs are not great for some of us
If a mirrorless camera is neither much smaller nor having better AF
unless you are a sports/BIF - blog.kasson.com shows very well why you dSLR like 850 does not make sense AF-wise - you are not getting 45mp out of it - unless you put it on a tripod and start using it in live view mode
-
I have hundreds of tack sharp hand held images shot with the d850 with the most demanding lenses available (Otus, 105mm f1.4,...).
And I know what sharp means since my reference is 100mp MFDB shot on Arca with the best Rodenstock lens on the most stable tripod and head there is. ;)
It is down to using a proper shutter speed and shooting technique and to performing proper AF calibration.
There are good reasons to think that mirrorless is the right strategic direction, but let’s not kill DSLRs for the wrong ones. ;)
Besides, how about a very high quality 600mm f5.6 that is only 33cm long? That is a true game changer IMHO. The F mount isn’t dead yet. https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/the-latest-nikon-patents-400mm-500mm-and-600mm-f-5-6-phase-fresnel-pf-lenses.aspx/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have hundreds of tack sharp
;D ... but I'd take Kasson's definition of "tack sharp" any day or night - because his is quantified and testing protocol detailed - yours is just "he says, she says"...
And I know what sharp means since my reference is 100mp MFDB shot on Arca with the best Rodenstock lens on the most stable tripod and head there is. ;)
no, you don't Bernard ... see above
Besides, how about a very high quality 600mm f5.6 that is only 33cm long?
which any dSLM out there can use just fine
-
;D ... but I'd take Kasson's definition of "tack sharp" any day or night - because his is quantified and testing protocol detailed - yours is just "he says, she says"...
no, you don't Bernard ... see above
which any dSLM out there can use just fine
There is just one little flaw in your logic, you have not seen my files. ;) The only logical conclusion you can draw from the facts at hand is that, when Jim shoots handheld, he is not able to reach the same level of sharpness he can reach when using a tripod. The generalization you are making from this fact is just that, a generalization.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4757/26146000668_4cadaf34d9_h.jpg)
As far as small sensors based cameras giving access to long equivalent focal lengths easily, yes as a former Nikon 1 owner, I am aware. What is game changing is having access to this in front of one of best FF sensors there is.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"pro series of native 1.2 and 1.4 prime lenses" ... are you able to count 1.2 lenses yourself
M43 : M.ZUIKO ED 17MM F1.2 PRO - weather proof, M.ZUIKO ED 25MM F1.2 PRO - weather proof, M.ZUIKO ED 45MM F1.2 PRO - weather proof, Panasonic 42.5/1.2 non weather sealed (but w/ OIS that can work along IBIS too in their recent cameras)
Fuji : 2 x XF56mmF1.2 lenses (same lens - with and w/o apodization) - neither weather proof
Fuji : 1.4 - only XF16mmF1.4 R WR is weather proof, XF23mm F1.4 R and XF35mm F1.4 R - both are non weather proof)
M43 : 12/1.4 from Panasonic and 25/1.4 from Panasonic - both non weather proof
so which one looks like a "pro series of native 1.2 and 1.4 prime lenses" here ... more so most of Fuji bright (1.2/1.4) lenses are primitive 7 blade ugly bokeh designs - one only has 9 - if I am not mistaken only "XF16mmF1.4 R WR"...
;D
You sound like a fanboy here .
Besides m43 released most of those "pro" primes in the last year or so I wasn't aware that a "pro" prime has to be weather sealed.
Those m43 F1.2 look nice but quite more expensive compared to Fuji. Oh, btw 1.2 is quite above 1.4 for dof.
Bokeh wise, I don't know if Oly are really that great but Fuji are quite decent. 16, 56 and 90 are very good, 23 is good, 35 is imperfect but special.
For the record I use both and full frame but I have yet to find a reason to buy those heavy and expensive primes if I have them on Fuji side.
Fuji started several years after m43, they are doing quite well considering.
PS. today I wish I have my E-M5 with 12-40 or 12-100 not to worry as much about the pouring rain
-
In my view both Olympus and Fuji produce some of the best primes in any format.
The look of these is special.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I forgot to add, I would have been closer to agreeing with your statement if you were going to mention their pro zooms, where Fuji need to do better than the current 16-55 and they have yet to plan for a competion to 12-100 (I would take a 16-70/85). They do have a plan to get a 8-16 F2.8 out I think.
PS. This in reply to DP not Bernard :)
-
Smaller lenses?
Kent in SD
If you want to have 2.8 zooms... they have more or less the same size and weight than the Canon or Nikon DSLR equivalents. In wide angles, in some primes (lower than f1.4) and some zooms (f4 and lower), yes you get smaller sizes...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
My lenses are sharper than your lenses, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner. So there.
Moving on, any update on the Nikon mirrorless?
-
I have a couple of Panny GX8s and a Nikon D800. The GX8 viewfinder is probably one of the best available, but the D800 optical is better (for me, anyway.) For me, that means that a mirrorless Nikon has got to have *something* that is distinctly different than what they already have, or what's the point? I would think that at a minimum, the camera would have to be much more compact and lighter and still weather sealed. The next step would be smaller lenses, with a new modern mount and what we think of as "pro" specs. I think those lenses may be hinted at in Thom's speculation.
What I'd really like to see is a modernization of the whole Nikon system, but I doubt that we'll ever see it. Nikon doesn't think that way -- they have a whole culture of upgrading, rather than of revolution. The FF aspect ratio, for example, is an artifact of antique film cameras -- they should get rid of it. Go to a 4:3 aspect ratio with a sensor bigger than the m4/3 series, some kind of automatically-engaged software that would create quick panoramas for landscape photographers who want a wider aspect ratio (with maybe a tripod head to go with it) all in a camera without a fake pentaprism housing, and about the size of the Leica 10. I don't see that happening.
