Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on April 02, 2018, 06:51:38 pm
-
That’s how I use the Nikon D850, with no mirror (or mirror-slap) and only LiveView. I never was infatuated by the mirrorless concept just because it was a smaller camera. I like the size of the D800E, D810, and D850. If anything I liked about the concept of a mirrorless camear was the “idea” of using alternative lenses, getting perhaps a greater field of view out of some really fine lenses.
I was disappointed with the Pentax K3 and K1 (which I owned) and how little they lent themselves to alternative lenses. Same goes for the Hasselblad X1D (which I bought); although they have some nice lenses of their own, they did not care about all my lenses. As for the Fuji GFX (which I also bought), I held out hope for it accommodating the many great lenses I have, and they did do a so-so job, IMO; they kind of came half-way, but certainly not like I had hoped or imagined.
I sent all the above cameras back or sold them and was left with my Nikon D810, which did work for me and which I appreciated. But my thirst for what I imagined mirrorless might bring was still there.
Then along came the Nikon D850. It was everything I could hope for in a mirrorless camera other than it was heavier (which I did not care) and it had a mirror (which I never have used, other than to test it). The Live View LCD on the D850 was just enough better to be fully usable by me and those few extra pixels (45.7 Mpx, which don’t seem like much, are just enough to quench my thirst for a larger sensor.
Then it dawned on me that most of my search for a medium-format mirrorless was about the EVF and not about the presence or absence of a mirror, a larger sensor (or so I thought), being smaller, or anything else. Give me a workable LiveView screen, an electronic front-curtain shutter, silence, and turn the mirror-up off and I am a happy camper. I am.
So, the bottom line for me is that I am interested in what Nikon will come up with in their potentially forthcoming mirrorless camera, but I don’t need it. Yes, if it is 100 Mpx I would turn my head and if it had an even better EVF that might interest me too. But I doubt we will see in it THAT large a sensor and actually I don’t really need it. My very fast computer is already chugging on the D850 files.
For me, the Nikon D850, as I use it, IS the mirrorless camera I always imagined AND it has all the other goodies that I have learned to love in a Nikon DSLR.
If I had to guess, I’ll bet that the forthcoming Nikon mirrorless will NOT add up to what I have right now in the Nikon D850.
Your thoughts, other than that I may be crazy. LOL.
Shot with the Nikon D850 and the Schneider Macro Varon 85mm f/4.5
-
I tend to agree with what you’ve said here. I never cared much for Live View on my D800 but have found myself using it much more on my D850. It is rather fun and useful, especially with features like focus peaking. It’s been so nice I’ve toyed around with the idea of using one of those Hoodman loupes to turn Live View into an EVF. :)
The only thing that’s a little odd adjusting to is the change in hand holding technique. When I have heavy glass on there I don’t feel like I get the most stable hold. Another reason I thought about using a loupe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Nope, if mirrorless does not reduce the bulk and weight of the camera...it can just sit on the shop shelves. I truly need an EVF as I would find it very awkward walking around tight SEA markets looking at the rear LCD for composing my images. Just would not work out at all.
-
I think the largest doubt hanging in the air concerning what Canon and Nikon will do with their coming MILCs is lenses, and lens' mounts. New lens mount plus adapter?
Canon already has a small MILC system, so they can keep their EOS - FF more or less the size it is now, and keep the mount. There are millions of lenses out there for Canon and Nikon, a big heritage to cater for.
As for Nikon, they will have to introduce both a small and large camera lines for MILC.
I went for MILC because of smaller size and weight, plus the new lenses coming out for Sony E mount from the likes of Zeiss. I am happy now using a A7 with Loxia 21, instead of a Canon FF with Zeiss 21 Distagon. Just an example. I prefer primes, so I am a happy camper.
I recently could not resist and got an Olympus Pen F and small 17mm lens, for street shooting and travel. The capability of these small cameras in the digital age is amazing.
-
Couldn't care less about size and weight, as long as they're within reasonable limits - anything from A7r (original version) and D850 size is fine. I switched to mirrorless for capability, not size. True WYSIWYG EVFs are so much better than OVFs, which show you the composition, but leave you guessing as to the exposure, clipped highlights/shadows, etc.
Sure, live view gets you that functionality, but AF becomes almost non-functional when using that. With the latest generation of mirrorless cameras, you can have highly-functional AF while retaining all the EVF advantages - quite useful if you find yourself shooting landscapes, wildlife and people all on the same trip.
If you want to use top-tier glass, you won't get much in the way of size and weight savings anyway. Sure, you might get a few compromised 'pancake' lenses with smaller apertures and poorer optical quality than their full-sized counterparts, as well as some smaller wide-angle lenses (not the sharpest ones - for optical quality, you'll still need to use a retrofocus design), but, if you want the best optical quality and wide apertures, you'll still be stuck with full-sized lenses. The only way you're going to get size and weight savings is with new optical materials, such as what Canon have done with their diffraction optics lenses, and what may be done in the future with things like electromechanical materials and negative refractive index metamaterials. Better design and manufacturing will net you better image quality, but won't reduce the size of the lenses without new materials to do more things to light in a shorter distance.
-
I never was infatuated by the mirrorless concept just because it was a smaller camera.
just get some dSLM with a battery grip and L-plate around that
-
Give me a workable LiveView screen, an electronic front-curtain shutter, silence, and turn the mirror-up off and I am a happy camper. I am.
which was for ages in dSLM ... but you had and still have to suffer with awkward dSLR
-
Right now I can't imagine nikon coming up with a full frame mirrorless that is then mounted to the 24-70. Now if nikon redesigned the old AFD primes eg 20 2.8 35 2.0 etc.. they might be on to something. I'd like to see a 24-70 f4 or even 5.6 for landscapes.
