Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: BJL on April 30, 2018, 02:45:44 pm
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/6645869398/nikon-manager-confirms-new-mirrorless-system-coming-by-spring-2019
Do we at least get some details at Photokina this September?
P. S. Modified on August 23 with a new more optimistic date.
-
Probably an announcement.
Should be a great Photokina though. Canons FF mirrorless should be ready, Leica Q2 & possibly Hasselblad X2D.
-
I've got a hunch this is going to cost more than I want to pay. I'm actually pretty happy with what I have. :)
Kent in SD
-
+1
-
Thom Hogan had a more optimistic interpretation: that the comment from a Nikon rep. was solely about it coming in the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, 2019; because this is a comment related to the fiscal year report coming out soon. So it could be anytime between now and then, and all I am betting on is “more news at Photokina”.
For now his comments are on his front page http://bythom.com
-
Right now there is now point to go mirrorless because most nikon lenses are monsters. Now if they redesigned the old AFD primes and came up with a 24-70 f4-5.6 that would be different.
-
Hugh, I gently beg to differ. For a long time, my Fuji years, (after my Nikon full frame years) I was an advocate of mirrorless because of the size of the camera and lenses. I criticized Sony mirrorless because while it had a diminutive body, their full frame lenses were quite large. I now own Sony gear and its large lenses, and have come to the realization that the best reasons for mirrorless are the EVF and its options for magnification for manual focus, the lack of a mirror for accuracy of focus and a whole bunch of others. You can't beat physics (usually). Full frame, fast autofocus lenses are going to be large. The Sigma Art lenses, while excellent are not petite. Their 35mm f/1.4 is 1.5 POUNDS! the Sony 35mm f/2.8 (slower, I know), is 4.5 OUNCES! My Sony 24-70 f/2.8 is what you would call a monster but it is capable of impressive images. I loved the Fuji system and will never say anything bad about it but it's small because it is APS-C. They also engineered superb optics for it.
I'm certain Nikon and Canon will make excellent and interesting systems for us to discuss into the future.
-
Eric, I agree with all of this, but have one comment about size advantages.
For a long time ... I was an advocate of mirrorless because of the size of the camera and lenses. ... I now ... have come to the realization that the best reasons for mirrorless are the EVF and its options for magnification for manual focus, the lack of a mirror for accuracy of focus and a whole bunch of others.
There is still one respect in which an EVF does help with allowing the _option_ of downsizing, even though there are also good reasons to combine an EVF body with big, bright, fast lenses. This is the fact that the far greater low light handling of modern sensors compared to film means that, when the reason for using those big lenses is speed (rather than the esthetic goal of very blurry backgrounds) then the same speed and low-light handling can now be achieved with far smaller, lighter lenses. The speed achieved with 35mm film and the fastest lenses can be matched or exceeded at about f/8 in 35mm format, but also at about f/5 in APS-C at 2/3 the focal length, f/4 at half the focal length in 4/3", and so on.
But no matter how this lens downsizing is achieved (with or without sensor downsizing) it means that these smaller lenses gather light far less quickly than do the big, bright lenses of the film era and of high-end 35mm format DSLR usage ... and this is a problem for optical viewfinders, at least with manual focusing!
A common complaint in this forum and others is that the OVFs on DSLRs in the new sub-35mm "digital only" formats give an image that undesirably small and/or dim. And if one stays with a good 35mm format SLR viewfinder but downsize the lenses to f/8 or slower, there would be the same OVF dimness problem in many situations. (Try DOF preview with the lens at f/8 to see what I mean.)
I suggest that the coming preferred solution for this "kit downsizing through lens downsizing" is to abandon the OVF in favor of an EVF (or using the rear screen if and when you are comfortable composing that way.) Therefore I do still see the case for EVF cameras being strongest with the new smaller "digital-only" formats, even if there is also a good case for having EVFs as an _option_ with 36x24mm and 44x33mm sensors too.
Entry-level APS-C DSLRs with their small penta-mirror OVFs of less than 100% coverage might not be on the market for many more years.
-
One of the things I really like about Zeiss' Batis lens lineup for Sony EVF cameras is how light they are. I'll take the minor speed reduction in exchange for a noticeably lighter load any day.
-Dave-
-
I criticized Sony mirrorless because while it had a diminutive body, their full frame lenses were quite large. I now own Sony gear and its large lenses, and have come to the realization that the best reasons for mirrorless are the EVF and its options for magnification for manual focus, the lack of a mirror for accuracy of focus and a whole bunch of others. You can't beat physics (usually).
This is a good point. But yes, full frame lenses are still heavy! When comparing the Nikon d850 with 24-120 and compare it to the sony with 24-105 the weight difference is less than a pound. Mirror slap is something I could do without especially with my D800.
-
There is a chance it will have a curved sensor and a new bajonet...
( according to Nikon rumours)
A curved sensor would mean better lenses with a more simple architecture; smaller.
Combined with a non lagging good EVF it could bring something extra on the table.
-
A curved sensor would mean better lenses with a more simple architecture; smaller.
It would also ruin in any backward compatibility with existing lenses (unless some fancy optical adaptor could fix that) so I am skeptical.
-
It would also ruin in any backward compatibility with existing lenses (unless some fancy optical adaptor could fix that) so I am skeptical.
Most significantly non Nikon ones.
But then again, Nikon may decide that performance is the most important thing. Considering that they have arguably the best engineering team of any camera company, it would make sense for them to just go what the heck and release a camera that nobody else can release.
They have done that with DSLRs with the D850, they may just go the high route and believe in their skills.
Future will tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is a chance it will have a curved sensor and a new bajonet...
( according to Nikon rumours)
A curved sensor would mean better lenses with a more simple architecture; smaller.
Combined with a non lagging good EVF it could bring something extra on the table.
I don’t remember where I read one camera engineer (don’t remember which manufacturer) saying that zoom lenses are problematic if not imposible for curved sensors... maybe I remember wrong...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
I don’t remember where I read one camera engineer (don’t remember which manufacturer) saying that zoom lenses are problematic if not impossible for curved sensors... maybe I remember wrong...
http://dgpfotografia.com
Good point! All the recent patents relating to curved sensors (I have seen them from both Nikon and Sony) are for fixed focal lengths; in fact they are all for normal or wide FOV. As I understand it, the idea is to simplify the lens deign by making little or no correction of field curvature, and then match the sensor's curvature to that field curvature. But uncorrected field curvature is about inversely proportional to focal length, so a wide range of focal lengths would require different sensor curvatures.
My guess is that these curved sensor designs are for things like security cameras, phone cameras, web-cams, backing-up cameras in cars and all the billions of small cheap camera modules in our ever increasing array of "smart" devices; cameras with a single lens of a single focal length.
-
Most significantly non Nikon ones.
Considering that they have arguably the best engineering team of any camera company...
?!?
-
My guess is that these curved sensor designs are for ... cameras with a single lens of a single focal length.
I just learnt of an early, fun example: the Kodak Brownie 127, which compensated for its very simple lens by curving the film!
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/05/22/nikon-mirrorless-camera-rumors-update.aspx/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Who wants to bet that this new Leica mirrorless will feature the exact same sensor Nikon will use in their upcoming FF mirrorless?
https://leicarumors.com/2018/05/28/new-leica-mirrorless-camera-to-be-announced-in-june-leica-c-m.aspx/
You’ve got to be impressed by the strange tribulations of destiny. Nikon started as a manufacuter of superior rangefinder lenses doing better than Leitz for less money. And here we are, 50 years later, with the 2 brands likely to be closer than they ever were, competing neck to neck for the top spot in Premium mirrorless offerings.
At least if my guess is right. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think a lot of wishful thinking here. Nikon doesn’t even have a camera yet and already it’s competing for top spot.
I just hope it’s good. No one wants to see Nikon fail. And they have to compete with Sony’s plans to spend 9 billion over the next few years on development.
-
I think a lot of wishful thinking here. Nikon doesn’t even have a camera yet and already it’s competing for top spot.
I just hope it’s good. No one wants to see Nikon fail. And they have to compete with Sony’s plans to spend 9 billion over the next few years on development.
No wishful thinking as I don't especially wish for this scenario to unfold. ;)
But it would be plain stupid for Nikon and Leica not trying to fight for the top spot since they are releasing products way after their competitor. What sense would it make to release something inferior?
The same applies to Canon of course, but this wasn't the point of my post that was focusing on the sensor provider as you understood of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have a very close friend who is heavily invested in Nikon gear. We are working on a collaborative project and there are times when a mirrorless camera would be a big help. He tried the Fuji system and didn’t get along with it. Currently he is using the 850 and I know he is hoping the new Nikon will fit his requirements.
I really hope so as well. There are times when the big 850 is a real hinderance, lovely as it is. Think hours and hours walking up and down a busy street with a fair bit of personal risk involved in terms of crime. I use an apsc 6500 with three tiny primes. Guess who feels most vulnerable.
-
I really hope so as well. There are times when the big 850 is a real hinderance, lovely as it is. Think hours and hours walking up and down a busy street with a fair bit of personal risk involved in terms of crime. I use an apsc 6500 with three tiny primes. Guess who feels most vulnerable.
There are certainly cases where a more compact camera helps get the shot and mirrorless associated with the right lenses can clearly help achieve this.
Now, I would not expect the Nikon mirrorless to be cheap. I would instead expect it to sell for 2,500~3,000 US$. ;)
Another thing is that today going mirrorless isn't as much about a rationale set of measurable advantages as it is about hype. You are mirrorless your'in, you are DSLR, you'r out. ;D
The good old DSLRs still have superior AF, a much wider set of lenses, shooting experience is overall still much nicer with OVFs,... and still take better pictures in a majority of sitations, but this isn't relevant anymore it seems.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Can’t really argue with much that you say. When I’m using the full frame Sony it feels like a DSLR to me. Focus is 100% fine for my use. Feels in the hand a bit like an old slr so it’s just another camera really. I do see some advantages beside the size. I like the customisable viewfinder. Ability to easily use 30 year old glass. That sort of thing. What I’m shooting happens so quickly and often in poor light the EVF is actually easier for me. Boosting the signal for really dark places gets noisy but still more usable than OVF. Then there is in body stabilisation. Also useful. But it’s a camera. No more or less. I don’t really get the mirrorless hype myself. I understand it’s the future for all sorts of reasons but so what
Tell you what is lovely though. Using an APSC and FF where you can swop lenses between and it’s a seamless thing. I use a 500 mm Minolta mirror lens on the 6500 I get stabilisation with 24mp at the equivalent of 750mm. Can then swop it to the Sony A7 and get 42 MP. I don’t buy the 6 stops with IBIS at all. It’s rubbish
I hear people go on about balance with bigger bodies and I don’t buy it. One chap sold off his A7 because it’s too small. Same man successfully uses a phone and you couldn’t get the TV remote off him even if you broke both thumbs. How does he manage that? Big lens on small body you just hold it different. If it’s all about balance explain an 850 with a nifty fifty and then with a 400mm fast lens. They can’t both balance now can they.
-
I find the ergonomics of the a7/a9 to be ok, not great but it would certainly not prevent me from buying one.
If compactness, silent shooting or IBIS were important for me I would own either already.
For the rest what I currently own still perforns better I believe.
The future will tell. If I am not convinced by Nikon’s mirrorless offering I’ll most probably go Sony or even Canon. Brand isn’t relevant. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Can’t really argue with much that you say. When I’m using the full frame Sony it feels like a DSLR to me. Focus is 100% fine for my use. Feels in the hand a bit like an old slr so it’s just another camera really. I do see some advantages beside the size. I like the customisable viewfinder. Ability to easily use 30 year old glass. That sort of thing. What I’m shooting happens so quickly and often in poor light the EVF is actually easier for me. Boosting the signal for really dark places gets noisy but still more usable than OVF. Then there is in body stabilisation. Also useful. But it’s a camera. No more or less. I don’t really get the mirrorless hype myself. I understand it’s the future for all sorts of reasons but so what
Tell you what is lovely though. Using an APSC and FF where you can swop lenses between and it’s a seamless thing. I use a 500 mm Minolta mirror lens on the 6500 I get stabilisation with 24mp at the equivalent of 750mm. Can then swop it to the Sony A7 and get 42 MP. I don’t buy the 6 stops with IBIS at all. It’s rubbish
I hear people go on about balance with bigger bodies and I don’t buy it. One chap sold off his A7 because it’s too small. Same man successfully uses a phone and you couldn’t get the TV remote off him even if you broke both thumbs. How does he manage that? Big lens on small body you just hold it different. If it’s all about balance explain an 850 with a nifty fifty and then with a 400mm fast lens. They can’t both balance now can they.
1. Swapping from format to format: I use both the D200 and D700 bodies, and that gives you the swap in effective focal lengths.
2. 500 Reflex. It was and still is one of my best-loved lenses but so demanding of specific subjects (water) in order to reveal itself at its most useful (to me).
The snap was taken using a very glam Rowi that arrived in the Bahamas with one totally shattered leg joint, courtesy British Airways.
On the plus side, I did learn that a duopod still offers a very useful upgrade to a mono! This was originally Kodachrome 64 Pro on Nikon F or F2.
It was a lot easier doing that with a split-image screen than with the screen on either of my two digital Nikons. Using the green focus dot under the image is okay if there is no movement, but nowehere as good as the old splits! Small apertures didn't seem to cause too much of a problem with black halfs on splits.
One massive advantage of the digital era, though, with those slow 8/500mm things, is the variable and useful higher speed ratings.
-
Funny lens is it not Rob? Yes the old focussing screen argument. Man I loved them. I was looking through the old SRT101 last week. That split screen surrounded with the course fresnel circle. It worked so well. Remember that ghost image thing on rangefinders? Liked that too.
What really helps on mirrorless is the ability to rapidly magnify the view to check focus and also focus peaking. That kills OVF in my opinion. And yes it’s my opinion so please don’t tell me it’s wrong. It’s entirely subjective. If more people knew the difference between objective and subjective things this would be a far less combative place.
-
It would also ruin in any backward compatibility with existing lenses (unless some fancy optical adaptor could fix that) so I am skeptical.
Is that true? I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that for any lens, the surface of "perfect" focus was always spherical. No?
-
Is that true? I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that for any lens, the surface of "perfect" focus was always spherical. No?
By itself, a simple lens does produce a curved surface of best focus, when imaging a flat object. But camera lenses are far from simple, and a major design goal is correcting field curvature.
-
Another thing is that today going mirrorless isn't as much about a rationale set of measurable advantages as it is about hype. You are mirrorless your'in, you are DSLR, you'r out. ;D
The good old DSLRs still have superior AF, a much wider set of lenses, shooting experience is overall still much nicer with OVFs,... and still take better pictures in a majority of sitations, but this isn't relevant anymore it seems.
Hi Bernard, just to try to clarify a bit personal preferences from facts:
* Superior AF: just doesn't hold true anymore. Last A9 and A7 III are very competitive and even superior to DSLR's AF in some areas (wider and finer AF coverage, eye AF which social photographers are simply loving).
AF tracking on A7 III:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/910/42213072032_0883728519_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/905/40232561320_852dd82e96_c.jpg)
* Wider set of lenses: still true but in few cases decissive. For manual focus applications you can adapt almost any lens (I can use zero-D Canon 24mm TS on my Sony, you can't on your Nikon :) ). Lens range is getting wider specially now that Sigma and Tamron entered the E-Mount game.
* OVF vs EVF: just a matter of personal taste. I even prefer my old Olympus VF-3 EVF over any OVF because it allows me to forget about metering, something I always found distracting and uninteresting.
* Better pictures DSLR in a majority of situations: I would just say that in most situations both systems at equal price range provide the same quality, and would add that there are more niche situations where mirrorless are better than DSLR than the opposite (street photography, silent shooting, high speed electronic shutter as ND filter, legacy lenses IBIS).