As an aside, I've looked at various examples of Bernard's photos over quite a few years now. That somebody should suggest that Bernard doesn't know what tack-sharp means, is laughable.
-
Sony just released the A7iii with pretty impressive specs. Nikon is nowhere and I'm not sure they won't be too late to the party.
On APS-C there is Fuji, Sony and Canon with very good offerings while on full-frame Sony is already at the 3rd generation.
PS. I do foresee another sale on Nikon D750
PPS. on many things m43 can give a run for the money for APS-C, so you can add those too
-
On APS-C there is Fuji, Sony and Canon with very good offerings while on full-frame Sony is already at the 3rd generation.
Sony almost abandoned APS-C in favor of FF - no effort/spare resources to pump out various body and APS-C E mount lenses... so it is Fuji and Canon (not fully in yet)
-
You posted the same comment in a different topic and I disagree. Their offerings on APS-C bodies are class competitive and while they lack some lenses compared to Fuji they are competitive compared to Nikon. Their handling is not the best but I think it’s more because they are Sony not because they don’t care.
-
You posted the same comment in a different topic and I disagree.
you disagree there as well, we are always even then
-
Their offerings on APS-C bodies are class competitive and while they lack some lenses compared to Fuji
competing in a segment means making a variety of lines of bodies for a segment and lenses for the format ... Sony does not ... simply compare their releases of bodies and lenses : FF dSLM vs APS-C dSLM - that is your answer
they are competitive compared to Nikon.
;D ... and Ricoh ... and Samsung... oh, Samsung left the market ?
-
I would say competing means you are as good or better than your oponents.
On the Samsung topic I find it amazing that their latest flagship is still competitive several years later, not sure why nobody bought the technology.
-
Their [Sony's] offerings on APS-C bodies are class competitive and while they lack some lenses compared to Fuji they are competitive compared to Nikon.
It might be that Sony, Canon and Nikon (and maybe also Pentax?) have comparable offerings in APS-C format, but only in the somewhat negative sense that they have now confined their efforts for that format to a lower part of the price-quality spectrum. Meanwhile, Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic are all-in on also offering high quality options in their chosen "sub-35mm film format" systems.
What is that old saying about "committed" versus "involved"?
-
One thing is sure, following heightened expectations regarding the release of a new Nikon mirrorless system at CP+, today we are left with nothing.
The DSLR line up of Nikon remains excellent, especially on the high end side, but their immobility on the mirrorless front is nothing but staggering.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One thing is sure, following heightened expectations regarding the release of a new Nikon mirrorless system at CP+, today we are left with nothing.
The DSLR line up of Nikon remains excellent, especially on the high end side, but their immobility on the mirrorless front is nothing but staggering.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, this is something I must totally agree with you. Leaves me wondering how Nikon could miss such an opportunity to at least show a mocked up model of their mirrorless plans.
-
It might be that Sony, Canon and Nikon (and maybe also Pentax?) have comparable offerings in APS-C format, but only in the somewhat negative sense that they have now confined their efforts for that format to a lower part of the price-quality spectrum. Meanwhile, Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic are all-in on also offering high quality options in their chosen "sub-35mm film format" systems.
Maybe I'm the only one around here, however, I am quite happy Nikon APS-C
i.e. with the D7200 + the 2.8-4.0/16-80 and the 4.0/70-200 as my main lenses.
I also have the X100F which I bought to test the waters with Fujifilm,
but in summary I won't change over to Fujifilm completely. There are some aspects related to the controls / menus where I prefer the Nikon logic, also I am not really convinced by the X-Trans sensor, and furthermore I prefer the OVF most of the time. The X-T2 / X-Pro2 have no built-in flash, and in particular there is no 2.8-4.0/16-ca.80 stabilized lens.
I can wait and see what Nikon and Fujifilm will do over the next couple of years.
Olympus and Panasonic are m4/3 and I simply prefer 3:2.
Peter
-
-
As it seems Nikon does not have it all together- does not bother me at all since the d850 can make photos silent.
If they come out at anytime with a mirrorless as good as the d850 i would enjoy that- in the mean time they may remain dslr.
-
Maybe I'm the only one around here, however, I am quite happy Nikon APS-C
i.e. with the D7200 + the 2.8-4.0/16-80 and the 4.0/70-200 as my main lenses.
I also have the X100F which I bought to test the waters with Fujifilm,
but in summary I won't change over to Fujifilm completely. There are some aspects related to the controls / menus where I prefer the Nikon logic, also I am not really convinced by the X-Trans sensor, and furthermore I prefer the OVF most of the time. The X-T2 / X-Pro2 have no built-in flash, and in particular there is no 2.8-4.0/16-ca.80 stabilized lens.
I can wait and see what Nikon and Fujifilm will do over the next couple of years.
Olympus and Panasonic are m4/3 and I simply prefer 3:2.
Peter
-
I miss my days with the D50 then D90 and the 16-85. Fuji is missing in action a similar lens (the 18-135 doesn't qualify).
Realistically speaking your kit is very good. The problem starts when you are looking for other lenses besides those 2. Outside of the DX 1.8/35 I don't recall too many lenses that are DX specific (maybe a couple of macros).
-
One thing is sure, following heightened expectations regarding the release of a new Nikon mirrorless system at CP+, today we are left with nothing.
In slight defence of Nikon, Thom Hogan’s rumor is for a May announcement. Maybe the big “debut” is planned for Photokina.
-
@Peter_DL,
I agree that for many of us, a two-zoom kit covers most needs, so having a standard zoom for the smaller format that reaches 70mm or so allows covering the rest of the telephoto range with lenses for the larger format. But there are photographers who want more lens options at the shorter focal lengths.