-
Couldn't care less about size and weight, as long as they're within reasonable limits - anything from A7r (original version) and D850 size is fine. I switched to mirrorless for capability, not size. True WYSIWYG EVFs are so much better than OVFs, which show you the composition, but leave you guessing as to the exposure, clipped highlights/shadows, etc.
Sure, live view gets you that functionality, but AF becomes almost non-functional when using that. With the latest generation of mirrorless cameras, you can have highly-functional AF while retaining all the EVF advantages - quite useful if you find yourself shooting landscapes, wildlife and people all on the same trip.
If you want to use top-tier glass, you won't get much in the way of size and weight savings anyway. Sure, you might get a few compromised 'pancake' lenses with smaller apertures and poorer optical quality than their full-sized counterparts, as well as some smaller wide-angle lenses (not the sharpest ones - for optical quality, you'll still need to use a retrofocus design), but, if you want the best optical quality and wide apertures, you'll still be stuck with full-sized lenses. The only way you're going to get size and weight savings is with new optical materials, such as what Canon have done with their diffraction optics lenses, and what may be done in the future with things like electromechanical materials and negative refractive index metamaterials. Better design and manufacturing will net you better image quality, but won't reduce the size of the lenses without new materials to do more things to light in a shorter distance.
There are some great small light lenses made for the Sony mirrorless system such as the Loxia line, Batis line and some real Sony gems like the 35 2.8 and 55 1.8 and the 14-24 zoom.
Sure if you need the traditional 2.8 zooms or the 1.4 primes, they will be big...but with today's high iso abilities, I'm finding the NEED of these traditional pro lenses not required for majority of shooting conditions.
My travel kit went from a dual DSLR setup with accompanying lenses to a dual mirrorless system with much smaller lenses and not only did I reduce the bulk and weight by over 40%, the quality of my images improved.
-
Sure, live view gets you that functionality, but AF becomes almost non-functional when using that.
Auto-focus? Never thought about that. Have not used it in years. LOL. All manual for me, please.
-
Imagine, a 100 MP mirrorless Nikon, with a iPad attached to the back. What say you, 8x10 film shooters???? ;-)
-
Imagine, a 100 MP mirrorless Nikon, with a iPad attached to the back. What say you, 8x10 film shooters???? ;-)
The art of mirrorless is the art of an electronic viewfinder. An EVF an iPad is not. IMO, if you can shoot with an iPad as RC (i.e. slow pace contemplative photography), then it likely already works with the current SLR offerings.
The main question might be this: would an 850 with EVF and slightly lower specs and price, be an enticing intro into FF mirrorless? So, even though you don't get the advantages of smaller lenses, you could get a smaller body supporting current lenses with the latest digital image quality.
-
The art of mirrorless is the art of an electronic viewfinder. An EVF an iPad is not. IMO, if you can shoot with an iPad as RC (i.e. slow pace contemplative photography), then it likely already works with the current SLR offerings.
The main question might be this: would an 850 with EVF and slightly lower specs and price, be an enticing intro into FF mirrorless? So, even though you don't get the advantages of smaller lenses, you could get a smaller body supporting current lenses with the latest digital image quality.
The larger lenses like the Zeiss Otus series (and others) fit well with the size of camera like the D850. I had a bunch of mirroless cameras that were of smaller size (Hasselblad X1D, Sony A7s, A7r2, A7r3), not to mention the Pentax K3 and K1, plus the Fuji Gfx). Those little cameras don't feel right with larger lenses. And the smaller lenses I use with the Cambo Actus Mini View Camera.
Since I am not doing a lot of hiking, I don't need or appreciate the smaller versions of better lenses, like the Zeiss Milvus, etc. I would just use the Otus series that I have, and so on.
As mentioned, the key to me is the LCD of LIveView. If they could perfect that even more, I would appreciate it, but the D850 is fine by me for now.
-
It would be fun if Nikon came up with a modular design.
- base camera a la D850
- 2 possible sensor/mount units, one for F mount, one for new mount
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I agree.
I like best the D4, D5 line bodies and with good lenses the balance is right, unlike small and light packages.
The best lenses are generaly big enough and when mounted on those little thin bodies, I don't like how they balance.
I used the 800 line but really never feel the same as a D4, although being different purposes cameras.
The weight brings stability also. Since the D2, D3, D4, the 800s...but stopping here at this point because the only problem I have with Nikon right now is that they never took really seriously the video aspect as well as other brands such as Sony and that is not acceptable any more for me to keep waiting for a 4k video package on par with the bests on 5000euros cameras. 2018 is a multimedia era, not still only anymore and 4k is the today's standart.
Nikon does a few 4k but with too many compromises.
And as I'm sure that a Nikon mirrorless will not look/feel like a D5 anyway but likely a digital remake of the FM2 and the video specs will not likely to be what I want. 100mpx does not interest me -my workflow being 0% Lightroom (don't shoot raw) and 100% PSB or EXR based I'm arround 3GB/File - and if Nikon goes mirrorless it is likely to be with a new mount that will have to be developped. So I'm looking for other system right now.
I wish I had a D850 in a D5 body with cutting edge 4k video specs such as Prores or DNx, 120fps etc... and forget about mirrorlesses.
But this Nikon, unfortunatly, does not exist and will not
Balance is no longer an issue if you hold the setup by the lens rather than by the camera. The lens hand bears weight and adjusts zoom, the right hand just operates the camera controls. If you're using a heavier lens, such as a 70-200/2.8, you pretty much have to shoot this way, regardless of what camera you're using. If you absolutely must use your right hand, holding the grip, to bear weight as well as operate the camera controls, there's nothing stopping you sticking a brick to the bottom of it. It's easier to add weight to a light camera than to take weight away from a heavy one.