Regards
-
Another thing is that today going mirrorless isn't as much about a rationale set of measurable advantages as it is about hype. You are mirrorless your'in, you are DSLR, you'r out. ;D
The good old DSLRs still have superior AF, a much wider set of lenses, shooting experience is overall still much nicer with OVFs,... and still take better pictures in a majority of sitations, but this isn't relevant anymore it seems.
C'mon, this is fanboy silliness. A wider range of camera tech options is a good thing. VF choice is a matter of taste.
-Dave-
-
C'mon, this is fanboy silliness. A wider range of camera tech options is a good thing. VF choice is a matter of taste.
Honestly I think it is just the opposite.
I am fully in favor of the mirrorless development and have nothing against it. I am just saying that the hype is overall a bit ahead of the reality. Yes, there are certainly use cases where an a7rIII/a9 is ahead of the D850, but I believe it remains a minority.
I have shot with these cameras, I like them overall, but I have a hard time imagining that a majority of people prefer the EVF experience over the OVF one. EVF do have objective advantages in some case but, again overall, I believe that the OVFs are far more enjoyable still.
I believe this to be an objective assessment, even if it is of course based on me.
But yes, if just preferring one option over an another makes you a fanboy, I guess that I am still a DSLR fanboy at the moment.
If preferring an option over another ignoring facts makes you a fanboy, my view is that some posters in this thread are more mirrorless fanboys than I am a DSLR one. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am fully in favor of the mirrorless development and have nothing against it. I am just saying that the hype is overall a bit ahead of the reality.
Honestly, Bernard, you do keep bangin' away at that old drum.
There are two fields in which DSLR's are still more prevalent - Fashion and Sports.
For the rest mirrorless clearly has the momentum.
-
Honestly, Bernard, you do keep bangin' away at that old drum.
There are two fields in which DSLR's are still more prevalent - Fashion and Sports.
For the rest mirrorless clearly has the momentum.
Hum... I still prefer the ISO64 mode of my D850 for landscape as well as the superior color rendering and quite a few other things as well (better weather sealing that works, the ability to display in parallel 2 parts of an image for T/S shooting, better battery life in the field,...), so I have to disagree your assessment is an objective one.
The a7rIII is an excellent landscape camera, but there is no objective fact supporting the proposition that it is the best option today.
Will the a7rIV be superior to the D860? There are many reasons to think it will be, but I am taking pictures with cameras available today, not with a potentiality for future superiority. ;) This is why I keep saying the same thing... the a7rIII is an amazing and very desirable camera. It offer the best bang for the buck per gram and per cubic inch... but it is being overhyped a bit when described as the best available option today. Besides, by the time the a7RIV is out, we will have options from Canon and Nikon on the table as well and it will not be any longer about mirrorless vs DSLR but about comparing various mirrorless options.
And overall, I am not even speaking about the ability to get access to some unique lenses with fully working AF functionality. I could simply not have taken this image with an a7rIII. Close yes, but not exactly the same rendering. Now we can of course discuss whether close is good enough or not, but I see no value in regressing at this point just for the sake of being on the trendy momentum train.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/897/28556189618_ce2380332d_h.jpg)
D5 + 200mm f2.0 at f2.0 / the 10 years old version
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hum... I still prefer the ISO64 mode of my D850 for landscape as well as the superior color rendering and quite a few other things as well [...] so I have to disagree your assessment is an objective one.
Bernard - all valid points , for 'you'. but I didn't refer to 'objective' advantages/disadvantages which ultimately are personal decisions - what I said was that 'mirrorless has the momentum' (IBIS, FP, eye auto focus, silent shooting ... ) - not my opinion more empirical observation.
Wonderful shot by the way. More down to your daughter rather than the 200/f2 Nikkor ...
Although try pointing that bazooka at her when she's a teenager and see how appreciative she'll be [/clin d'œil]
-
That shot may just be the perfect advertisement for Eye AF.
Zoom in and you'll see that the plane of focus is on the wisps of hair above her left eyebrow and the tip of her nose. Her chin is already out-of-focus. When you play with such razor-thin DOF (a big focus aid for any DSLR), you're tempting fate..
Still a wonderful shot of an even more wonderful daughter, though.
-
Personally I choose EVF over OVF. It’s not even close. I don’t really get the “enjoy” experience thing Bernard. Taking a photo I’m looking at focus, balancing compositional elements and engaging with the subject. I enjoy the process but I barely notice the viewfinder. Info. That’s what I want. Histogram bottom right for a quick check, focus peaking if I’m manual focussing. Camera level. That’s it.
You say it’s objectively better in your opinion. Is that not contradictory? If it’s your opinion it’s not objective. It’s subjective.
But anyway. I hope Nikon hit it out the park.
-
As a regular user of mirrorless and DSLRs, I also prefer OVFs. To me, the problem of EVFs is that it adds an additional layer between me and the subject, alienating the subject from me and removing the emotional element in the photography. I dislike the possible overlays on EVFs (histogram, horizon, etc) as they block the view. I dislike the lack of detail in shadows and low resolution when compared to OVF. I dislike the (occasionally occurring) wrong colors. Some advantages I see in EVFs are: the possibility of magnification for manual focus; large/bright viewfinder even with small sensors and closed aperture.
I will continue using both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras as I often care more about the available lenses than the bodies.
-
Still a wonderful shot of an even more wonderful daughter, though.
I know, she is cute (sometimes)! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Personally I choose EVF over OVF. It’s not even close. I don’t really get the “enjoy” experience thing Bernard. Taking a photo I’m looking at focus, balancing compositional elements and engaging with the subject. I enjoy the process but I barely notice the viewfinder. Info. That’s what I want. Histogram bottom right for a quick check, focus peaking if I’m manual focussing. Camera level. That’s it.
You say it’s objectively better in your opinion. Is that not contradictory? If it’s your opinion it’s not objective. It’s subjective.
EVF are clearly superior at delivering most information, no doubt.
Now, there is one - in my view essential - piece of information EVF are objectively worse at compared to OVFs, it is to display the subject you are trying to photograph as it is.
To me, who has the assumed luxury of shooting for pleasure (although I pretty much treat each image I shoot as if there were a paying client waiting for the shot), viewing a subset of a scene in a viewfinder is the base and the core of photography. It is a key reason why I like shooting.
I agree that calling this aspect important is subjective, but I still think that the superiority of the OVF along this axis is objective.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is becoming far more interesting and wide-reaching a "debate" than anything just touching upon photography: Bernard states one view on OVFs, to be instantly contradicted by other, opposing views, informing him that his view is just subjective. Now the question is, regarding the opposition, in whose mind and at which elevated stage of development of said mind, does subjectivity also attain the status of a legitimate objectivity?
For the record, I have only looked through one photographer's EVF and was publically and politely impressed but personally informed that it would never be my choice. It was either a Sony or Fuji - I can't remember which.
On 135 format flm, I loved all my Nikons from F to F4 regarding viewfinders (the F4 had terminal issues with loading); on digital, the D200 screen is tiny, and with the magnifier is improved, but there are times when I can't read the info. under the image because of daylight. The D700, again with its magnifier is, to me, perfect, as long as I use the two af lenses in the armoury. With my manual lenses, it can't really get near the film Nikons for ease of focussing, but I do have to factor in my older eyes.
As for the critique on the shot of Bernard's pretty daughter, and on which lash the goddam lens is focussed, that's so bloody banal as well as anal, that it surprises me to read it here. At f2, would anyone expect the contours of the human face to be sharp all over? It's impossible, unless using a head-clamp and a Gitzo, to put the desired subject plane into perfect alignment with sensor plane. Anyway, I can't imagine anyone doing portraits professionally, would decide to opt for f2. Bernard using that aperture is fine, because it lets him experiment with and enjoy a lens that's expensive and pretty wonderful, too - I only wish I could justify such a purchase. But as realistic technique for portraiture, it is nothing but a gimmick; an expensive, cheap photographic trick.
The other thing here that puzzles me is this: why would anyone want to see all sorts of other, distracting displays surrounding or even on top of the viewfinder image? After the novelty of chimping wore off (rapidly), I must admit that the only times that it rises to the surface as a possibility is when I want to work inside a room whilst pointing toward a subject backlit by a window. My reality has been that apart from such situations, always problematic, there is absolutely no need to look at a histogram or a representation of the file ever again until it's in the computer. Nikon's Matrix metering is accurate enough, and the camera's DR broad enough to make all this fine-tuning beloved of geeks in here quite pointless from a final image point of view. Heysoos, just shoot the friggin' picture and forget the mechanical foreplay! You'll end up sleeping either way.
-
EVF are clearly superior at delivering most information, no doubt.
Now, there is one - in my view essential - piece of information EVF are objectively worse at compared to OVFs, it is to display the subject you are trying to photograph as it is.
To me, who has the assumed luxury of shooting for pleasure (although I pretty much treat each image I shoot as if there were a paying client waiting for the shot), viewing a subset of a scene in a viewfinder is the base and the core of photography. It is a key reason why I like shooting.
I agree that calling this aspect important is subjective, but I still think that the superiority of the OVF along this axis is objective.
Cheers,
Bernard
And there we get to the crux of it. To see the thing as it is I look at the thing. I don’t look through the viewfinder at all. The viewfinder is to make technical decisions based on the info displayed and to place compositional elements and frame. I feel no need or desire to see the scene at it is in the viewfinder. That concept is entirely meaningless to me. I love to look at things and watch things. I will look for a long time before lifting the camera if time is available. I want the viewfinder to show me as close to what the photo will be as it can. Not the thing as it is.
I’m not saying it’s wrong or right. Looking at things through a camera for me is. Who decides enjoyment or not enjoyment. It is just what it is. Jeez but that sounds more like Zen Buddhism than photography but anyway.
-
And there we get to the crux of it. To see the thing as it is I look at the thing. I don’t look through the viewfinder at all. The viewfinder is to make technical decisions based on the info displayed and to place compositional elements and frame. I feel no need or desire to see the scene at it is in the viewfinder. That concept is entirely meaningless to me. I love to look at things and watch things. I will look for a long time before lifting the camera if time is available. I want the viewfinder to show me as close to what the photo will be as it can. Not the thing as it is.
I’m not saying it’s wrong or right. Looking at things through a camera for me is. Who decides enjoyment or not enjoyment. It is just what it is. Jeez but that sounds more like Zen Buddhism than photography but anyway.
I just hope that a day will come when EVFs will be able to please both of us. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard using that aperture is fine, because it lets him experiment with and enjoy a lens that's expensive and pretty wonderful, too - I only wish I could justify such a purchase. But as realistic technique for portraiture, it is nothing but a gimmick; an expensive, cheap photographic trick.
Comon Rob, I paid less than 2,631 euros for this like new second hand copy of the lens in Tokyo... and I will probably be able to sell it for nearly the same amount in 5 years in Europe. That's free rental. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just hope that a day will come when EVFs will be able to please both of us. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Sony have just announced a new EVF that has a 25% increase in resolution. Perhaps the new Nikon will end up with that unit. One thing is for sure. OVF will not be improving. EVF will be.
-
As for the critique on the shot of Bernard's pretty daughter, and on which lash the goddam lens is focussed, that's so bloody banal as well as anal, that it surprises me to read it here.
If you understood the difference between an observation and a critique you wouldn't have managed to so spectacularly miss the point and go off on yet another rant. It's relevant only in the context of (mirrorless) Eye AF v DSLR AF only. One will focus, and follow focus, on the eye (duh!) the other on an area of sharp contrast unless specifically targeted elsewhere - hence the 'raison d'être' of SONY developing Eye AF.
-
If you understood the difference between an observation and a critique you wouldn't have managed to so spectacularly miss the point and go off on yet another rant. It's relevant only in the context of (mirrorless) Eye AF v DSLR AF only. One will focus, and follow focus, on the eye (duh!) the other on an area of sharp contrast unless specifically targeted elsewhere - hence the 'raison d'être' of SONY developing Eye AF.
Eye AF was on on the D5 btw. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sony have just announced a new EVF that has a 25% increase in resolution. Perhaps the new Nikon will end up with that unit. One thing is for sure. OVF will not be improving. EVF will be.
Yes, perhaps but Epson was apparently leading the pack for EVFs (the Leica SL appears to be using an Epson part), it will be interesting whether they can do even better than the Sony part. Seems likely since the SL is 2 years old.
I'd be a bit surprised if Nikon used a Sony part but this isn't impossible.
I still think that it would make more sense for Nikon to help a Sony competitor develop the technology just like they did for the D850 sensor.
Btw, this was little commented, but they have done what most people were 100% sure was impossibe with the D850 sensor... which is to get their hand on a sensor from another source as good (and I would dare to say better colorwise) as Sony's.
So they may follow the same strategy for EVFs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Eye AF was on on the D5 btw. ;)
Well, on a 200/f2 that's something of a torture test anyway and I don't think one should draw any definitive conclusions either way :)
-
If you understood the difference between an observation and a critique you wouldn't have managed to so spectacularly miss the point and go off on yet another rant. It's relevant only in the context of (mirrorless) Eye AF v DSLR AF only. One will focus, and follow focus, on the eye (duh!) the other on an area of sharp contrast unless specifically targeted elsewhere - hence the 'raison d'être' of SONY developing Eye AF.
So, you get wonderful eye-detection: now, when not back in that theoretical head-clamp to which I referred, and unless the person is absolutely square to the camera, which eye are you gonna select? Always the closer? You ask the model to look this way, then the other then back a bit: what's the af gonna think? It's one pf the best reasons to have an OVF and one the larger the better, because you can see what's going down on the screen and, guess what, choosing the bridge of the nose instead will sometimes get you a better DOF depending on the angle of the face to camera! Tell the eye-detector that. It's why the 500 Series 'balds were better than Nikon for that kind of work: you saw in real time and in real space.
Another poster mentioned that his technique eschewed using the viewfinder as anything but a frame, preferring to see the object instead. Trouble is, that's not how the lens ever see the subject. At least with a larger OVF you can stop down to the taking aperture and in reasonable light, get a pretty good idea if WYSIWY're getting. Worse off with a non-reflex, until you decide to enter the image via an EVF.
Of course, if you are speaking of focus via DOF scales or guestimation, that's another ballgame. Perfect, in fact, for the Street Section.
-
I switched from film to digital some ten years ago and have since owned two digital systems, one with the best OVF on the market and the other with possibly the worst EVF on the market.
Apart from the obvious caveat of horses for courses I'm perfectly happy using either.
-
I switched from film to digital some ten years ago and have since owned two digital systems, one with the best OVF on the market and the other with possibly the worst EVF on the market.
Apart from the obvious caveat of horses for courses I'm perfectly happy using either.
Doesn't count: you are not an obsessive.
:-)
-
Doesn't count: you are not an obsessive.
:-)
That's not what my wife would have you believe.
:-)
-
Sony have just announced a new EVF that has a 25% increase in resolution. Perhaps the new Nikon will end up with that unit. One thing is for sure. OVF will not be improving. EVF will be.
From my perspective OVF went down hill in DSLR’s. The Olympus cameras 40 years ago had better brighter viewfinders than today’s DSLR cameras.
-
So, you get wonderful eye-detection: now, when not back in that theoretical head-clamp to which I referred, and unless the person is absolutely square to the camera, which eye are you gonna select? Always the closer? You ask the model to look this way, then the other then back a bit: what's the af gonna think? It's one pf the best reasons to have an OVF and one the larger the better, because you can see what's going down on the screen and, guess what, choosing the bridge of the nose instead will sometimes get you a better DOF depending on the angle of the face to camera! Tell the eye-detector that. It's why the 500 Series 'balds were better than Nikon for that kind of work: you saw in real time and in real space.