Conversely, big, heavy cameras with large grips are hard to hold if you don't have super-large hands. Without large hands, you just can't get a secure grip around them, particularly when your thumb and index finger are occupied operating the controls. The 5D4 and D850 are tolerable, if stretching it. Bodies with inbuilt grips (or attached grips) are almost unusable, unless attached to a monopod or other support.
The Canon EOS-5 (film precursor to the current 5D series) only weighed 675g - that's about the same as the A9 or A7r3. I don't recall anyone complaining it didn't weigh enough.
And, if you're going to stick it on a tripod anyway, what's the issue?
-
Much of what is being discussed in this thread already exists: Sony Alpha A99II.
-
Much of what is being discussed in this thread already exists: Sony Alpha A99II.
Do you mean specs-wise, or image-quality-wise?
-
It would be fun if Nikon came up with a modular design.
- base camera a la D850
- 2 possible sensor/mount units, one for F mount, one for new mount
Cheers,
Bernard
They would provide adapter I guess. As their DX lens line as been a bit the weak point and subject to a lot of complains, it would not be surprising that their mirrorless will not be full frame first but more in the Fuji xh philosophy.
I would be very surprised to see a design a la D850. People today seem to like best vintage style bodies a la F3 or FM2 and marketing depts love the cool factor. One thing is sure: Nikon has to bring something wao that everybody wants as they did in the past with the D3 because they don't do very well and it seems that we are going to see a big battle with Canon.
-
Balance is no longer an issue if you hold the setup by the lens rather than by the camera. The lens hand bears weight and adjusts zoom, the right hand just operates the camera controls. If you're using a heavier lens, such as a 70-200/2.8, you pretty much have to shoot this way, regardless of what camera you're using. If you absolutely must use your right hand, holding the grip, to bear weight as well as operate the camera controls, there's nothing stopping you sticking a brick to the bottom of it. It's easier to add weight to a light camera than to take weight away from a heavy one.
Conversely, big, heavy cameras with large grips are hard to hold if you don't have super-large hands. Without large hands, you just can't get a secure grip around them, particularly when your thumb and index finger are occupied operating the controls. The 5D4 and D850 are tolerable, if stretching it. Bodies with inbuilt grips (or attached grips) are almost unusable, unless attached to a monopod or other support.
The Canon EOS-5 (film precursor to the current 5D series) only weighed 675g - that's about the same as the A9 or A7r3. I don't recall anyone complaining it didn't weigh enough.
And, if you're going to stick it on a tripod anyway, what's the issue?
I like mirrorlesses in general but specialy in the spirit of a really small camera that delivers more than a smartphone to carry everywhere, and I think there are good systems out there right now, specialy the Leica as a street camera. It's just not a priority for me. Same with weight. I certainly would not complain about less weight but not in my priorities either.
On inbuilt grips designs, I have the opposite experience as your, but that is very personal and differs a lot from users.
I tend not to like external accessories and prefer an integrated design from the roots.
I don't want to have to worry about built construction. It has to handle bad treatments over the years. Not a lot of cameras allow that. I also tried Pentax because of their reputation to be built like tanks but didn't like it at all and lens line (third party) is very limited and same thoughts as Michael.
Small batteries drive me nuts as well as small buttons and I don't like menus.
I may enjoy touch screens but can live without.
Having a viewfinder packed with info such as histogram etc...is not a priority either.
I'm much more interested in for ex the Eterna film simulation from Fuji a user put it in my radar in another thread because if it works as expected it is a strong alternative to the log workflows we have else where in motion imagery. But I'd have to do some tests and don't have the time right now.
I could live both with or without a mirrorless system.
In other words, if what matters most for me has to be mirrorless, fine. If I stay dslr using it the way the OP does, fine too.
But everyone has different priorities of course.
-
A very timely article from Thom.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-mirrorless-prisoners.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Auto-focus? Never thought about that. Have not used it in years. LOL. All manual for me, please.
Sometimes I need very fast and competent AF, such as shooting ice races. Sometimes I don't need AF at all such as my night shots. I shoot a lot of different camera systems--Nikon FX & DX, 4x5, 5x7, Leica LTM, and some very sweet pre-WW2 6x9 folders. I pick the system that best suits the job. All but one of my Nikon system lenses (the 24mm PC-E) have very excellent AF. I don't think any of the lenses for my 4x5 Chamonix do, but I could check on that.
Kent in SD
-
A very timely article from Thom.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-mirrorless-prisoners.html
Cheers,
Bernard
It is an interesting article, but not a prisoner’s dilemma. The key aspect of a PD is that if the players could collude they would choose a different preferred path. In Thom’s example, there is no path in which Canon or Nikon would choose a different mount vs their existing mount. In every scenario, using the existing mount is the preferred decision.
I don’t know what the big deal is anyway. All they have to do is provide an option to add a legacy lens adapter with the camera purchase, priced at or near the variable cost of producing that adapter.
The assumption being existing Canikon users will want to adapt their captive legacy lenses (that’s the assumption on which Thom’s article is based). Sony’s problem is they don’t have that long legacy of lenses, so they don’t have that option. Sony customers have to pick one or more adapters on their own.
Dave
-
All but one of my Nikon system lenses (the 24mm PC-E) have very excellent AF. I don't think any of the lenses for my 4x5 Chamonix do, but I could check on that.
If the AF of your Chamonix is too slow you may want to have it checked by support.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am mystified by the doubts and worries about what mounts Canon and Nikon will use it and when they offer “EVF” bodies in good old 35mm format. They will do what Sony has done, along with every vaguely successful EVF system from an SLR maker with legacy SLR lenses to support, including Canon in “APS-C” format: a new, far shallower “EVF camera” lens mount that can use all their existing SLR lenses via an adaptor, and can also use a bunch of lenses for other SLR systems by the way. In particular, Canon will use its existing EF-M mount, which is a bit wider that Sony’s E mount and equally deep, and so should handle the larger format just fine. Nikon has even more reason to move on from the F mount.
The idea that avoiding transitional use of an adaptor (which curmudgeons could avoid by gluing the adaptor on permanently and staying with SLR lenses!) outweighs the longer term advantages in lens design and compactness of a new shallower mount (which can also be narrower) makes no technical or competitive sense that me — and apparently not to any SLR maker to make the switch with success beyond a small band of hardcore fans.
Note that video support and such favors New types of AF motors, so there will need to be a bunch of new lenses anyway
-
One big thing people are missing is that Canon is in business to make money. They'll release another mount for their mirrorless system, release an adapter to help move exiting lenses onto mirrorless and release a whole new smaller, lighter and optimized lenses for their mirrorless cameras...so they can sell you yet more lenses. Why would they spend all the R&D resources developing new mirrorless technology and not go to the trough for new mirrorless lenses?
-
. Why would they spend all the R&D resources developing new mirrorless technology and not go to the trough for new mirrorless lenses?
Because then the choice of switching systems suddenly becomes an easy proposition and it wouldn't be a favourable proposition for Canon atm. The reason they cater to professionals is that they would never devalue their customer's investments like that. They may opt for new lenses because modernising the line up may be necessary, but not by forced shocktherapy.
-
Because then the choice of switching systems suddenly becomes an easy proposition and it wouldn't be a favourable proposition for Canon atm. The reason they cater to professionals is that they would never devalue their customer's investments like that. They may opt for new lenses because modernising the line up may be necessary, but not by forced shocktherapy.
We are talking about the same Canon now...that overnight pulled the plug on the complete FD line of cameras and lenses...right. No...they won't force any shock therapy onto their customers...been there...done that...and it stung.
I'm not saying they will abandon their existing lenses...they'll make an adapter for the mirrorless platform. But Canon is in business to make money and the best way to make money is to offer something new to their customers...that includes both cameras and lenses. The existing lenses will work OK on the mirrorless cameras...like they work OK on the Sony cameras...but the new mirrorless versions will work just that much better and will be just a little bit lighter and smaller...enticing everyone to sell their old 85 1.4 for the new mirrorless version.
Wait and see...and new line of lenses makes huge business sense.
-
Well, it does raise an interesting question: will either N or C go for an "open source" mount, a la Sony?
-
My guess remains:
- new Nikon mount with short flange distance
- fully open lens mount to enable third parties to quickly help Nikon build a competitive lens portfolio
- 2 ranges of lenses (1/ super high-end never seem before ultra bright, 2/ very compact f2.8 lenses still high end in performance but pretty affordable)
- very advanced adapter with built-in AF module for full compatibility with existing F mount lenses OR second version of the body with this adaptor built-in for rigidity and ruggedness OR both (2 versions and an adaptor). My guess is both.
- open firmware platform with full API published
- full weather proof
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My guess remains:
- new Nikon mount with short flange distance
- fully open lens mount to enable third parties to quickly help Nikon build a competitive lens portfolio
- 2 ranges of lenses (1/ super high-end never seem before ultra bright, 2/ very compact f2.8 lenses still high end in performance but pretty affordable)
- very advanced adapter with built-in AF module for full compatibility with existing F mount lenses OR second version of the body with this adaptor built-in for rigidity and ruggedness OR both (2 versions and an adaptor). My guess is both.
- open firmware platform with full API published
- full weather proof
Cheers,
Bernard
Nope...lens mount will be closed just like it is for the DSLR system. Why would they change and let others in on the very lucrative lens market. Does not make any business sense to open up their mount...how does Nikon make money from this scenario.
Nikon will release their mirrorless with a new mount, release an adapter which allows their existing lenses to work OK on this new mount...and then start releasing new lenses specifically for the mirrorless system.
-
Well, it does raise an interesting question: will either N or C go for an "open source" mount, a la Sony?
One thing's for sure - Sony's open mount is an invitation for Sigma to step right up and give their camera (not lens) business a reboot.
Sigma's Foveon has unique capabilities. At base ISO, area-for-area (i.e. 1.5x crop for 1.5x crop) it probably gives a better image than just about any sensor out there, including the D850 and (non-pixel-shifted) A7r3. It's like every shot being a pixel-shift shot, but in a single exposure. But, so far, it's been languishing in consumer-grade crop bodies which don't use it to its full potential (lower-end consumers buying crop bodies being far less likely to buy a good, if specialised tool like Foveon over a general-purpose body) and has essentially been relegated to compact-ish, fixed-lens cameras.
Sony's open mount offers Sigma a way forward. There is now a sizeable number of E-mount users out there, equipped with E-mount lenses. Sigma is now starting to make full-frame E-mount lenses, so they are clearly familiar with the mount.
At the same time. IQ-focused bodies are close to running into a wall. The current A7r3 and D850 do a good job, but are more general-purpose cameras, capable of shooting everything, at both low and high ISOs, than dedicated IQ bodies. Not that they don't have good image quality as it is, but that more could be achieved through the sacrifice of some of their speed and high ISO capability. There are 60-100MP Bayer sensors in the works, but where do you go from there? Once you have a 60-100MP full-frame Bayer sensor, is there much point in increasing it to 120-150MP for the following generation?
But there are other ways to improve low-ISO IQ apart from just increasing resolution. Foveon is one such way - it would have a similar spatial resolution to contemporary 'high-resolution' cameras, but higher colour resolution, and also eliminate most moire and sensor-related colour fringing, but at the cost of high-ISO performance.