Another poster mentioned that his technique eschewed using the viewfinder as anything but a frame, preferring to see the object instead. Trouble is, that's not how the lens ever see the subject. At least with a larger OVF you can stop down to the taking aperture and in reasonable light, get a pretty good idea if WYSIWY're getting. Worse off with a non-reflex, until you decide to enter the image via an EVF.
Of course, if you are speaking of focus via DOF scales or guestimation, that's another ballgame. Perfect, in fact, for the Street Section.
Rob, have you ever used a Sony with eye detection and AF tracking? Seems like you have such a strong opinion on it...must have a lot of experience with it. Otherwise it’s just hot air.
-
Yes it works very well. Choose a spot focus area then when you eye focus it prioritises the eye in that area. Anyway it’s just an option. If you find it complicated just manual focus. No big deal.
-
Rob, have you ever used a Sony with eye detection and AF tracking? Seems like you have such a strong opinion on it...must have a lot of experience with it. Otherwise it’s just hot air.
Check my post #40.
I have no problems using olde-worlde systems because I know what I'm doing with them, and experience shows me they work perfectly well for my needs.
Folks obsess about this stuff; instead, look at the work of someone like Hans Feurer who has built his reputation since forever with very long lenses for fashion. His focus was always great, and his backgrounds an exercise in blur; however, if you look closely, the bits of the shot that need to be seen clearly, i.e. the clothes, are crisp as is the face. In other words, though he's probably on 300mm and longer, he is using stops far from wide open. That being the practical reality of life, whether the friggin' machine focuses on the eye or the front of the dress makes little difference: it's all sharp. Reality and practical use is what I believe in, not sales gimmick. If you need to track somebody, they will still be sharp if the focussing area is in the relevant plane. Also, if you are further away, the fact of the matter is that depth of focus with a long lens is greater than with a wider one. That is, depth of focus on the sensor, not depth of field at the subject.
In effect, what I'm saying is that yes, I'm sure the new toys work, but they are far from essential, and only if you get your kicks from toys do they matter a hoot.
You'd think photography didn't exist before digital, that wonderful work hadn't happened
-
Hahahahaha. Rob you are such a grumpy old git and and now I find myself agreeing with you completely. I might also be a grumpy old git.
-
there is one - in my view essential - piece of information EVF are objectively worse at compared to OVFs, it is to display the subject you are trying to photograph as it is.
And OVF are objectively worse at displaying the subject you are trying to photograph as you are photographing it. In addition to that with an EVF you can see the subject as it is just by lifting your eye.
Regards
-
And OVF are objectively worse at displaying the subject you are trying to photograph as you are photographing it. In addition to that with an EVF you can see the subject as it is just by lifting your eye.
Regards
not with tele lenses
-
And OVF are objectively worse at displaying the subject you are trying to photograph as you are photographing it. In addition to that with an EVF you can see the subject as it is just by lifting your eye.
Regards
Please, clarify that. I really can't understand what you are telling me. I can't see how an EVF shows you "the subject as it is just by lifting your eye."
Rob
-
Hahahahaha. Rob you are such a grumpy old git and and now I find myself agreeing with you completely. I might also be a grumpy old git.
Could be, but I doubt it: I am usually older than anybody else I meet.
From the other angle, maybe you make photographs with more interest in the photographs you make, than you have in obsessing about the tools used to make the photographs you make.
;-)
-
My favorite SLR viewfinder is the one in my Contax Aria (the single film SLR I still use from time to time). It's bright and big with near-perfect eye relief for use with glasses. And it features the focusing screen aids lacking in nearly all D-SLRs.
The same camera also has the most accurate evaluative metering system I've ever used. Hundreds of rolls of Kodachrome 25/64/200 run through it, not to mention all the neg film, and less than a handful of exposure misses that I can remember. It's a shame Kyocera gave up on cameras after the N Digital.
All approaches to cameras and camera subsystems have pluses and minuses. The pluses and minuses have as much to do with us and our particular tastes as with the tech. Like what you like, dislike what you dislike. And chill…
-Dave-
-
My favorite SLR viewfinder is the one in my Contax Aria (the single film SLR I still use from time to time). It's bright and big with near-perfect eye relief for use with glasses. And it features the focusing screen aids lacking in nearly all D-SLRs.
The same camera also has the most accurate evaluative metering system I've ever used. Hundreds of rolls of Kodachrome 25/64/200 run through it, not to mention all the neg film, and less than a handful of exposure misses that I can remember. It's a shame Kyocera gave up on cameras after the N Digital.
All approaches to cameras and camera subsystems have pluses and minuses. The pluses and minuses have as much to do with us and our particular tastes as with the tech. Like what you like, dislike what you dislike. And chill…
-Dave-
Amen!
-
Please, clarify that. I really can't understand what you are telling me. I can't see how an EVF shows you "the subject as it is just by lifting your eye."
kers can explain it to you.
Regards!
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
kers can explain it to you.
Regards!
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
How confusing!
Tapatalk? No me gusta.
Enviado desde mi iPad.
:-)
-
And OVF are objectively worse at displaying the subject you are trying to photograph as you are photographing it. In addition to that with an EVF you can see the subject as it is just by lifting your eye.
Are you talking about the 1/10s when the mirror flips?
What impact does it have on the imaging process since you have already pressed the shutter?
On the last point, I would agree if photography were about capturing reality in an objective way.
Who is the subject and what is the object?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And OVF are objectively worse at displaying the subject you are trying to photograph as you are photographing it. In addition to that with an EVF you can see the subject as it is just by lifting your eye.
Regards
Well, as you didn't feel like replying to my question to you about this, but hived it off to kers, think on this: no vewfinder is able to give you what the naked eyes see, if only because they see with 3D and most cameras do not. You have lost one dimension out of three before you start thinking about aperture and relative DOF etc.
Truth is, all types of finder have to be a compromise, and you select the type that best suits you and the job, assuming you have the ability to buy enough equipment to make those choices.
Lift your eye away from any kind of finder and what you see is bound to be different to what you saw in/through the camera.
The best path is to stick with the one that you are used to, and that gives you the results you like. Chopping and changing from the latest best thing to the next latest best thing helps only the advertisers and the manufacturers. Much of the time, all the buyer does is waste his money.
-
Are you talking about the 1/10s when the mirror flips?
No, I'm talking about realtime exposure, white balance/B&W views, about 100% framing not all DSLRs have, about realtime optical correction distortion, about image levering,...
A OVF is the old Word Perfect, an EVF is MS Word:
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG
Rob, I don't even participate in any forum which doesn't support Tapatalk, it's like the EVF for me, once I tried it there is no way back to OVFs :D
Regards
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
No, I'm talking about realtime exposure, white balance/B&W views, about 100% framing not all DSLRs have, about realtime optical correction distortion, about image levering,...
A OVF is the old Word Perfect, an EVF is MS Word:
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG
Rob, I don't even participate in any forum which doesn't support Tapatalk, it's like the EVF for me, once I tried it there is no way back to OVFs :D
Regards
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
Hmmm... I think I see the problem: it's the way you get to the end of the journey that counts for you:
"OVF is the old Word Perfect, an EVF is MS Word"
For me, neither is going to make much difference, because the problem is not the tools, the problem is that I keep hitting the wrong goddam keys. Just like making pictures.
;-(
-
A OVF is the old Word Perfect, an EVF is MS Word:
new is not always better... i realize this more and more...
i liked wordperfect so much better than the moloch MSword.
It is true MS Word 'won' the economic battle
I think it takes now 1 GB on my computer just to write something...
so i can agree with your comparison; We are going to miss the OVF in future...
-
No, I'm talking about realtime exposure, white balance/B&W views, about 100% framing not all DSLRs have, about realtime optical correction distortion, about image levering,...
EVFs certainly have these abilities and OVFs don’t, we agree about the facts.
We simply don’t agree about the importance of these facts for photography relative to the ability to see an image the way it is captured by the lens. The subtle patterns in bokeh, the level of reflections on leaves when fine tuning a PL filter, the details in deep shadows or in scintilating skies, the smile of Mona Lisa.
EVFs feel a bit to me like TV reality shows vs real life.
But I admit, this is probably just my own limitations. I have a much easier time imagining a scene in B&W than extrapolating details or tones I don’t see. Or, to be even more accurate I guess, I have more fun doing so.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I liked rangefinders a lot, an Olympus RC I once had got me on to them. Then the Leica rangefinders, never really cared which magnification, loved using them though. Loved looking at pictures on ground glass too, even crummy 6x9, had a screen for my SWC too, loved using that. Loved my Nikon F3 viewfinder, didn't care if it was the HP or the normal one, I even loved detaching it and looking at the tiny ground glass. The other Digital Nikons were fine too. My wife had a Lumix years back, no viewfinder, just a screen and I loved the way I had to adapt to that, I use the Sony now and flip between screen to EVF and have the magnified view on a function button, I feel it's no better or worse than anything else I've used. I'm still seeing an abstract rendition of the Reality". Whatever that is.
-
When I look back I realise I've had very few cameras or systems over the last 50+ years but I do thank the gods that other folk change theirs as often as their underwear. Without these folk there'd be far less investment and inovation by manufacturers and far less choice for all: not to mention all those discarded undergarments which can be had for a comparative song.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/06/02/nikon-has-a-new-noct-trademark-for-cameras-and-lenses.aspx/
Things are starting to become clear...
Nikon has apparently chosen their traditional forte, the PJ domain, as the target application for their first FF mirrorless system.
My guess is that it is going to be a mini-D6 with unique lenses for a best ever low light shooting capability thanks the combination of the sensor and uniquely bright lenses.
Based on their recent track record in terms of lens design, we can expect to get a remarkable combination of top notch technical performance and bokeh to die for.
Venturing further in the guessing:
- Z mount with open specs
- 24mp, ISO fully usable up to 25,600, 16 bits pipeline
- New EVF part with low power mode leveraging natural light at day time to enable extended battery life
- the new large opening mount will enable fully circular oof specular highlights with portrait lenses
- 4K video over the full sensor at 120 im/s - ability to downscale video in camera to full HD in lower bit rate for quick sharing over the internet
- raw histogram
- fully water proof body suitable for underwater shooting down to -5m with special lenses (one in roadmap at announcement)
- IBIS
- best in class integration with smart phone (snap bridge 3.0)
- open OS accepting third party in camera apps through new dedicated store
What part of that makes sense?;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This one is hard to believe:
- best in class integration with smart phone (snap bridge 3.0)
-
This one is hard to believe:
- best in class integration with smart phone (snap bridge 3.0)
I know... their track record has been abysmal... ;)
But it is something that is in fact very easy to do... there must be several millions of people on this planet that could at least propose specs better than what they have today... my assumption is that they may be able to find one. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/06/02/nikon-has-a-new-noct-trademark-for-cameras-and-lenses.aspx/
Things are starting to become clear...
Nikon has apparently chosen their traditional forte, the PJ domain, as the target application for their first FF mirrorless system.
My guess is that it is going to be a mini-D6 with unique lenses for a best ever low light shooting capability thanks the combination of the sensor and uniquely bright lenses.
Based on their recent track record in terms of lens design, we can expect to get a remarkable combination of top notch technical performance and bokeh to die for.
Venturing further in the guessing:
- Z mount with open specs
- 24mp, ISO fully usable up to 25,600, 16 bits pipeline
- New EVF part with low power mode leveraging natural light at day time to enable extended battery life
- the new large opening mount will enable fully circular oof specular highlights with portrait lenses
- 4K video over the full sensor at 120 im/s - ability to downscale video in camera to full HD in lower bit rate for quick sharing over the internet
- raw histogram
- fully water proof body suitable for underwater shooting down to -5m with special lenses (one in roadmap at announcement)
- IBIS
- best in class integration with smart phone (snap bridge 3.0)
- open OS accepting third party in camera apps through new dedicated store
What part of that makes sense?;)
Cheers,
Bernard
But the size of those lenses...
-
It’s like someone polled a dozen Nikon loyalists and asked what their dream camera would be then they collated all that and said this is what we expect.
Except someone screws up on the metric to imperial conversion or something and we ended up with a howitzer sized lens.
-
It’s like someone polled a dozen Nikon loyalists and asked what their dream camera would be then they collated all that and said this is what we expect.
What would you expect Martin?
As far as I am concerned, I could write the exact same post about Canon.
Those 2 companies have a very clear target (Sony) and need to differentiate themselves, meaning they need to offer something more than the current top mirrorless top player.
How do you think they are going to do it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What would you expect Martin?
As far as I am concerned, I could write the exact same post about Canon.
Those 2 companies have a very clear target (Sony) and need to differentiate themselves, meaning they need to offer something more than the current top mirrorless top player.
How do you think they are going to do it?
Cheers,
Bernard
It’s a fun game to play no doubt.
I have features I would like. Don’t really see them being mentioned much so I suppose it’s just me. Would love a diaphragm that slides in front of the sensor when a lens is removed. That large sensor out in the fresh air as it were when you change lenses gives me the creeps. Sony menus are downright humorous. Nikon can nail that, real low hanging fruit. IBIS is a must. I won’t buy another camera without it. I would hope for a camera no bigger than the Sony A7 range. Weather sealing. I have one camera with touch screen and one without. I’m indifferent to it. All the normal mirrorless stuff like silent shooting and so on. Lots of programmable buttons, love that stuff. Takes a while to set up and remember where everything is but once you have it it’s awesome. I don’t shoot very fast glass. Just not my style personally and For my commercial stuff no need for product photography to use very fast glass, so a range of lighter small lenses in the f4 range for zooms and f2.8 for primes. Lens range will be important for people of course. It seems everyone in South Africa that buys a decent camera has a fantasy of spending time in the many game reserves. So long lenses. I don’t care for it myself. I like visiting the reserves and try go once or twice a year but I don’t photograph animals unless they insist by doing something interesting close by.
I’m not a fan of the many dials that Fuji use, its personal of course but I don’t like it, keep it tidy. For the most part I trust Nikon to design and build cameras. They know what’s needed. My big questions are why so long with this and what will it cost?
-
One thing I'd really love is some lenses built like the old pre AI's or Rokkors but specifically designed for the new mirrorless camera and mounting directly without an adapter.
I'd love to see parallel ranges of fairly compact primes with maybe a f1.4 range and a more compact f2 range. I wouldn't like these to be Sigma Art or Sony GM sized even though being smaller means they're not going to be Art/GM rivalling at f1.x or when pixel peeping, I'd settle for optically good enough and maybe a little characterful at the widest apertures.
Do that and I'd probably sell my A7.
As for all the fan boy dream team world beating wish lists... I'll believe it when I see it :D As for my little wish... sadly it won't happen either but would be a differentiator.
-
Two years ago my Canon gear was getting long in the tooth. I needed to buy a new body and a few lenses. I don’t change gear often but eventually stuff gets old. It’s even more unusual that body and lenses need replacing around the same time. It gave me the opportunity to reassess and switch systems if needed. I figured mirrorless was going to be the future and Sony dominates that so easy decision.
I cannot imagine Nikon coming up with anything that will make me a noticeably better more successful photographer. I have to be honest and admit my personal bottleneck is not my gear. If I can’t do it with what I have now I doubt the new Nikon will help.
-
Two years ago my Canon gear was getting long in the tooth. I needed to buy a new body and a few lenses. I don’t change gear often but eventually stuff gets old. It’s even more unusual that body and lenses need replacing around the same time. It gave me the opportunity to reassess and switch systems if needed. I figured mirrorless was going to be the future and Sony dominates that so easy decision.
I cannot imagine Nikon coming up with anything that will make me a noticeably better more successful photographer. I have to be honest and admit my personal bottleneck is not my gear. If I can’t do it with what I have now I doubt the new Nikon will help.