Sigma should bring out a full-frame, low-ISO-focused E-mount camera with a Foveon sensor. Probably in the 50-60MP range (the current Quattro sensor would be 44MP scaled to full-frame) with full RGB information for every pixel. They could potentially even go back to the old 1:1:1 pixel architecture, instead of the Quattro's 4:1:1, which improved high-ISO capability at the expense of colour resolution. It would likely not have the AF performance of Sony bodies, nor their video functionality, but that wouldn't be the point of the camera. As a high-end, specialised camera, buyers would know what they're getting into and be buying it for its special capabilities, with full knowledge of its downsides. It's just like no-one buying an Otus lens complains that it can't autofocus - anyone even considering an Otus knows exactly what they're getting and what the point of the lens is.
This new Sigma would occupy a niche at the far end of the IQ-vs-speed curve, which, for full-frame sensors, currently sits unoccupied. It would not be a huge niche, but still substantial - landscape photographers, studio photographers (and anyone else primarily using flash), art reproduction, etc. And Sigma bodies have always been niche anyway - this would probably be substantially less so, with more potential users.
Of course, this opening is also available to Sony, who also have multilayer sensor technology, but have not deployed it as yet. Who knows how mature Sony's multilayer technology is yet, though - Sigma's has been demonstrated and used in production cameras, and could probably be put into a full-frame body sooner than any attempt from Sony. Odds are that the next Sony IQ-focused body will simply be a higher-resolution Bayer sensor (say, 60-80MP) rather than a completely new sensor architecture (although it may include refinements such as a global electronic shutter or pixel-parallel A/D conversion, which are evolutionary steps from what is currently being used). But it would be a possibility for future generations after that, when pixel count is running into diminishing returns. (I'm speaking of final output megapixels here - it can be beneficial for the sensor to have multiple photosites per final pixel, to enable things such as dual/quad-pixel AF, or even the 'light field' camera concept, whose main flaw was that it came 10-15 years ahead of its time, before sensors of sufficient resolution were available and before other elements required for the computed photography approach could catch up).
-
- 2 ranges of lenses (1/ super high-end never seem before ultra bright, 2/ very compact f2.8 lenses still high end in performance but pretty affordable)
This would be almost the dumbest thing Nikon could do, and would likely ensure their relegation to Leica's status, as a niche player in the camera world, with big name cachet but little actual influence or market presence.
Outside of a few enthusiasts with more money than skill, who's going to be buying and using these 'never seen before' 'ultra-bright' lenses? Sigma's f/1.4 lenses not fast enough for you? Even then, they're often used stopped down to f/1.8-f/2 rather than wide-open. Are Nikon going to undercut Sigma? How many f/1.0-f/1.2 lenses do you think Nikon are going to be able to sell, if they end up costing three times as much as the Sigma f/1.4 equivalent (which is probably sharper, due to a less extreme design - there's a reason the Noctilux lenses are the softest of Leica's lenses, despite being the largest and most expensive)?
These are niche lenses for artsy types - niches you fill once you have all the bases covered.
Working photographers mostly live or die by their fast zooms - 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, a UWA (12-24/4, 14-24/2.8, 16-35/2.8 or similar). Action photographers need the superteles - 100-400 (or similar, as backup or a secondary lens for dedication action or as a main telephoto lens for general photography), 200-400/4, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6. Wedding and portrait photographers may have one or two fast primes at favoured focal lengths for posed portraits - say, two of 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8 or 200/2. But no-one shows up to a shoot with a bagful of fast primes, if they could even carry them. And they are unlikely to go for a super-fast f/1.0 or f/1.2 lens, when a good-quality f/1.4 lens already does the job, weighs less and costs less (Sigma).
We've seen these ultra-fast lenses before - f/0.95, f/1, etc. They're super-heavy, super-large, super-expensive and not very sharp. There's a reason no-one makes them any more, outside of a few niche lenses. Bringing them back sounds more like the wishful thinking of an artsy type than the requirements of a photographer or the calculated profit-chasing of a business executive.
- very advanced adapter with built-in AF module for full compatibility with existing F mount lenses OR second version of the body with this adaptor built-in for rigidity and ruggedness OR both (2 versions and an adaptor). My guess is both.
It would be very uneconomical to produce multiple, substantially different versions of what is essentially the same camera. They may do it for one generation, but not for the next one. It would essentially mirror Sony's A99II, which is essentially an A7r2 designed for A-mount lenses.
Also, any adapter with a PDAF module for full compatibility with current lenses would likely be prohibitively expensive - basically, you'd need to rip out the entire AF system of the D5 or D850, put it into an adapter with an inbuilt mirror and couple up a lot more things between the adapter and body than is necessary for a simple pass-through adapter (including also designing the camera to work with the adapter). Nothing like a Metabones adapter. It would also reduce sensor performance by a third to half a stop, due to the pellicle mirror required (you can't really stick a moving mirror in an adapter. And it still wouldn't be as accurate as the full on-sensor AF approach, due to the adapter's AF sensor and the imaging sensor not being in complete alignment (the reason for AF micro-adjustment on SLRs), although a pellicle mirror design would allow for sensor-based AF to be used for corrections after the adapter had done the large, fast movements. It would likely cost as much as a good lens, unless Nikon decide to subsidise it to smooth the transition process, selling the adapter at no profit, or even at a loss. Which itself has precedent - at the launch of the A7/A7r, Sony were offering Metabones adapters with each A7/A7r body sold.
- open firmware platform with full API published
Has anyone else done this?
Even the Magic Lantern crew for Canon pretty much had to hack their way in.
- full weather proof
Depends on the model (everyone will have more than one line of mirrorless cameras) and of marginal utility anyway. I recently shot the A7r3 outdoors for multiple full days in various adverse weather conditions, ranging from tropical rainstorms with 100% humidity, to heavy snow, to seaspray, and never had any issues with it. In actual use, no-one's going to be putting the camera under a shower head for 20 minutes - the photographer will give up before the camera, and you probably won't be shooting much under those conditions anyway, due to poor visibility and raindrops on the front element. If you're covering the lens to stop raindrops on the front element ruining your shot, you're probably also covering the camera, once again rendering the issue moot.
-
Nope...lens mount will be closed just like it is for the DSLR system. Why would they change and let others in on the very lucrative lens market. Does not make any business sense to open up their mount...how does Nikon make money from this scenario.
Of the three lenses I shoot most on my D800E, one is Nikon (24mm PC-E) and two are Sigma ART (35mm & 50mm f1.4). I would be more interested in any future Nikon camera if I could use my vintage Leica LTM lenses on it. They are tiny and I love the look they give. :)
Kent in SD
-
I wonder whether the changing lens requirements might perhaps necessitate an open mount. Even the Nikons and Canons of this world can not cater to all the different needs of photographers these days. Cinematic properties are increasingly important and before you finally have all the bases covered, customers may have switched to an open alternative simply because of better choice.
Either way, deadlocking customers into a closed system is really a strategy of the past. What should happen is a true innovation in cost-of-ownershipmodel with circular economy in mind.
As for Foveon: i would have liked to see a version that tries to squeeze even more "colors" from the different depths of silicon. Moving closer to a spectral capture system. That would allow them to cater to the niche market more in line with the cost of development. (Yes, i realize that squeezing 3 colors was stretching it already.)
-
My thought is that it is sad that so many Canikon users (and this is a general opinion not addresed at the OP), need to be able to enjoy a competent Liveview on their DSLR's to just imagine how useful an EVF can be: 100% framing, realtime WB and exposure, highlight/shadow clipping, focus peaking and zoom as MF aids, bye bye front/back focus nightmares,... and how archaic an OVF and therefore the whole DSLR concept are today.
What's the point of paying an extra cost for a pentaprism group and renounce to have Liveview composition on your eye?. Come on, that is insane.
Luckily in the next two years the mirrorless vs DSLR mix will finally crossover 'thanks' to the forthcoming Canikon FF mirrorless. Sad it took such a long time just because Canikon wanted it so, and because most of their followers where not critical enough about the situation. In fact I wonder if those FF releases from Canikon would exist if Sony didn't launch its A7's.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/cipa.png)
Regards.
-
One thing's for sure - Sony's open mount is an invitation for Sigma to step right up and give their camera (not lens) business a reboot.
Sigma's Foveon has unique capabilities. At base ISO, area-for-area (i.e. 1.5x crop for 1.5x crop) it probably gives a better image than just about any sensor out there, including the D850 and (non-pixel-shifted) A7r3. It's like every shot being a pixel-shift shot, but in a single exposure. But, so far, it's been languishing in consumer-grade crop bodies which don't use it to its full potential (lower-end consumers buying crop bodies being far less likely to buy a good, if specialised tool like Foveon over a general-purpose body) and has essentially been relegated to compact-ish, fixed-lens cameras.
Sony's open mount offers Sigma a way forward. There is now a sizeable number of E-mount users out there, equipped with E-mount lenses. Sigma is now starting to make full-frame E-mount lenses, so they are clearly familiar with the mount.
At the same time. IQ-focused bodies are close to running into a wall. The current A7r3 and D850 do a good job, but are more general-purpose cameras, capable of shooting everything, at both low and high ISOs, than dedicated IQ bodies. Not that they don't have good image quality as it is, but that more could be achieved through the sacrifice of some of their speed and high ISO capability. There are 60-100MP Bayer sensors in the works, but where do you go from there? Once you have a 60-100MP full-frame Bayer sensor, is there much point in increasing it to 120-150MP for the following generation?
But there are other ways to improve low-ISO IQ apart from just increasing resolution. Foveon is one such way - it would have a similar spatial resolution to contemporary 'high-resolution' cameras, but higher colour resolution, and also eliminate most moire and sensor-related colour fringing, but at the cost of high-ISO performance.
Sigma should bring out a full-frame, low-ISO-focused E-mount camera with a Foveon sensor. Probably in the 50-60MP range (the current Quattro sensor would be 44MP scaled to full-frame) with full RGB information for every pixel. They could potentially even go back to the old 1:1:1 pixel architecture, instead of the Quattro's 4:1:1, which improved high-ISO capability at the expense of colour resolution. It would likely not have the AF performance of Sony bodies, nor their video functionality, but that wouldn't be the point of the camera. As a high-end, specialised camera, buyers would know what they're getting into and be buying it for its special capabilities, with full knowledge of its downsides. It's just like no-one buying an Otus lens complains that it can't autofocus - anyone even considering an Otus knows exactly what they're getting and what the point of the lens is.
This new Sigma would occupy a niche at the far end of the IQ-vs-speed curve, which, for full-frame sensors, currently sits unoccupied. It would not be a huge niche, but still substantial - landscape photographers, studio photographers (and anyone else primarily using flash), art reproduction, etc. And Sigma bodies have always been niche anyway - this would probably be substantially less so, with more potential users.
Of course, this opening is also available to Sony, who also have multilayer sensor technology, but have not deployed it as yet. Who knows how mature Sony's multilayer technology is yet, though - Sigma's has been demonstrated and used in production cameras, and could probably be put into a full-frame body sooner than any attempt from Sony. Odds are that the next Sony IQ-focused body will simply be a higher-resolution Bayer sensor (say, 60-80MP) rather than a completely new sensor architecture (although it may include refinements such as a global electronic shutter or pixel-parallel A/D conversion, which are evolutionary steps from what is currently being used). But it would be a possibility for future generations after that, when pixel count is running into diminishing returns. (I'm speaking of final output megapixels here - it can be beneficial for the sensor to have multiple photosites per final pixel, to enable things such as dual/quad-pixel AF, or even the 'light field' camera concept, whose main flaw was that it came 10-15 years ahead of its time, before sensors of sufficient resolution were available and before other elements required for the computed photography approach could catch up).