And neither can I so for me it's all about enjoyment.
I can imagine others being excited by eye detect and I can see how that can be a game changer and doubtless there are other things which I don't even know about which people will find to be game changers too and good luck to them but that's just not me :D
-
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-nikon-mirrorless-wish.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/03/first-set-of-rumored-specifications-for-the-nikon-mirrorless-cameras.aspx/
Looks like this could only be a few weeks away.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/04/nikon-mirrorless-camera-specs-recap.aspx/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Fantastic news:
- 25-45 Mpx (no kids game like Nikon 1)
- New mount optimised for mirrorless designs (emphasis in allowing fast primes)
- IBIS!!!
- Great EVF
- 9fps
- Ergonomics
Canon, it's your turn.
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
F mount adapter? I think they'll need one to grease the wheels of their existing user base.
-Dave-
-
F mount adapter? I think they'll need one to grease the wheels of their existing user base.
This is also rumored, but I hope they have just focused on designing the very best mirrorless camera they can.
As a F mount user, I just want Nikon to apply to this camera the technical skills/mindset that has enabled them to come up with the best DSLRs and lenses these past 6-7 years. This is how they can help photography move forward.
My D850 and F lenses are still best in class, all I need to know is that Nikon is serious about delivering the best mirrorless solution. If not I’ll go the Sony route.
Somehow I don’t think Canon’s mgt has the guts it takes to deliver a FF mirrorless solution that isn’t mostly designed for their existing DSLRs customers as a complement to their line up. I hope I am wrong.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Somehow I don’t think Canon’s mgt has the guts it takes to deliver a FF mirrorless solution that isn’t mostly designed for their existing DSLRs customers as a complement to their line up. I hope I am wrong.
I have the same feeling. Canon is the only brand which could build their 'new' mirrorless system by simply eliminating the mirror on their DSLR bodies, and SUCCEED!. Surprisingly I see Canon users demanding such a fearless solution.
Regards
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
A few weeks back I was taking an old 50mm lens off a Minolta SRT 101. Had the camera since 1976. It’s a little thing compared to say the 1DX or Nikon 850. Has a mirror box just like the two DSLR’s and a prism, actually has a lovely viewfinder. I am using the lens on my Sony A7RII. The Sony is also little.
My point is why are the Canikons so huge. Can’t just be the mirror box or prism. The old Minolta has those, and the Sony has all the electronics. The A9 is not much different to the two DSLR’s in capability. Yet so much smaller. Why did DSLR’s get so bloated? How will Canikon manage to match Sony with it’s smaller form factor?
I was watching a press guy on Thursday using a Canon 1DX with a 50mm lens. It looked ridiculous. More like a hand help speed graphic than what was intended when the first 35mm cameras were launched.
-
My point is why are the Canikons so huge.
Marketing. In the '80s bigger became "better," and cameras gradually followed suit. Then spike driver autofocus bodies with long fat lenses became ubiquitous at sporting events, et voilà!
-Dave-
-
5D like size and ergonomics is exactly what I want from the Canon full frame mirrorless. It suits my hands perfectly. I also hope they keep the EF mount. From my point of view Canon has no reason to compete with Sony on size (if you want a small Canon mirrorless get the M series). I own a Sony A7II body and ergonomically it sucks.
-
A few weeks back I was taking an old 50mm lens off a Minolta SRT 101. Had the camera since 1976. It’s a little thing compared to say the 1DX or Nikon 850. Has a mirror box just like the two DSLR’s and a prism, actually has a lovely viewfinder. I am using the lens on my Sony A7RII. The Sony is also little.
The D850 and 1DX are very different in size and weight.
I find the D850 to have a very manageable size and never found the a7/a9 totally comfortable. It may just be my hand.
I love the idea of being able to only carry an a7 sized device but I didn’t like the experience as much as I had hoped when I started photographing with it.
I believe that the focus on ergonomics highlighted in the current rumors about the upcoming Nikon mirrorless are about that. Many a7r users I know love the performance but are at best ok with the UI. It matters to most handheld shooters.
I used to shoot mostly landscape and found UI totally irrelevant but now that I have grown into different types of photography I must confess that my views about the importance of ergonomics has evolved.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For small sized cameras, I find Lumix G9 form and ergonomics close to ideal:
https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/panasonic-g9-vs-sony-a7r-iii (https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/panasonic-g9-vs-sony-a7r-iii)
I wonder how will Nikon handle on-chip AF. They probably have to implement PDAF, but hopefully with cross-type sensors. It would be great/right if Nikon would give the user an option to always focus wide open instead of at working aperture.
-
A few weeks back I was taking an old 50mm lens off a Minolta SRT 101. Had the camera since 1976. It’s a little thing compared to say the 1DX or Nikon 850. Has a mirror box just like the two DSLR’s and a prism, actually has a lovely viewfinder. I am using the lens on my Sony A7RII. The Sony is also little.
My point is why are the Canikons so huge. Can’t just be the mirror box or prism. The old Minolta has those, and the Sony has all the electronics. The A9 is not much different to the two DSLR’s in capability. Yet so much smaller. Why did DSLR’s get so bloated? How will Canikon manage to match Sony with it’s smaller form factor?
I was watching a press guy on Thursday using a Canon 1DX with a 50mm lens. It looked ridiculous. More like a hand help speed graphic than what was intended when the first 35mm cameras were launched.
You're quite right.
On a dSLR you need the sensor card package behind the lens and then the LCD, and also a motor drive for the mirror and a complex folded optical path for AF. The result is that a dSLR is always fatter than a bulky motor-driven AF SLR.
With mirrorless, the sensor gets displaced forward in the body, the AF optics and the motor drive disappear. That is why there is some hope that mirrorless bodies can be small, although the lenses still tend to be a bit overlarge with current marketing trends.
Edmund
-
You're quite right.
On a dSLR you need the sensor card package behind the lens and then the LCD, and also a motor drive for the mirror and a complex folded optical path for AF. The result is that a dSLR is always fatter than a bulky motor-driven AF SLR.
With mirrorless, the sensor gets displaced forward in the body, the AF optics and the motor drive disappear. That is why there is some hope that mirrorless bodies can be small, although the lenses still tend to be a bit overlarge with current marketing trends.
Edmund
Don't forget about power and heat. DSLRs are doing a lot more energy-using stuff (processing and data transport) than SLRS ever did, so they need larger batteries. And all that processing and data transport produces heat, which needs enough mass to conduct the heat away from the sensor where it shows up as noise. As processing becomes more efficient, batteries and heat sinks can scale down, but only so much. Sony's earlier a7-series cameras had serious issues on both of those fronts--battery life and heat-realted shutdowns. That was maybe OK for the NEX-series cameras that were srtictly amateur stuff, but you can re-define your understanding of stress when a camera shuts down on a commmercial shoot because it overheated.
-
The D850 and 1DX are very different in size and weight.
I find the D850 to have a very manageable size and never found the a7/a9 confortable.
I love the idea of being able to only carry an a7 sized device but I dislike the experience the moment I start photographying with it.
Cheers,
Bernard
I hope Nikon has taken a good look at the Leica SL. The competitive target may be Sony, but there might be more to learn from Leica.
I think a lot of the problems I have with Sony a7 ergonomics stem from the fact that it's just doing too much all the time. I mean there are 107 different autofocus modes and 84 different autoexposure modes, and picture styles for all your Instagram needs, and on and on. There are buttons scattered all over the tiny body that I've never been able to train my fingers to find quickly, and the viewfinder has so many icons to show me all the things its doing that I can forget to look at the subject in front of me.
I've owned two of the Sonys at a time for three years now, and that's still all true for me. I took advantage of Leica's "Test -drive and SL" promotion and found myself comfortable with the fout (unlabeled) buttons in a weekend. And that dedicated button that changes the viewfinder from the EVF to the screen? Pure genius.
I hope Nikon, who has the heritage of great rangefinder cameras and the F3, as well as the D5 and D850, develops a mirrorless that gets out of the way and lets me take pictures. Leica's idea of programmable buttons in places easily found by your fingers is a good one. A button dedicated to the viewfinder is brilliant. A quiet shutter (like a rangefinder), in additon to silent, is a good thing.
Lenses have to be great. They just do. But do they have to be f/1.4? or would a great f/1.8 lens that was smaller work? Autofocus lenses and fast lenses seem to have to be big. Manual lenses can be smaller. Is that OK? I'm not sure. I've been eyeing the Loxia lenses for my Sony. But I've also been looking hard at the Leica SL, because the lenses are great, and I still can't get in love with the Sony.
I would buy the Nikon mirrorless as an addition to my Nikon DSLR, not to replace it. It's going to occupy a different niche (or at least I hope it does). I don't see it replacing the D850 any more than the D850 replaces the D5. Sure, vor some people, the D850 is good enough for sports, but if that's your livelihood, the D5 is your camera.
I really hope Nikon has as clear an idea behind this camera as they do the D5. If they do, it'll be brilliant.
-
I would buy the Nikon mirrorless as an addition to my Nikon DSLR, not to replace it. It's going to occupy a different niche (or at least I hope it does). I don't see it replacing the D850 any more than the D850 replaces the D5. Sure, vor some people, the D850 is good enough for sports, but if that's your livelihood, the D5 is your camera.
I really hope Nikon has as clear an idea behind this camera as they do the D5. If they do, it'll be brilliant.
Indeed! We'll probably know in less than a month if the rumors are true. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Fair enough. I wasn’t really debating realive ergonomics of Nikon vs Sony more just about the size. Personally I don’t like the 850 ergonimics. Feels like I’m trying to hammer in a panel pin with a sledgehammer but that is very personal. I’m fine with the Sony. Actually that’s not quite true. It’s my favorite of all time.
I don’t get the complaints about it trying to do to much all the time. It is customizable you know. It’s like saying you don’t like cable TV because of two many channels at one time. Choose what you like. The viewfinder has three screens for the EVF and the LCD also three. Each is customizable. I have no info on the EVF at all but can call up the level by pressing one button if I require it. Simple really.
What I’m reall6 interested in is will Canon and Nikon be able to make small effective cameras. I’m not an engineer and I assume this is partly an engineering issue. I wonder what the problems are that need to be solved.
Anyway I don’t think we should expect a revolution that will make us all better photographers. Just another competent camera is what’s most likely on the way. Hard to imagine Nikon getting it totally wrong. Just as hard for me to imagine something totally revolutionary. The next big thing will be to go take some photos I think.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/09/additional-nikon-mirrorless-full-frame-camera-specifications-af-and-more.aspx/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I hope Nikon has taken a good look at the Leica SL. The competitive target may be Sony, but there might be more to learn from Leica.
I think a lot of the problems I have with Sony a7 ergonomics stem from the fact that it's just doing too much all the time. I mean there are 107 different autofocus modes and 84 different autoexposure modes, and picture styles for all your Instagram needs, and on and on. There are buttons scattered all over the tiny body that I've never been able to train my fingers to find quickly, and the viewfinder has so many icons to show me all the things its doing that I can forget to look at the subject in front of me.
Every time I read things like this I wonder if I'm in a different dimension and using a different Sony A7 as in my dimension I can set my A7 or any of my other digital cameras up so that I can look at the clutter free evf and shoot in aperture or manual mode and change the exposure mode (I only use evaluative or spot) or where the focus point is with ease and none of the Friendface stuff ever even thinks about interrupting me as it's all turned off.
Funny how I can do it and hordes of people on line can't.
:D
-
Every time I read things like this I wonder if I'm in a different dimension and using a different Sony A7 as in my dimension I can set my A7 or any of my other digital cameras up so that I can look at the clutter free evf and shoot in aperture or manual mode and change the exposure mode (I only use evaluative or spot) or where the focus point is with ease and none of the Friendface stuff ever even thinks about interrupting me as it's all turned off.
Funny how I can do it and hordes of people on line can't.
:D
Well... I suppose a good part of the problem is that I do very different things with the Sonys at different times. I primarily use the Sonys for video as a second camera or to fly on a lightweight gimbal. Then I want to use one as a still camera and everything has to change—exposure mode, focus mode, focus area, picture profile, display setup. So it’s probably my own personal use case that’s the problem. Perhaps if I set out to do it, I could make some presets that would solve the problem.
The other issue I have is that the various programmable buttons don’t have enough tactical presence for me to find them without looking. Maybe this is down to being too accustomed to the Nikon ergonomics, or I’d think that if it hadn’t been so easy to pick up the Leica.
-
Every time I read things like this I wonder if I'm in a different dimension and using a different Sony A7 as in my dimension I can set my A7 or any of my other digital cameras up so that I can look at the clutter free evf and shoot in aperture or manual mode and change the exposure mode (I only use evaluative or spot) or where the focus point is with ease and none of the Friendface stuff ever even thinks about interrupting me as it's all turned off.
Funny how I can do it and hordes of people on line can't.
Yes. I was with a friend on Sunday. He bought his a7rIII back in may.
We were shooting our kids jumping up an down on some kind of huge plastic trampoline. Since there were many kids, he set out to configure his Sony to capture his son's face for it to be recognized by the face recognition feature (eye AF). After fighting with his menus he found the function after about one minute. He then called his son who didn't come right away. Managed to capture his face only to find out that his son was too far, or that there were too many faces.
End result, zero images captured in 5 minutes.
Probably user error and/or lack of familiarity with the camera, but still, it wasn't a very impressive demonstration.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes. I was with a friend on Sunday. He bought his a7rIII back in may.
We were shooting our kids jumping up an down on some kind of huge plastic trampoline. Since there were many kids, he set out to configure his Sony to capture his son's face for it to be recognized by the face recognition feature (eye AF). After fighting with his menus he found the function after about one minute. He then called his son who didn't come right away. Managed to capture his face only to find out that his son was too far, or that there were too many faces.
End result, zero images captured in 5 minutes.
Probably user error and/or lack of familiarity with the camera, but still, it wasn't a very impressive demonstration.
Cheers,
Bernard
That says absolutely nothing about the camera Bernard. I could nail that situation on either of my Sony cameras in less than 15 s and I’m no genius.
-
That says absolutely nothing about the camera Bernard. I could nail that situation on either of my Sony cameras in less than 15 s and I’m no genius.
Well, it tells me that the Sony system isn't easy to navigate and that eye AF doesn't work as well as it is sometimes explained.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, it tells me that the Sony system isn't easy to navigate and that eye AF doesn't work as well as it is sometimes explained.
Cheers,
Bernard
If one is not familiar with one's new camera, the first thing to do is to learn and practice. So yes, the situation described was user error and user unfamiliarity with the camera. Cameras are complex computers, this is not even new. I remember that the manual for my Canon EOS 7D was hundreds of pages long...
P.S. The link to the rumours page says the new Nikon MILC will ne called... wait for it... Alpha???
-
If one is not familiar with one's new camera, the first thing to do is to learn and practice. So yes, the situation described was user error and user unfamiliarity with the camera. Cameras are complex computers, this is not even new. I remember that the manual for my Canon EOS 7D was hundreds of pages long...
My friend owns his camera for 3 months, uses it regularly and had used these functions a few times already... but sure, it must be him. The Sony menus are known for their ease of navigation. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My friend owns his camera for 3 months, uses it regularly and had used these functions a few times already... but sure, it must be him. The Sony menus are known for their ease of navigation. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Sarcasm is no proof of anything.
One button press allows me to quickly choose focus mode button C1, C2 allows me to immediately select focus zone. Back button focus has a little selector switch, one way is normal focus the other is eye focus. C4 brings up face detect, it’s normally on in may case. Left press on the back wheel is drive speed. Couldn’t be simpler. I can do it in the dark.
-
Sarcasm is no proof of anything.