No one knows exactly what the terms are between Sony and Sigma ( or anyone else ) with regards the E-mount. Maybe Sigma is legally not allowed to develop a camera based on the E-mount. Seems like Sony has some control of what lenses Zeiss is releasing so I would think Sony is not that stupid and just gives everyone who asks full access to the e-mount without conditions.
-
My thought is that it is sad that so many Canikon users (and this is a general opinion not addresed at the OP), need to be able to enjoy a competent Liveview on their DSLR's to just imagine how useful an EVF can be: 100% framing, realtime WB and exposure, highlight/shadow clipping, focus peaking and zoom as MF aids, bye bye front/back focus nightmares,... and how archaic an OVF and therefore the whole DSLR concept are today.
What's the point of paying an extra cost for a pentaprism group and renounce to have Liveview composition on your eye?. Come on, that is insane.
Luckily in the next two years the mirrorless vs DSLR mix will finally crossover 'thanks' to the forthcoming Canikon FF mirrorless. Sad it took such a long time just because Canikon wanted it so, and because most of their followers where not critical enough about the situation. In fact I wonder if those FF releases from Canikon would exist if Sony didn't launch its A7's.
Regards.
As someone who regularly shoots with EVF cameras (m43, Sony, Leica CL, X1D) and with OVF cameras (D850, H6D) I strongly disagree. The only reason why I shoot with EVF cameras is the size/weight advantage. To my eyes. looking at an EVF or LCD is vastly inferior to using an OVF (lack of contrast, detail, etc). It is like looking at Google Satellite View vs looking with your eyes from a helicopter with doors off. I understand that other people do not feel that way, but every time I switch from EVF back to OVF it feels so much better, i.e., I feel much more inspired seeing with my own eyes than looking at an LCD. Surprisingly, YMMV :-).
IMO, the main advantage of a mirrorless Nikon is that people who like EVFs would have the option of an ergonomically well designed high megapixel mirrorless full frame camera. If compatible with existing Nikon lenses, it would be a good lightweight backup camera as well.
-
How strange that a pentaprism has never been the weak link in my photography.
The weak links are my old eyes and my imagination. No viewfinder makes up for those failures. The very last thing I desire in a viewfinder is information other than parallax-free framing, focussing and, to an extent, an indication of DOF. Nikon and Rolleiflex and Hasselblad did that very well indeed for me for ages before digital was invented. Hell's teeth, I don't even chimp unless I find myself in a room shooting towards a window.
Simplicity without fancy distractions is what I want; others are free to enjoy the process of the toys to their heart's content. It is not about the gadgets, for me, but about the thing in front of the lens. I have a suspicion that holds good for most of us old guys who have been relatively active in photography.
-
I understand that other people do not feel that way, but every time I switch from EVF back to OVF it feels so much better, i.e., I feel much more inspired seeing with my own eyes than looking at an LCD. Surprisingly, YMMV :-).
Nope you are not alone, and I "put up" with the poorer viewing experience of EVF for the other benefits that mirrorless cameras bring. My own mirrorless cameras are a bit on the old side now (and indeed I just got rid of my Panasonic GX7outfit, so I only have my Fujis now), but I rush to check out each new model as they come out, and remain grateful that I still primarily use DSLRs.
Cheers,
Graham
-
You’ve got to love the very heated reactions generated by the suggestion that Nikon may release a mirrorless system that isn’t a late copycat of what Sony has been doing. ;)
Yet, why on earth would they want to focus on a loosing strategy with me too products? That wouldn’t make much sense would it?
The only reasonnable question is how Nikon can attract potential buyers towards their new mirrorless platform with something truly unique that is better than what Sony is doing. And I don’t believe that “by putting themselves in the skin of a follower” is an objective answer.
That is merely the answer that Sony, and possibly some people afraid of Sony loosing some competitive ground, would love to hear. ;)
And btw, the very same would apply to Canon. The winning strategy would IMHO be the exact same on as the one for Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Im fairly certain you too have had the same arguments across a couple of other threads :)
That being said I'm excited for the tail end of this year and the Photokina that will show us all the way, probably will be the most important one of the last few years for the big players.
-
Im fairly certain you too have had the same arguments across a couple of other threads :)
That being said I'm excited for the tail end of this year and the Photokina that will show us all the way, probably will be the most important one of the last few years for the big players.
Certainly. There is no reason why logic would change over the course of a few weeks. ;)
It just doesn’t make sense to attempt to forecast the strategy of Canikon from the angle of what it would take not to hurt the insecurity of owners of equipment manufacturered by their most fierce competitor i.e Sony). :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Certainly. There is no reason why logic would change over the course of a few weeks. ;)
It just doesn’t make sense to attempt to forecast the strategy of Canikon from the angle of what it would take not to hurt the insecurity of owners of equipment manufacturered by their most fierce competitor i.e Sony). :)
Cheers,
Bernard
Interesting thoughts, based on industry leaders interviews:
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/5014039475/cp-2018-interviews-the-reign-of-the-dslr-is-almost-over
Certainly, there will be interesting news leading up to the 2020 Olympics. Nothing to do with the need to defend Sony or insecurity.
-
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/5014039475/cp-2018-interviews-the-reign-of-the-dslr-is-almost-over
Certainly, there will be interesting news leading up to the 2020 Olympics. Nothing to do with the need to defend Sony or insecurity.