One button press allows me to quickly choose focus mode button C1, C2 allows me to immediately select focus zone. Back button focus has a little selector switch, one way is normal focus the other is eye focus. C4 brings up face detect, it’s normally on in may case. Left press on the back wheel is drive speed. Couldn’t be simpler. I can do it in the dark.
Thanks Martin, I will share with my friend.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, it tells me that the Sony system isn't easy to navigate and that eye AF doesn't work as well as it is sometimes explained.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well if I was given a D5 and tried to nail diving Ospreys...I'd struggle with the settings and most likely get zero shots in 1/2 hour. Does that make Nikon system not easy to navigate and the AF on the D5 not work as well as it is sometimes explained?
-
My friend owns his camera for 3 months, uses it regularly and had used these functions a few times already... but sure, it must be him. The Sony menus are known for their ease of navigation. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
It takes a bit of effort to setup a Sony camera buttons and wheels the way you want, but once done, it's very rare one even needs to go into the menus. I've setup my Sony which does have the eye AF activation attached to a button and basically the only time I need to go into the menus is to format a card.
The complexity of the Sony menu system is exagurated greatly on the net by those that don't use a Sony and just echo what they heard...sort of like you Bernard.
-
It takes a bit of effort to setup a Sony camera buttons and wheels the way you want, but once done, it's very rare one even needs to go into the menus. I've setup my Sony which does have the eye AF activation attached to a button and basically the only time I need to go into the menus is to format a card.
The complexity of the Sony menu system is exagurated greatly on the net by those that don't use a Sony and just echo what they heard...sort of like you Bernard.
I have owned 2 RX100 and one a5100, shot with the a7.
Those are overall very nice cameras delivering great image quality but my first hand experience is that the menus are hard to navigate.
This is obviously not a major issue but the struggle of my friend on Sunday seemed representative of what a non expert user who studied the canera but doesn’t shoot everyday with it may experience. It may be too much camera for him, he may have the same issues with a D5, who knows.
I am a bit amused by the reactions each time someone dares to mention one aspecf of the Sony that isn’t perfect. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No camera is "perfect." Not a single one ever. The real issue here is fanboyism: exaggerating flaws in enemy brand products while downplaying flaws in the products of the brand one cheerleads. The greater the perceived threat from the enemy brand, the greater the exaggeration. The greater the awareness of flaws in one's preferred brand, the greater the downplaying. Thom Hogan just posted a piece at his main site that touches on this. All these cameras are complex and all have issues, issues that can be dealt with.
-Dave-
-
Indeed Dave (Thom didn't mention UI though ;)).
Even if I have a hard time imagining why anyone would consider a brand an enemy instead of looking at them as potentisl providers of equipment to help one’s photography.
The traditional closed system approach of Nikon and Canon have probably contributed to this which is obviously the greatest contribution of Sony’s mirrorless open mount approach.
Fortunately other companies are smarter and Broncolor does manufacture a bracket to use Profoto strobes with their para modifiers and vice versa.
Users of a given brand who deny obvious flaws do themselves a huge disservice by letting their manufacturer of choice think they are happy about things they should loudly complain about.
I have never been shy about voicing my discontent aboit Nikon’s braindead mirrorless strategy, nor about the lack of suitsble T/S lenses for a loooong time.
The game is opening up now and I see myself moving to Sony or Canon mirrorless solutions. Which is why figuring out which is “the best” has never been more important and usability is one of the factors. We know Sony’s cards and they are excellent. We should know what Nikon can do in a few weeks. Canon remains more of a mystery.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I have been a Sony shooter for many years, but still feel that the menus are hard to navigate.
Best regards
Erik
I have owned 2 RX100 and one a5100, shot with the a7.
Those are overall very nice cameras delivering great image quality but my first hand experience is that the menus are hard to navigate.
This is obviously not a major issue but the struggle of my friend on Sunday seemed representative of what a non expert user who studied the canera but doesn’t shoot everyday with it may experience. It may be too much camera for him, he may have the same issues with a D5, who knows.
I am a bit amused by the reactions each time someone dares to mention one aspecf of the Sony that isn’t perfect. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The menus are hard. I have said so myself many times.
Needing to use menus to change focus area, focus mode, drive speed, iso, face detect, eye focus or any number of other regularly used things is unnecessary and silly. Cameras usually have some kind of design philosophy, Sony’s seems to be hugely focused at customization and configuration. Buying such a camera and then not bothering to spend time working it out and configuring it makes no sense to me.
First time My friend and I went out shooting after he bought his new 850 he found himself stuck on the side of a mine dump struggling to find a setting he had used with his 810. What annoyed him is it turned out to be in the same place on the 850 as it was on the 810 but he had set that up so many years before he couldn’t remember where to find it. Something to do with bracketing. A setting I don’t use but it’s a part of how he likes to shoot. It never occurred to me to have a go on a public forum about how people are struggling with the 850 menus. His error, we laughed about it, he sorted it out and we all moved on
-
First time My friend and I went out shooting after he bought his new 850 he found himself stuck on the side of a mine dump struggling to find a setting he had used with his 810. What annoyed him is it turned out to be in the same place on the 850 as it was on the 810 but he had set that up so many years before he couldn’t remember where to find it. Something to do with bracketing. A setting I don’t use but it’s a part of how he likes to shoot. It never occurred to me to have a go on a public forum about how people are struggling with the 850 menus. His error, we laughed about it, he sorted it out and we all moved on
You just did though. ;)
I would in fact agree that the Nikon menus could be improved as well. I hope that Nikon leverages the opportunity provided by their new mirrorless to improve things further.
Once users get used to a design (even if it is a bad one), there are always people internally and externally to defend the existing on the ground that people don't like changing.
A major paradigm shift such as the move to mirrorless is the opportunity to improve.
As a long term Nikon user, there many other things I think Nikon could/should improve:
- eye AF on the D850/D5 doesn't work that well,
- I have had cases of condensation in the viewfinder,
- the sharing of images to smart devices with snapbridge is far from optimal
- the thingy used to control the SB5000 wireless flash is an annoyance, this should be built-in
- the AF control switch is had to use without looking at it
- as already mentioned, the menus could be easier to navigate
- when having a strong light from below the camera, there are cases of shading with bright lenses (this can be annoying when shooting panos)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep I did. I felt it was excuseable as it was t9 illustrate a point and not really a criticism of Nikons menu system. I’m not very familiar with it to be honest.
It would be a good opportunity for Nikon I suppose. Mirrorless adds a whole other level of possibility in terms of what is displayed where and how. It sure doesn’t reduce complexity, more to learn.
-
My friend owns his camera for 3 months, uses it regularly and had used these functions a few times already... but sure, it must be him. The Sony menus are known for their ease of navigation. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Honestly, after using Canon, (some) Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony, every brand has menu idiosyncrasies. Maybe your friend needs more than 3 months to customise the camera to his needs, who knows? Maybe the Sony is not for him.
In the end, with any brand, reading the manual, taking the time to familiarize, and practicing, pays off. If one decides that it is taking too long, then just move on.
-
In the end, with any brand, reading the manual, taking the time to familiarize, and practicing, pays off. If one decides that it is taking too long, then just move on.
I agree,
Being with Nikon for a long time i understand the menu, but still do not get the idea of the banks...does not work for me...
At the same time i find it works very well and is idiot proof.
The latter is very important and Nikon does a good job making the camera reliable.
and
I only want to learn ONE camera system- and then it has to be a camera that is worth spending much time on it.
If i mix up different cameras i get crazy wil all the little differences.
At the moment i know the Nikon D850 by heart. It can do a lot with it and i can use it blindly and intuitively.
That is what i need.
-
If it needs a manual it's not for me.
;-)
-
All digital cameras need some manual - I suppose; the one for my D 700 is thick, but once I learned how to switch everything automatic off, and how to go rapidly between auto and manual metering, there has never been need to consult it except when I had to make use of the little built-in flash to trigger another unit.
I use it like my previous film Nikons. I never even chimp unless in times of shooting against bright exteriors when indoors. Everything else is common sense based on experience. My curiosity is happy to await the computer.
Rob
-
All digital cameras need some manual - I suppose; the one for my D 700 is thick, but once I learned how to switch everything automatic off, and how to go rapidly between auto and manual metering, there has never been need to consult it except when I had to make use of the little built-in flash to trigger another unit.
I use it like my previous film Nikons. I never even chimp unless in times of shooting against bright exteriors when indoors. Everything else is common sense based on experience. My curiosity is happy to await the computer.
Where things can get complicated in the Nikon world is when you start to tap into the full potential of the AF on moving subjects of the D500/D5/D850. Huge potential, but it takes some studying.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Where things can get complicated in the Nikon world is when you start to tap into the full potential of the AF on moving subjects of the D500/D5/D850. Huge potential, but it takes some studying.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm sure you're right!
But I look upon photography as something easy to do, always have, and because of that and my real dislike for electronic devices - include the mythical video and DVD recorder - I know that I would not employ those tricks. I never had them before and did just fine with cameras without them.
If Nikon wanted to do me a favour, they would officially enable and provide the D 700 with a split-image focussing screen, preferably without a microprism ring around the split.
I'm a simple soul with simple photographic needs. I don't want to have to learn new languages.
Rob
-
Where things can get complicated in the Nikon world is when you start to tap into the full potential of the AF on moving subjects of the D500/D5/D850. Huge potential, but it takes some studying.
I remember the first time I had my hands on a Canon 1DMkIII, digging into the menus to figure out all the AF options. After some 10–15 minutes and a blizzard of parameters to corral I was tempted to throw the thing at the nearest wall. Haven't touched a Canon D-SLR since. Though nowadays I bet I'd find the AF setup process fairly straightforward. :D
-Dave-
-
I don't want to have to learn new languages.
Cómo llevas tu español Rob? :P
-
I'm a simple soul with simple photographic needs. I don't want to have to learn new languages.
Rob
Rob, here is the camera for you...speaks your language.
-
At the moment Nikon is mirrorlessless ...
Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras listed as discontinued
https://nikonrumors.com/
- really liked the 1 camera's, but understand the move.
-
I'd like a digital back for my old FM. That'd do.
-
At the moment Nikon is mirrorlessless ...
Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras listed as discontinued
Hopefully they will very soon be mirrorlesslessless again. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Where things can get complicated in the Nikon world is when you start to tap into the full potential of the AF on moving subjects of the D500/D5/D850. Huge potential, but it takes some studying.
Cheers,
Bernard
I would offer that this statement applies to all brands? AF options and menu settings, for moving objects, is complicated:)
And this is an area that brands avoid changing too much in terms of menus and settings, between camera generations; to avoid pros being unhappy with having to relearn the thing.
-
I had an Instamatic 124 in the early 1970s, back before my dad decided I could be trusted with his rangefinders. :) It did the job not too badly considering. Here's a pic of my Aunt Anna & me taken in spring 1973 while visiting family in Florida. Me holding my 124 and looking insolent, Anna with her camera (don't remember the brand or model) and looking regal. (I still have Anna's straw hat and often wear it while working in my garden.)
-Dave-
-
I’m quite fond of my little Nikon1. I think I will start looking a little more actively for extra lenses. Should be cheap as chips now.
-
Most modern cameras can ( or can be setup ) simple.
Certain situations require non-simple ( ? ) camera functions....continuous af tracking eg. just set it once, and ready to go.
My reason for venturing into mirrorless is bulk n weight...which unfortunately is a myth, unless you have one camera n one small prime lens.
I have done that n it has been marvelous.
I shall wait for the Nikon mirrorless. So far with Nikon, I have not found it necessary to read the manual, bar foe some exotic setting for me.
The only video I know of is watching what someone else has done in a movie or YouTube.
-
Yes. I was with a friend on Sunday. He bought his a7rIII back in may.
We were shooting our kids jumping up an down on some kind of huge plastic trampoline. Since there were many kids, he set out to configure his Sony to capture his son's face for it to be recognized by the face recognition feature (eye AF). After fighting with his menus he found the function after about one minute. He then called his son who didn't come right away. Managed to capture his face only to find out that his son was too far, or that there were too many faces.
End result, zero images captured in 5 minutes.
Probably user error and/or lack of familiarity with the camera, but still, it wasn't a very impressive demonstration.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's not probably user error it's certainly user error in that they weren't familiar with the options and hadn't set the camera up to offer the function easily.
Give someone who's never used a Nikon D850/any other Nikon DSLR before one and expect them to capture action shots in 5 minutes and the result would be exactly the same.
To blame this on the camera is laughable but people will just keep on doing it whilst others will set their gear up and become familiar with it. Which do you think is the intelligent approach and which is the frankly rather silly one?
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/15/one-week-away-from-the-rumored-new-nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-announcement.aspx/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/15/one-week-away-from-the-rumored-new-nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-announcement.aspx/
Looks like quite interesting specs... let’s see next week. Interesting times... even if I don’t plan to buy it.
Anyway... sometimes one wonders who edits those sites... you read phrases like “BSI sensors (supposed to be a new tech with advanced AF).”
Well, BSI sensors are no new tech... several years old now... even with full frame sensors. Being a Nikon focus tech site the guy should have know that the D850 has the same tech... and it has nothing to do with AF.
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Indeed, but BSI remains the latest and the greatest, so it is just saying best in class sensor tech.
It is hard to be better than best in class but I agree anyway that the success of this systen will not be driven by a few % in sensor image quality. Usability, AF performance, EVF experience, ability to use existing lenses, lenses quality and roadmap,... will be more important.
Had they not mentionned it they may have been another FUD campaign such as the one that preceeded the D850 release when internet experts here and elsewhere were claiming with 200% certainty that the D850 sensor was going to be mediocre at best. :;
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah, the user interaction experience is going to be paramount, which will be in large part about the evf experience, since nikon already understood ergonomics. Evf experience is more intricate then i believe most of us realize; do you capture what you see in the evf which is trailing behind reality? And by how much? How much awareness do you have of reality? Etc...
Well, that and then there is also batterylife...
Batterylife could well be why Canon is going to lose this battle.
-
Oscar has a point, but I think battery life is only going to affect those who really, really want tiny. Back in the day, folks like me would buy motor-drives and added battery capacity devices that took maybe eight AA batteries a pop, and weight didn't worry us that much. It was normal.
But one man's normal is his normal, not Everyman's normal. I guess it comes down to how important to you you think your work actually is.
-
Well, that and then there is also batterylife...
Batterylife could well be why Canon is going to lose this battle.
That was a problem for the series I and II of A7 Sony cameras... series III while keeping more or less the same weight, has a bigger battery with longer battery live... now all the people seems happy with its longevity.
I expect Nikon or Canon were paying attention to it and their offering does not have the very poor battery life the first Sony cameras did...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Hi,
I don't think it is just about the battery. The A7rII could probably take like 200 pictures on a charge, on the A7rII folks can take 1500 images on a charge.
The main advantage with the A7rIII is probably a new "front side LSI" that handles much of the image processing more efficient than the 'Bionz' processor.
Best regards
Erik
That was a problem for the series I and II of A7 Sony cameras... series III while keeping more or less the same weight, has a bigger battery with longer battery live... now all the people seems happy with its longevity.
I expect Nikon or Canon were paying attention to it and their offering does not have the very poor battery life the first Sony cameras did...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Hi,
I don't think it is just about the battery. The A7rII could probably take like 200 pictures on a charge, on the A7rII folks can take 1500 images on a charge.
The main advantage with the A7rIII is probably a new "front side LSI" that handles much of the image processing more efficient than the 'Bionz' processor.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, it is also probably much more energy optimize...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
I expect Nikon or Canon were paying attention to it and their offering does not have the very poor battery life the first Sony cameras did...
Yes, let's hope so, though Canon didn't seem to have solved that problem so far.
-
I don't think it is just about the battery. The A7rII could probably take like 200 pictures on a charge, on the A7rII folks can take 1500 images on a charge.
Cipa numbers just show a doubling, but the sleepmode and off-mode strategy may have been improved as well. Obviously it's not all about batterysize alone considering that focusbehavior and IS in body and lenses contribute as well.
1500 shots i take with a grain of salt unless you have a reliable source for it.
-
1500 images in a single battery with the A7rII? I don’t thank no I have ever seen that. Lots of stuff affects battery life of course but I think 1500 is too high.
Much gets made of battery life but to me it’s a non issue. Takes a second to change a battery and the things are tiny. I stick a handful in my pocket and shoot all day. In fact I held off changing to the A7RIII because I like using the same batteries on the FF and APSC cameras.
-
Hi,
Regarding 1500 frames was reported on the A9. But that was probably much shooting at 20 FPS with E-shutter.
Cipa numbers were much lower on that camera, it obviously depends on what you shoot.
My point is that most of the battery life may come from more efficient camera circuitry as folks report much improved battery life, much more than twice.
I have seen a lot statements on this, but it is hearsay mostly.
Best regards
Erik
Cipa numbers just show a doubling, but the sleepmode and off-mode strategy may have been improved as well. Obviously it's not all about batterysize alone considering that focusbehavior and IS in body and lenses contribute as well.
1500 shots i take with a grain of salt unless you have a reliable source for it.
-
I fully expect Nikon and Canon to release cameras that will better the a7rIII on most fronts, including battery life.
They fully understand that Sony is the leader with a huge lense line-up and that they must do better to attract customers. At least Nikon with their choice of a new mount can only rely on superior performance. If Canon goes the route of a mirrorless 5DIV then they may be hoping that existing lenses may keep their existing customers on board even if performance is somewhat inferior on some fronts. The usual marketing and sales tactics will probably compensate.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I fully expect Nikon and Canon to release cameras that will better the a7rIII on most fronts, including battery life.
They fully understand that Sony is the leader with a huge lense line-up and that they must do better to attract customers. At least Nikon with their choice of a new mount can only rely on superior performance. If Canon goes the route of a mirrorless 5DIV then they may be hoping that existing lenses may keep their existing customers on board even if performance is somewhat inferior on some fronts. The usual marketing and sales tactics will probably compensate.
Cheers,
Bernard
Looking at my magic ball here... that it is usually more wrong than right... I don’t really expect that Canon or Nikon to be better in most fronts... what they really need it is to demonstrate that they are really investing into pushing those cameras... like showing a good lens roadmap... like Fuji is doing...
Although they have an advantage in native lenses... designs for Sony FE from voigtlander, Laowa, tokina manual lenses, Samyang manual lenses and Zeiss Loxia line...
When third party manufacturers reverse engineer the electrical part of the mount, probably you will see Tokina, Tamron, Samyang and Sigma lenses (highly doubt Batis line of Zeiss is adapted... Zeiss never released AF lenses for mounts they could not get the specs from the manufacturer... although rumors say the AF lenses are a Tamron design, so maybe Tamron release them under their brand without Zeiss coatings).
Also, the perspective has changed... it is not that Canon and Nikon need to demonstrate that mirrorless are an interesting option for the future like 5 years ago... Canon and Nikon users will invest in the system if it is good... it does not need to be the best... that can come latter...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
As far as I am concerned I see zero value in investing in a Nikon mirrorless camera with a new mount if it isn’t a better camera than the a7rIII.
Why not go the Sony route?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I predict Canon will release a fairly conservative offering that on the paper will not beat Sony's specs, nevertheless in reality will perform solidly and without the stupid gotchas of Sony systems ("which combination of settings throws me into 12bit RAW now?"). I can use my Canon lenses on a Sony (and I do) but I'm waiting for a mirrorless camera body that I actually enjoy using.
-
As far as I am concerned I see zero value in investing in a Nikon mirrorless camera with a new mount if it isn’t a better camera than the a7rIII.
Why not go the Sony route?
Cheers,
Bernard
I’m curious Bernard. Would you sell your 850to go mirrorless? I don’t think I would. I went mirrorless because my Canon was coming to the end of its life and the lenses also needed to be replaced. I looked around and figured the Sony would be a change and a bit of fun, chip was good enough for my needs and learning something new tends to blow out the cobwebs.
Just wondering. I like mirrorless but it’s an incremental thing I think. I wouldn’t abandone a new 850 for a new mirrorless system. I wouldn’t get out of the 850 to change to Sony if that was my position.
-
Right now I believe that the D850 is still superior to the a7rIII. But it seems clear that the mirrorless technology is maturing quickly and some of the advantages such as better eye AF, and more compact designs, more design freedom for lenses are very powerful, even if the current gen isn’t quite there yet.
So I would first add a mirrorless body and start to build a lens portfolio, probably starting with a 35mm as my first usage would be street photography.
I have considering a Leica M10 many times and gave up on the idea every time because of focus accuracy concerns. The mirrorless body’s first mission will be a Leica alternative.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I’m curious Bernard. Would you sell your 850to go mirrorless? I don’t think I would. I went mirrorless because my Canon was coming to the end of its life and the lenses also needed to be replaced. I looked around and figured the Sony would be a change and a bit of fun, chip was good enough for my needs and learning something new tends to blow out the cobwebs.
Just wondering. I like mirrorless but it’s an incremental thing I think. I wouldn’t abandone a new 850 for a new mirrorless system. I wouldn’t get out of the 850 to change to Sony if that was my position.
I went mirror less for two reasons:
1. I was using the 5d2 and Canon just came out with a 5d3 which did not improve the archaic sensor one bit. I looked around at new sensors and Sony had something more capable in the A7R at the time.
2. I got tired lugging around bulky heavy equipment when I travelled...and as I was about to retire, travel played prominently in my future. I wanted something more compact and lighter.
Sony mirror less fit the bill very nicely. It basically reduced my bulk / weight by almost 1/2 and improved on overall image quality...a real win-win for me. Never really looked back at DSLR's as they are still large and heavy and the image quality might just be on par with the latest Sony sensors.
As far as the D850...if you like to lug that weight around, I see no reason to move away from it. Image quality is on par to the Sony mirror less...but you would not catch me carrying that monster around my wrist for 3 weeks through the heat, humidity and humanity if SEA.
-
1500 shots with the e-shutter and even low speed continuous drive should be easy. Battery life for these cameras depends more on the “On” time, where the EVP and/or LCD are drawing power, than on the number of images. I get 2-3 hours of On time on my EM1.2, and could take thousands of images in that time. I usually turn the camera off between shots.
As for the menus: after spending years shooting with the D80/D7009, I failed to be able to setup my friend’s D3100 in a reasonable time. Menu are all complex, and a different menu is indecipherable to me. Yet I now have my E-M1.2 setup to almost never need the menus at all. It’s a pleasure. And it drove me crazy for months.
-
Hi Bernard,
I think your analysis is OK.
Best regards
Erik
Right now I believe that the D850 is still superior to the a7rIII. But it seems clear that the mirrorless technology is maturing quickly and some of the advantages such as better eye AF, and more compact designs, more design freedom for lenses are very powerful, even if the current gen isn’t quite there yet.
So I would first add a mirrorless body and start to build a lens portfolio, probably starting with a 35mm as my first usage would be street photography.
I have considering a Leica M10 many times and gave up on the idea every time because of focus accuracy concerns. The mirrorless body’s first mission will be a Leica alternative.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If this camera is being announced on Monday, I'm extremely impressed with the lack of leaked pictures. Apple levels of information security.
My biggest question is whether a vertical grip will be available, as i'm sure Canon and Nikon will both produce a far more ergonomic camera than Sony has managed to do. I'll happily take a hit in sensor performance for a well integrated grip.
-
If this camera is being announced on Monday, I'm extremely impressed with the lack of leaked pictures. Apple levels of information security.
My biggest question is whether a vertical grip will be available, as i'm sure Canon and Nikon will both produce a far more ergonomic camera than Sony has managed to do. I'll happily take a hit in sensor performance for a well integrated grip.
I don’t believe in July 23rd, but we will see.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
i'm sure Canon and Nikon will both produce a far more ergonomic camera than Sony has managed to do.
I think "far more" is too much for an improvement here. While the A7 ergonomics are for sure improveable, I don't find them far more improveable. The grip is just fine enough for its size, and once you get rid of visiting the menus by configuring all main functions to specific buttons the camera is very joyable. I don't think it's perfect but it's far from bad.
My forecast is that Nikon will make the better overall mirrorless, Sony will keep best quality/price, and Canon will be best at nothing, as usual.
Regards
-
Look, I know this is an overdone topic already so let's not dwell but when I say "Sonys ergonomics are awful", I mean it. I have large hands and between the cheap feeling dials/buttons, small grip area between the lens mount and general shape I find it very, very uncomfortable to hold. I shot an A7ii for 18 months with and without the vertical grip - I honestly think the ergonomics are terrible. Perhaps a 3/10.
Obviously your mileage may vary, I'm only a sample size of one.
-
Me too. But I recall an interview with a Sony executive. The interviewer asked him if they have plans to design a larger and more ergonomic body (I don't remember if this was after the sports camera A9 was launched), and the Sony executive answered that they had conducted market researchs that showed that the A7 size was the best trade off between camera ergonomics and size/weight. Maybe they were Japanese with shorter hands than western standards.
Regards
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
Hi,
I am mostly a tripod shooter...
In general, I see the camera as an imaging device.
Regarding the Sony menu system, I don't like it, but I have not seen a lot of menu systems I liked.
Best regards
Erik
Me too. But I recall an interview with a Sony executive. The interviewer asked him if they have plans to design a larger and more ergonomic body (I don't remember if this was after the sports camera A9 was launched), and the Sony executive answered that they had conducted market researchs that showed that the A7 size was the best trade off between camera ergonomics and size/weight. Maybe they were Japanese with shorter hands than western standards.
Regards
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
I think "far more" is too much for an improvement here. While the A7 ergonomics are for sure improveable, I don't find them far more improveable. The grip is just fine enough for its size, and once you get rid of visiting the menus by configuring all main functions to specific buttons the camera is very joyable. I don't think it's perfect but it's far from bad.
My forecast is that Nikon will make the better overall mirrorless, Sony will keep best quality/price, and Canon will be best at nothing, as usual.
Regards
IMO: With A7RIII Sony improved ergonomics considerably. However, my Lumix G9 has much better ergonomics than my A7rIII. So, yes, I think it is possible to improve Sony's ergonomics "far more".
-
May be...
But ergonomics make no pictures. Sensors, cameras and lenses do...
Best regards
Erik
IMO: With A7RIII Sony improved ergonomics considerably. However, my Lumix G9 has much better ergonomics than my A7rIII. So, yes, I think it is possible to improve Sony's ergonomics "far more".
-
May be...
But ergonomics make no pictures. Sensors, cameras and lenses do...
Best regards
Erik
...I'd prefer to think that people do.
;-)
-
May be...
But ergonomics make no pictures. Sensors, cameras and lenses do...
Best regards
Erik
Maybe for landscape photographers.
-
I feel this whole ergonomics thing is over blown. I use digital cameras made by Canon, Fuji and Sony and film cameras by Canon, Fuji and Tachihara and am productive with all of them. Sure, they are all a bit different, but once you figure out a camera and set it up to how you shoot, they all deliver.
Humans are very adaptable if we let them. For instance, I used to travel a lot for work and rent cars. Every car rented felt weird compared to my own...but after using the car for a couple weeks, things began to feel good...to the point when I got home and climbed into my own car, it feels weird at first.
I find it totally hilarious when we get into menus...for Christ sake, how much time do we spend in these menus...and if we spend more than a miniscule time in a menu while shooting...that system is totally screwed as when you are in a menu...you are not shooting.
The only reason I go into my Sony menus is to format a card...in other words, the system is customized to the point I don't need the menus when shooting.
-
No more rumours, here is the teaser: https://events.imaging.nikon.com/live/en/
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/these-are-the-first-images-of-the-new-nikon-full-frame-mirrorless/
-
I feel this whole ergonomics thing is over blown. I use digital cameras made by Canon, Fuji and Sony and film cameras by Canon, Fuji and Tachihara and am productive with all of them. Sure, they are all a bit different, but once you figure out a camera and set it up to how you shoot, they all deliver.
Humans are very adaptable if we let them. For instance, I used to travel a lot for work and rent cars. Every car rented felt weird compared to my own...but after using the car for a couple weeks, things began to feel good...to the point when I got home and climbed into my own car, it feels weird at first.
I find it totally hilarious when we get into menus...for Christ sake, how much time do we spend in these menus...and if we spend more than a miniscule time in a menu while shooting...that system is totally screwed as when you are in a menu...you are not shooting.
The only reason I go into my Sony menus is to format a card...in other words, the system is customized to the point I don't need the menus when shooting.
Oh thank goodness. I thought it was just me. Something to do with hand holding a Linhof Super Technica and after that everything else felt easy.
-
This is becoming exciting.
It seems that the rumors were right all along and that Nikon has chosen to differentiate themselves with the most future proof possible mount with the possibility to design unique lenses. I suspect that we may get lenses with perfectly circular out of focus highlights, uniquely bright lenses,...
In fact, it very much looks like this mount has the same size as that of the GFX and X1D bodies and Nikon may have kept the door open for larger sensors moving forward.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Those prices are very interesting. Please Nikon, don't forget the IBIS and you have a customer prospect here...
-
Those prices are very interesting. Please Nikon, don't forget the IBIS and you have a customer prospect here...
Indeed, IBIS would be great to have.
Since VR does contribute to larger and heavier lenses and is also not easily made compatible with very bright glass, I am pretty confident that IBIS is part of this design. The ability to control sensor movement is also needed for the various types of super resolution solutions, so this is another reason why it should be included in a next gen line of camera.
I could be wrong of course. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Those prices are very interesting. Please Nikon, don't forget the IBIS and you have a customer prospect here...
Prices?
-
Prices?
Another price, this time from the UK (body only): 45MP about £2,400, 24MP about £1,700.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/23/more-nikon-mirrorless-camera-rumors.aspx/
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
In fact, it very much looks like this mount has the same size as that of the GFX and X1D bodies and Nikon may have kept the door open for larger sensors moving forward.
Cheers,
Bernard
Or the camera is really small!? ;-)
-
Or the camera is really small!? ;-)
Looking at the relative large size of the EVF this could be the case; for me that would be good news. Another question that arises is for the lower pixel count (24Mpx) whether Nikon chose a large DR sensor or best high ISO performance like in the D5.
Regards
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
Or the camera is really small!? ;-)
Hopefully.
-
Looking at the relative large size of the EVF this could be the case; for me that would be good news. Another question that arises is for the lower pixel count (24Mpx) whether Nikon chose a large DR sensor or best high ISO performance like in the
I expect something in the line of A7 III for that... really good ISO... up to market DR... no more than that, after all that will be the “cheap” entry level camera. High innovative sensor for it will increase price. Basically anything they will put in a new D750...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Maybe it's a bit shorter than the Sony and a bit thicker. In any case, very similarly sized.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/nikonmirrorlessff.png)
Regards
-
Maybe it's a bit shorter than the Sony and a bit thicker. In any case, very similarly sized.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/nikonmirrorlessff.png)
Regards
That forward finger makes all the difference. Still to be determined:
- gripsize
- commanddial and shoulderbutton rotation,
- viewfinder and shutterresponse.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/23/nikon-mirrorless-camera-announcement-confirmed-for-august-23rd.aspx/
All answers will be provided in 30 days it seeems.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some screenshots from the new Nikon film, worked on with curves. More to follow …
-
another 4 …
That halo seems to be bigger than the actual mount. What do you think: F-mount size?