Indeed.
I don't believe that anyone here is debating the fact that Canon and Nikon are coming way too late to the mirrorless party. The question is how they will start to play.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed.
I don't believe that anyone here is debating the fact that Canon and Nikon are coming way too late to the mirrorless party. The question is how they will start to play.
Cheers,
Bernard
IMO it is clear that Canon will enter with a bang, if they introduce a pro-MILC. Their pro-camera needs to be at least as good as their current pro-DSLR, and it needs to convince pros to change. If they need to change mount (which I doubt), they will do it; they did before.
As for Nikon, they seem to be in a worse starting point; now, that comment piece in DPR suggested a very interesting possibility, namely that Nikon could adopt the open-public Sony E mount. That would be interesting!
-
As for Nikon, they seem to be in a worse starting point; now, that comment piece in DPR suggested a very interesting possibility, namely that Nikon could adopt the open-public Sony E mount. That would be interesting!
This would be very interesting indeed. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
IMO it is clear that Canon will enter with a bang, if they introduce a pro-MILC. Their pro-camera needs to be at least as good as their current pro-DSLR,
Not a high bar to set there though... Maybe that's been Canons strategy for the past 8 years- be mediocre so your mirrorless camera can arrive with a bang?
-
Not a high bar to set there though... Maybe that's been Canons strategy for the past 8 years- be mediocre so your mirrorless camera can arrive with a bang?
Could you please stop bashing Canon? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
IMO it is clear that Canon will enter with a bang, if they introduce a pro-MILC. Their pro-camera needs to be at least as good as their current pro-DSLR, and it needs to convince pros to change. If they need to change mount (which I doubt), they will do it; they did before.
As for Nikon, they seem to be in a worse starting point; now, that comment piece in DPR suggested a very interesting possibility, namely that Nikon could adopt the open-public Sony E mount. That would be interesting!
The E-mount is open...but I highly doubt it is public. I would think Sony still has control who uses the mount and creates a legal agreement with manufacturers.
-
Not a high bar to set there though... Maybe that's been Canons strategy for the past 8 years- be mediocre so your mirrorless camera can arrive with a bang?
Oh my, all those photographers using mediocre cameras, they must be all wrong...
The only mediocre thing I see around here is your comment, really:
https://www.shutterbug.com/content/get-load-all-camera-gear-canon-has-brought-2018-winter-olympics
-
Oh my, all those photographers using mediocre cameras, they must be all wrong...
The only mediocre thing I see around here is your comment, really:
https://www.shutterbug.com/content/get-load-all-camera-gear-canon-has-brought-2018-winter-olympics
And why do you think they need to bring that many replacement units? ;-p
-
And why do you think they need to bring that many replacement units? ;-p
In my simple way if thinking, I would say that it is because:
1. Their camera got hit by a player that was rushing to try and get the ball before it goes out of the field. I see this often in football matches.
2. The cameras and lenses need to be used under harsh conditions, no matter what.
3. Shit happens.
Anyway, if I were a sports pro assigned to such an event, I would be glad I had that kind of support.
It would be interesting to know how many cameras and lenses Canon and Nikon need to provide as replacement units during such large events.
-
Perhaps these were also for rental services?
-
Oh my, all those photographers using mediocre cameras, they must be all wrong...
The only mediocre thing I see around here is your comment, really:
https://www.shutterbug.com/content/get-load-all-camera-gear-canon-has-brought-2018-winter-olympics
I think you must be mistaking Luminous Landscapes for Luminous Sports Photographers.
I don't think anyone here can say that Canon have been producing great, market leading cameras since probably the 5dii. FOR LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHERS.
Hence the mediocrity comment.
And I should know... I had to gi through the pain of swapping systems due to it.
-
I think you must be mistaking Luminous Landscapes for Luminous Sports Photographers.
I don't think anyone here can say that Canon have been producing great, market leading cameras since probably the 5dii. FOR LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHERS.
Hence the mediocrity comment.
And I should know... I had to gi through the pain of swapping systems due to it.
I agree with you. I shoot landscape and travel and I looked elsewhere away from Canon as Canon did not have anything competative for me. I don't need the big, bulky, heavy gear we always see when we talk about Canon.
-
I think you must be mistaking Luminous Landscapes for Luminous Sports Photographers.
I don't think anyone here can say that Canon have been producing great, market leading cameras since probably the 5dii. FOR LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHERS.
Hence the mediocrity comment.
And I should know... I had to gi through the pain of swapping systems due to it.
Well, it only takes a couple of minutes to browse the following link:
https://www.canon.co.uk/pro/stories/
As you can see, Canon cameras are used in all genres of photography. Saying that Current Canon cameras are mediocre for landscape photography is a misguided comment, to say the least...
Even Salgado used a Canon 6D with a 40mm pancake for some of his work in the Genesis project.
You can also check some of the photos that Vieri Bottazzini has posted in the Landscape forum, taken with Canon gear.
-
You can also check some of the photos that Vieri Bottazzini has posted in the Landscape forum, taken with Canon gear.
Which ones would that be?
-
Which ones would that be?
I remember some of his Tuscanny/Apenines photos, but I am not going to do the work for you:)
-
I remember some of his Tuscanny/Apenines photos, but I am not going to do the work for you:)
Then you probably mean Hans Kruse instead, because you can blame Vieri for pretty much any mark of equipment but Canon... (though I'm sure in his hands you'd still get tacksharp grand landscape results...)
-
Then you probably mean Hans Kruse instead, because you can blame Vieri for pretty much any mark of equipment but Canon... (though I'm sure in his hands you'd still get tacksharp grand landscape results...)
Indeed, I ment Hans.