-
The good thing about that halo, no matter if it fits the real dimensions or not, is that Nikon wants to emphasize it on its teaser. And that means mount dimensions were carefully chosen this time.
Probably Nikon knew better than anyone about the limitations of a narrow diameter and long flange distance in the digital era. Now they will come out with the most flexible and less limiting FF mirrorless system.
Regards
PS: can't wait to see a Canon TS on a Nikon body :D
-
PS: can't wait to see a Canon TS on a Nikon body :D
Nikon has things covered with the 19mm on the wide end, but the 135mm is interesting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hopefully.
Keith, no! Don't go there!
Think Porsche instead - it'll end up much more fun!
:-)
-
Keith, no! Don't go there!
Think Porsche instead - it'll end up much more fun!
:-)
Yes, Rob, thank you!
Your argument makes perfect sense to me, but...
;-)
-
Hi,
May be a good thing. Nikon has been a bit conservative on bayonets.
Sony needs some competition in mirrorless.
Best regards
Erik
The good thing about that halo, no matter if it fits the real dimensions or not, is that Nikon wants to emphasize it on its teaser. And that means mount dimensions were carefully chosen this time.
Probably Nikon knew better than anyone about the limitations of a narrow diameter and long flange distance in the digital era. Now they will come out with the most flexible and less limiting FF mirrorless system.
Regards
PS: can't wait to see a Canon TS on a Nikon body :D
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/25/official-press-release-nikons-develops-the-next-generation-full-frame-mirrorless-camera.aspx/
As predicted, the focus is on optical quality, not on compactness.
I have a feeling that we are ahead of a D3 like announcement. That Nikon has designed this camera with a very clear target in mind which is to design the platform to enable the best possible image quality.
This happens to be exactly what I was hoping they would do.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/25/official-press-release-nikons-develops-the-next-generation-full-frame-mirrorless-camera.aspx/
As predicted, the focus is on optical quality, not on compactness.
I have a feeling that we are ahead of a D3 like announcement. That Nikon has designed this camera with a very clear target in mind which is to design the platform to enable the best possible image quality.
This happens to be exactly what I was hoping they would do.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe it is the sceptic in me... but I try to read with a grain of salt press releases... for any manufacturer... I will wait for the hands on...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Maybe it is the sceptic in me... but I try to read with a grain of salt press releases... for any manufacturer... I will wait for the hands on...
I am with you... but Nikon has never had a clue what marketing means. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is becoming exciting.
It seems that the rumors were right all along and that Nikon has chosen to differentiate themselves with the most future proof possible mount with the possibility to design unique lenses. I suspect that we may get lenses with perfectly circular out of focus highlights, uniquely bright lenses,...
In fact, it very much looks like this mount has the same size as that of the GFX and X1D bodies and Nikon may have kept the door open for larger sensors moving forward.
Cheers,
Bernard
I’m not sure I see the larger mount as pointing toward medium format, but maybe...
However, even if larger sensors are not a consideration, as I understand things, there are three very good reasons for a larger mount: it makes the design of very bright lenses easier, it makes the design of telecentric lens’s easier, and it makes ibis easier to engineer. And the very-short flange-focal distance is another plus.
The F mount has served well for 60 or so years, and I applaud Nikon for maintaining that standard through so many generations of cameras. But if they are going to design something better-suited to the mirrorless camera concept it’s nice to see a design that incorporates so much thought and so many advantages.
-
Indeed.
There is another aspect that may be made possible by such a large mount, that I would call the holy grail of lens design, it is the absence of cat eye shaped out of focus highlights with bright lenses.
Either way, it seems reasonnable to measure the degree of future proofness of a lens mount by the ratio of its diameter by the diagonal of the sensor size.
During the past 20 years the single reason why EOS was deemed superior to F mount was its larger diameter.
It will probably also be possible to adapt other mirrorless lenses on the Nikon if the mount is significantly larger, even with similar flange distances. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed.
There is another aspect that may be made possible by such a large mount, that I would call the holy grail of lens design, it is the absence of cat eye shaped out of focus highlights with bright lenses.
Either way, it seems reasonnable to measure the degree of future proofness of a lens mount by the ratio of its diameter by the diagonal of the sensor size.
During the past 20 years the single reason why EOS was deemed superior to F mount was its larger diameter.
It will probably also be possible to adapt other mirrorless lenses on the Nikon if the mount is significantly larger, even with similar flange distances. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Huh? Seems like too narrow a focus on size. Larger lensmount probably equates to larger lens elements thus more expensive glass and heavier, bulkier lenses. The drawing may be second to none, but i'm not sure that's what people were looking to gain from mirrorless.
-
Huh? Seems like too narrow a focus on size. Larger lensmount probably equates to larger lens elements thus more expensive glass and heavier, bulkier lenses. The drawing may be second to none, but i'm not sure that's what people were looking to gain from mirrorless.
Well, no... It is possible to design small lenses fitting a large mount, but the opposite isn’t true. Or at least is much more difficult and may end up resulting in more bulky designs.
Besides, there are various reasons for the interest of people for mirrorless, but those have been strongly shapped/limited till date by the design choices made by Sony whose strategy accross sensor sizes was simple: design the smallest possible body around each sensor size.
Leica has chosen another route but is obviously a niche offering.
So when investing in a strategic mirrorless mount, I will consider its size as a very important decision criteria. Not because it is Nikon coming up with a large one, because it just makes sense.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Heft and girth, or rather lack of them, would be a key consideration for this snapper.
-
Heft and girth, or rather lack of them, would be a key consideration for this snapper.
Yep, love my compact travel lenses I have for Sony. No interest in big heavy lenses for mirror less cameras...already have that with DSLR systems.
-
Two other things I'm hoping for are an EVF with better dynamic range than anything else on the market and great manual focussing feedback. HDR screens are becoming more common in larger displays, at some point they'll come to an EVF. Could it be this one?
Another thing that would be nice to see is a very thin filter stack. Not so thin that IR is an issue, but thin enough that wide legacy lenses will render with little smearing.
Those two features would greatly increase the range of smal lenses that could be used.
-
Right now I believe that the D850 is still superior to the a7rIII. But it seems clear that the mirrorless technology is maturing quickly and some of the advantages such as better eye AF, and more compact designs, more design freedom for lenses are very powerful, even if the current gen isn’t quite there yet.
So I would first add a mirrorless body and start to build a lens portfolio, probably starting with a 35mm as my first usage would be street photography.
I have considering a Leica M10 many times and gave up on the idea every time because of focus accuracy concerns. The mirrorless body’s first mission will be a Leica alternative.
Cheers,
Bernard
With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.
There are plenty of folk out there hoping for similar. The surprise is that it hasn't yet made an appearance.
-
Hi,
What is wrong with the SL? Is it the size?
Best regards
Erik
With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.
There are plenty of folk out there hoping for similar. The surprise is that it hasn't yet made an appearance.
-
With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.
I've been using my Sony A7iii/Techart combo as something like that. It's not an optimal solution at all, but with 40mm+ lenses it works well enough for me to keep using it.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
What is wrong with the SL? Is it the size?
Best regards
Erik
Indeed, the body and native lenses.
-
With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.
There are plenty of folk out there hoping for similar. The surprise is that it hasn't yet made an appearance.
That sounds almost like the spec sheet for the Leica CL. It's APS-C, but I'm pretty sure it checks every box on your list.
-
That sounds almost like the spec sheet for the Leica CL. It's APS-C, but I'm pretty sure it checks every box on your list.
Except full frame.
I've already downsized from medium format and wouldn't want a further downsize, also I wouldn't want to compromise the focal lengths of my existing M series lenses.
-
With eyesight problems in mind my desired full frame AF mirrorless offering would be based on the form of the Leica M series with the EVF of the SL in place of the rangefinder: an interchangeable lens Q offering AF native lenses and M lenses via an adapter.
There are plenty of folk out there hoping for similar. The surprise is that it hasn't yet made an appearance.
Minus the FF, (which is much less relevant these days than once it was) the Fuji X-Pro 2 fits your description nicely! 😀
Rand
-
Minus the FF, (which is much less relevant these days than once it was) the Fuji X-Pro 2 fits your description nicely! 😀
Rand
No it doesn't. Please see my post above.
I've used the X-pro, problem is when I pick it up all I want to do is put it down.
-
No it doesn't. Please see my post above.
I've used the X-pro, problem is when I pick it up all I want to do is put it down.
Quite the opposite to how I felt about my last employer's M3 back in '65...
Rob
-
Hi,
Personally, I see gear mostly as an imaging device. If it delivers great images I tend to ignore the rest.
Best regards
Erik
No it doesn't. Please see my post above.
I've used the X-pro, problem is when I pick it up all I want to do is put it down.
-
Hi,
Personally, I see gear mostly as an imaging device. If it delivers great images I tend to ignore the rest.
Best regards
Erik
I need to love using my camera. Hopefully it will allow me to deliver great images.
-
Hi,
Personally, I see gear mostly as an imaging device. If it delivers great images I tend to ignore the rest.
Best regards
Erik
I'm with you here as far as great images...but the damn outfit needs to be light. I'm done lugging heavy bulky gear through heated, humid, crowded alleys.
-
I'm with you here as far as great images...but the damn outfit needs to be light. I'm done lugging heavy bulky gear through heated, humid, crowded alleys.
I’m with you. But it takes some discipline. I am starting to carry more stuff and end up with the same weight.
-
I’m with you. But it takes some discipline. I am starting to carry more stuff and end up with the same weight.
The moment you start to carry a tripod and a few lenses, the relative weight saving becomes negligible.
Most middle aged man have far greater weight loss potential watching their diet and doing more exercise. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm down to one small body and lens in hand (wrist strap/grip) and another small body and lens in a very small bag (bandolier). Works for me.
I've been the same weight (70kg) for my entire adult life.
;-)
-
Quite the opposite to how I felt about my last employer's M3 back in '65...
Rob
I'm sure most current imaging devices that are available today would meet my needs in terms of image performance, but yes, I think one instinctively knows when a camera is right.
-
The moment you start to carry a tripod and a few lenses, the relative weight saving becomes negligible.
Most middle aged man have far greater weight loss potential watching their diet and doing more exercise. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
If you're carrying the biggest f2.8 zooms and a tripod maybe the camera body becomes insignificant but I can carry my A7 and three or four compact primes in a small bag and my tripod easily. My 5D plus lenses were enough on their own and as much as I'd want to carry and needed a much bigger bag.
-
If you're carrying the biggest f2.8 zooms and a tripod maybe the camera body becomes insignificant but I can carry my A7 and three or four compact primes in a small bag and my tripod easily. My 5D plus lenses were enough on their own and as much as I'd want to carry and needed a much bigger bag.
It would be great if you could share the list of lenses you used to carry with your 5D vs those you carry nowadays.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
On a long trip to remote areas of Tibet I carried a small tripod and two APSC bodies, three zooms that took me from 10 to 210 mm(equivalent to 15 to 315mm) and a bunch of little batteries. All in a messenger size bag. I have printed up to A2 no problems at all.
The FF is a little bulkier but still big weight savings overall. The problem is that I have to stop myself from taking three zooms and three primes and a flash and tripod simply because it’s all a bit lighter. For most stuff the body with the 24 to 70 is all I actually use or need.
Commercially it’s not a big deal as I tend to load up with gear and put it on a trolly.
-
I'm down to one small body and lens in hand (wrist strap/grip) and another small body and lens in a very small bag (bandolier). Works for me.
I've been the same weight (70kg) for my entire adult life.
;-)
Spooky!
So was I, until Ann and her cooking vanished, and then I fell to around 66kg where I appear to be stranded. I conclude that age plays its bit too, because my biceps now hang where there was nothing visible before, and the pecs are fighting better judgement to say hello! to my lower rib, possibly in search of verification of the missing one which, apparently, is biblical myth. Who knew?
-
The moment you start to carry a tripod and a few lenses, the relative weight saving becomes negligible.
Most middle aged man have far greater weight loss potential watching their diet and doing more exercise. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Not true. Even the tripod can be smaller and lighter for a compact mirror less system. I'd say I saved at least 40% weight going from a Canon based landscape kit to one based on Sony...maybe even more. Even my pack is smaller and lighter.
-
Not true. Even the tripod can be smaller and lighter for a compact mirror less system. I'd say I saved at least 40% weight going from a Canon based landscape kit to one based on Sony...maybe even more. Even my pack is smaller and lighter.
Do you have figures to back that up?
I use pretty often my RRS 1 series tripod with my H6D-100c with excellent results...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do you have figures to back that up?
I use pretty often my RRS 1 series tripod with my H6D-100c with excellent results...
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I don't appreciate your tone here.
Here's my old kit:
5d2
7d
Zeiss 18
Zeiss 21
Zeiss 35
Zeiss 109
New kit:
A7R
A7R2
Batis 18
Loxia 21
Loxia 35
Loxia 85
You do the math.
I've also changed my tripod and pack...both reducing weight. Also little things like L-plates weigh less for mirror less. Add everything up and you reduce weight quite substantially.
-
There is still question about size mattering, whether light and rigid is as good as heavy and rigid. (I'm thinking of tripods - you think for yourselves.)
Mass is sometimes better able to protect from vibration and breeze. Personally speaking, as amateur, I find that a light tripod - with two legs extended, offers me all the support I need in order to frame with a long lens; try framing, without support, with a 500 reflex. Two legs give enough stability in a chosen plane - usually the horizontal - and tilting the whole enchilada up or down is easy when no third leg to adjust. Of course, I still go for fast shutter speeds where I can, and as I like fairly open apertures at the moment (when not in block mode) that comes naturally.
With a monopod, the only thing you can really depend upon is that you won't reach the centre of the Earth.
-
And don’t forget stabilized bodies allow lighter tripods. That’s a fact.
-
And don’t forget stabilized bodies allow lighter tripods. That’s a fact.
Which brand recommends stabilization with a tripod?
-
If you go with a lightweight tripod and it’s not as steady as you would like in a bit of a breeze then they all do. And if you decide to use a monopod to save weight and would like to use a 28mm prime at low iso and slowish shitter speed then stabilization helps a great deal. Experience with the actual kit has taught me that.
-
If you go with a lightweight tripod and it’s not as steady as you would like in a bit of a breeze then they all do. And if you decide to use a monopod to save weight and would like to use a 28mm prime at low iso and slowish shitter speed then stabilization helps a great deal. Experience with the actual kit has taught me that.
Between "that's a fact" and pure bs there is a large gray area of hearsay and personal experience. On this site we prefer cold hard numbers and controlled examples in case of "that's a fact", but you likely know that already, therefore i hope you don't mind me calling bs on this, so we can get to the bottom of it.
Monopod: the last thing you want to do for effective stabalization is move the point of rotation away from the system. A monopod does exactly that. (That would be pure logic and therefore fact.)
The kind of vibrations induced by a tripod are not very well countered by stabilization, since it isn't designed for that type, but i love to be proofen wrong. Then the original question stands: which brand recommends the use of stabilization and tripod?
-
Between "that's a fact" and pure bs there is a large gray area of hearsay and personal experience. On this site we prefer cold hard numbers and controlled examples in case of "that's a fact", but you likely know that already, therefore i hope you don't mind me calling bs on this, so we can get to the bottom of it.
Monopod: the last thing you want to do for effective stabalization is move the point of rotation away from the system. A monopod does exactly that. (That would be pure logic and therefore fact.)
The kind of vibrations induced by a tripod are not very well countered by stabilization, since it isn't designed for that type, but i love to be proofen wrong. Then the original question stands: which brand recommends the use of stabilization and tripod?
I can’t answer your question, as you well know. It is generally accepted that stabilization be turned off when on a tripod. Common knowledge actually. Yet when using lightweight tripods and shutter speeds of between a half second and and 2 seconds I have had better results with IBIS on than off. Do I have examples at hand? No I don’t. Am I going to look for some? No Im not. The reason is I am relating my personal experiences and don’t give a fig if you believe me or not. I’m always looking to improve my photography but I’m not unhappy with my work and I look forward to improving it. Convincing you of my methods is unimportant to me. Sorry be harsh but you call BS and where I am from that is the same as calling me a liar. If you think I’m wrong then say so but you chose to go the extra step and say I’m lying.
This argument has actually taken us a bit off topic. We arrived at this point via a convoluted path about weight saving and I said that IBIS had helped me by allowing lighter tripods and also using mono pods. If you wish to ignore that go right ahead.
I have actually done a lot of tests on this but it’s very hard to quantify. Hard to introduce the same amount of shake for each image when testing different shutter speeds. I found the following. For long lenses lenses stabilization alone is better than IBIS alone. A combination of IBIS and lens stabilization seems to be best of all and that’s what most people are saying. If you want to go by what manufacturers are reccomending then I guess you should be OK with the 6 and even 7 stops reccomeded or rather claimed by manufacturers. I don’t get that at all. I will hand hold a standard lens with a degree of confidence at a 60th but cannot achieve satisfactory sharpness handheld at 1 second using IBIS and that’s 6 stops. Using a monopod however I have shot down to a quarter of a second with IBIS and was happy with the results. I think I posted an image of rainbow gorge on this forum doing just that. I tried with and without IBIS and the image was sharper with it on.
-
The kind of vibrations induced by a tripod are not very well countered by stabilization, since it isn't designed for that type, but i love to be proofen wrong.
Camera on a fragile tripod affected by wind:
IBIS off:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/tripodandis/viento_ibisoff.jpg)
IBIS on:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/tripodandis/viento_ibison.jpg)
Test link:
http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/tripodandis/index.htm
Regards
-
Camera on a fragile tripod affected by wind:
IBIS off:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/tripodandis/viento_ibisoff.jpg)
IBIS on:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/tripodandis/viento_ibison.jpg)
Test link:
http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/tripodandis/index.htm
Regards
Stabilization is designed for low frequency oscillation (the kind of ondulation introduced by handholding). If you submit it to broadband oscillation it will filter out the low frequency and what you get is exactly as illustrated: you go from a fuzzy image to a less fuzzy image.
Stabilization is not designed for high frequency oscillations and spikes as introduced by a tripod, shuttershock, or even shutterbutton usage. If it was, then the pany gx8 wouldn't have a shuttershock problem. This also means that stabilization might actually introduce fuzzyness when used under circumstances where it isn't helpful.
Claiming or recommending that ibis allows lighter or less sturdy support is ill advice imo, certainly not fact, though i'm sure that with progress in technique one day ibis will be able to counter all forms of movement we can throw at it.
-
Stabilization is designed for low frequency oscillation (the kind of ondulation introduced by handholding). If you submit it to broadband oscillation it will filter out the low frequency and what you get is exactly as illustrated: you go from a fuzzy image to a less fuzzy image.
Stabilization is not designed for high frequency oscillations and spikes as introduced by a tripod, shuttershock, or even shutterbutton usage. If it was, then the pany gx8 wouldn't have a shuttershock problem. This also means that stabilization might actually introduce fuzzyness when used under circumstances where it isn't helpful.
Claiming or recommending that ibis allows lighter or less sturdy support is ill advice imo, certainly not fact, though i'm sure that with progress in technique one day ibis will be able to counter all forms of movement we can throw at it.
You get theory and you get real world usage. If I remember correctly Michael was always quite adamant about focusing on the latter. Personally I believe the above example does a fair job of replicating my experiences. If you don’t like the results then don’t use the technique. Still a bit harsh to call BS don’t you think? Anyway that’s it for me on the subject.
-
It is also my experience that stabilization can help sometimes with unstable support.
On the other hand, I have also seen cases where using stabilization on a stable tripod had a negative effect on absolute sharpness.
It depends on many factors such as the VR technology used, the focal length, the shutter speed, the type of support, the type of excitation,... that experience ends up being the only approach to determine what works and what doesn't. This is unfortunately no always helpful when you need to get a given shot in the field, but this is reality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Strange how this thread flipped so quickly from the potential size and weight advantages for highly mobile hand-held (“street”) photography of a mirrorless camera carried with just one or a few lenses, none very long, to —debating tripod usage!
Some of us:
- want those advantages for “agile, mobile photography” a lot of the time
- want to use a single camera (or at least a single lens mount and lens collection) for other uses like tripod and wildlife situations
- do not buy the dogma that “heavy lenses need a bulky body”, because such lenses are supported with the left hand or a tripod, not from the body’s hand grip.
So as long as the body is big enough for well-spaced controls and the handgrip is deep enough to hold the camera when it is hanging at my side, I see no downside to a reasonably small, light body—a well-sized, agile body can definitely be smaller than any 36x24 format DSLR!
-
Which brand recommends stabilization with a tripod?
Which brand admits that their tripods are a bit rubbish so you better use stabilisation? Doubt if that would pass the marketing department! :-)
-
Which brand admits that their tripods are a bit rubbish so you better use stabilisation? Doubt if that would pass the marketing department! :-)
Ha, sure, but it was a genuine question in that there may have been a (camera) manufacturer who have solved the tripod problem. Considering what Oly seems to accomplish, they might have had a solution for the smaller sensor formats for example.
-
i think the quality aspect for tripods is exaggerated; i have 5 tripods of different brands - they all work well.
The more heavy they are the more stable...
That said, IS does not work well with long shutter speeds on tripods -say 1 sec and more- is my experience.
on topic;
I do not see a reason yet i would like to buy a mirrorless Nikon.
I have an d850 that serves me well. I hope Nikon can impress me.
If the camera is not easy to combine with third party lenses that would be a big miss.
-
Claiming or recommending that ibis allows lighter or less sturdy support is ill advice imo, certainly not fact, though i'm sure that with progress in technique one day ibis will be able to counter all forms of movement we can throw at it.
I never claimed or recommended that. I simply did a test where IBIS improves image quality on a cheap tripod subject to wind (reason to leave IBIS ON on a tripod). In the article I also tried to find out if IBIS negatively affected image quality when the tripod was perfectly stable (reason to switch IBIS OFF on a tripod), and it affected image quality in no way.
If you prefer your beautiful theory about IBIS oscillation frequencies which contradicts both tests for me it's fine.
Regards
-
Monopod: the last thing you want to do for effective stabalization is move the point of rotation away from the system. A monopod does exactly that. (That would be pure logic and therefore fact.)
A monopod reduces rotations (roll and pitch) substantially. In doing this, it may introduce translations, but that is likely a very good tradeoff, improving overall stabalization.
-
I never claimed or recommended that.
True, you didn't, it was a response to another entry.
I simply did a test where IBIS improves image quality on a cheap tripod subject to wind (reason to leave IBIS ON on a tripod).
If your objective is to go from a fuzzy image to a less fuzzy image, then obviously it is going to work. The system is designed to reduce shake, so it reduces shake. What then is the point of the test?
In the article I also tried to find out if IBIS negatively affected image quality when the tripod was perfectly stable (reason to switch IBIS OFF on a tripod), and it affected image quality in no way.
And according to you what would then be the reason manufacturers suggest to switch it off?
If you prefer your beautiful theory about IBIS oscillation frequencies which contradicts both tests for me it's fine.
Regards
That "beautiful" theory helps to explain your results. Or do you have a better explanation why you do not end up with a sharp result with ibis on?
If it was meant as sarcasm, then i'm not sure why that's necessary.
-
A monopod reduces rotations (roll and pitch) substantially. In doing this, it may introduce translations, but that is likely a very good tradeoff, improving overall stabalization.
Yes, but it's designed to reduce low freq roll and pitch for which it is very effective. What it doesn't anticipate is a shutterbutton push that shocks the system.
-
If your objective is to go from a fuzzy image to a less fuzzy image
(...)
do you have a better explanation why you do not end up with a sharp result with ibis on?
You would have had the answer to that question if you had read the information provided to you. Google translation is more than good enough:
http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/tripodandis/index.htm
"I used an Olympus E-P5 with a Konica Hexanon lens of 135mm (270mm equivalent), placed on a lightweight traveling tripod in order to maximize the effect of any vibration. It is not about obtaining correct images but about seeing the difference in the final result according to whether the stabilizer acts or not."
The shots were done at 1/1,6s as indicated in the text to deliberately get blurred images both with IBIS ON and OFF, since that's 7-8 stops of required stabilization for 270mm eq. and no existing IBIS can compensate for that.
Regards
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/02/new-nikon-mirrorless-mount-video-teaser.
The last camera shown before the new mirrorless is the D5.
Initial unconfirmed reports from people under NDA speak about incredible AF performance with native lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Initial unconfirmed reports from people under NDA speak about incredible AF performance with native lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Which makes one wonder:
Low expectations getting good results? Or high expectations getting bad results?
Because either way, please don't tell me anyone thought their current AF performance was in any way subpar...
-
Which makes one wonder:
Low expectations getting good results? Or high expectations getting bad results?
Because either way, please don't tell me anyone thought their current AF performance was in any way subpar...
In the report that I read, it was compared to the latest Sony mirrorless. Which I think is fairly close to the D5/D850 from an AF speed standpoint.
It read like "fastest AF ever seen in a camera".
But this could be some fanboy dreaming outloud and just claiming he actually tried.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In the report that I read, it was compared to the latest Sony mirrorless. Which I think is fairly close to the D5/D850 from an AF speed standpoint.
It read like "fastest AF ever seen in a camera".
But this could be some fanboy dreaming outloud and just claiming he actually tried.
Cheers,
Bernard
If true that would be very good news and exactly what I am hoping for. I won’t dash out and change to Nikon, that would be economically foolish, as I am now quite invested in Sony glass, camera flash systems and all the bits and pieces that go with that.
It would mean that in two years when I upgrade my bodies that Sony would have had to have reacted to the new standard and I can expect a much improved camera.
-
It would mean that in two years when I upgrade my bodies that Sony would have had to have reacted to the new standard and I can expect a much improved camera.
We'll see if those rumors are true or not, but I totally agree that competition is always good for us photographers.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/02/new-nikon-mirrorless-mount-video-teaser.
The grip looks substantial, promising for a big battery and good battery life.
This is helped by moving the lens mount (&VF) a bit to the left, dropping the legacy central location dictated by the space needs of film canisters and allowing more controls under the right hand.
If rumors are roughly right about a 49mm throat diameter, it is fairly small; maybe about the same 96mm high as the recent Sony A7 models, bit slightly wider.
-
The grip looks substantial, promising for a big battery and good battery life.
This is helped by moving the lens mount (&VF) a bit to the left, dropping the legacy central location dictated by the space needs of film canisters and allowing more controls under the right hand.
If rumors are roughly right about a 49mm throat diameter, it is fairly small; maybe about the same 96mm high as the recent Sony A7 models, bit slightly wider.
The recent rumors about mount diameter are more focused on 62mm. A few say 54mm, a few say 73mm.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
62-65mm outer diameter is what I have seen, 49mm inner “throat” diameter. Which BTW is very close to Leica L, the first mount designed explicitly for 36x24 mirrorless.
Hasselblad X is only about 61mm, and Fujifilm G is 63-65mm, so 62 would be crazy for 36x24, and 73 would be total lunacy.
Also, estimates based on strap lug size are around 51mm.
-
62-65mm outer diameter is what I have seen, 49mm inner “throat” diameter. Which BTW is very close to Leica L, the first mount designed explicitly for 36x24 mirrorless.
Hasselblad X is only about 61mm, and Fujifilm G is 63-65mm, so 62 would be crazy for 36x24, and 73 would be total lunacy.
Also, estimates based on strap lug size are around 51mm.
What I read is 58-62mm inner diameter, but I did not check myself. I think it was computed from the size of the hotshoe.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcc73b17a36e1ff880279b8d01a91ddfc3573d32ef4981a93be53daf3dd1cc47.jpg
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, doesn’t it strike you as strange that the new Nikon mount would have an excess of throat diameter over sensor diagonal, and incoming outer ray angle for light comes, so much more than any of the three recently designed high-end mirrorless mounts
Leica L: +5.5mm, 15°
Hasselblad X: +6mm, 18°
Fujifilm G: +8-10mm, 17-21.5°
At the rumored 16mm deep, “Z-mount” would match the biggest of those angles at 49.3mm. A few mm more might help to accomodate the thickness of the mount and such, but it seems to me that going much wider would just pointlessly fatten both bodies and also many lenses.
Or are Leica, Hasselblad, Fujifilm (and Sony with its 36x34 models) all making incompetent or very unambitious design choices?
-
Bernard, doesn’t it strike you as strange that the new Nikon mount would have an excess of throat diameter over sensor diagonal, and incoming outer ray angle for light comes, so much more than any of the three recently designed high-end mirrorless mounts
Leica L: +5.5mm, 15°
Hasselblad X: +6mm, 18°
Fujifilm G: +8-10mm, 17-21.5°
At the rumored 16mm deep, “Z-mount” would match the biggest of those angles at 49.3mm. A few mm more might help to accomodate the thickness of the mount and such, but it seems to me that going much wider would just pointlessly fatten both bodies and also many lenses.
Or are Leica, Hasselblad, Fujifilm (and Sony with its 36x34 models) all making incompetent or very unambitious design choices?
I understand your point, we'll know soon enough.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard: indeed we will, but we need a game to pass the time waiting.
Couldn’t Nikon patent it and let us know that way?! Though it seems that a patent can obfuscate some details: Sony has a patent filed in 2015 for 36x24mm E-mount which only says the opening diameter is “smaller than about 48mm”:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/9392150.html
-
Bernard: indeed we will, but we need a game to pass the time waiting.
;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The last title in the video says. "Gateway to a New Dimension".
Do you think that's metaphorical? Or are they talking about something other than 24x36?
-
The last title in the video says. "Gateway to a New Dimension".
Do you think that's metaphorical? Or are they talking about something other than 24x36?
The new, larger, lens mount is needed for the in-body wormhole.
-
The last title in the video says. "Gateway to a New Dimension".
Do you think that's metaphorical? Or are they talking about something other than 24x36?
I think they are probably just talking about the size of their new mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think they are probably just talking about the size of their new mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
That could be. And it doesn’t make much sense for them do make something that’s not standard FF. But having made a few teaser campaigns, the words are usually chosen pretty carefully, so I wonder what it does mean.
-
That could be. And it doesn’t make much sense for them do make something that’s not standard FF. But having made a few teaser campaigns, the words are usually chosen pretty carefully, so I wonder what it does mean.
I understand, but their own announcement mentions FF so I believe that this is pretty much a done deal.
And frankly, 33x44 isn’t that much bigger.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I understand, but their own announcement mentions FF so I believe that this is pretty much a done deal.
And frankly, 33x44 isn’t that much bigger.
Cheers,
Bernard
Agreed. And given the resolution of the D850, not enough more resolution to be worth doing. (At least not with any sensor we know about.) so I’m probably reading too much intent into that line of copy.
-
I think they are probably just talking about the size of their new mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
Or are they just laughing their balls off at the imaginative convolutions through which camera enthusiasts put themselves?
A danger, for them (Nikon), though, is as ever: anticlimax. Think Df.
Rob
-
Or are they just laughing their balls off at the imaginative convolutions through which camera enthusiasts put themselves?
A danger, for them (Nikon), though, is as ever: anticlimax. Think Df.
Indeed. But the Df was the first time in history Nikon tried to do some real marketing... and it worked beautifully... only the product they were trying to sell wasn't that great...
Then they came up with the D850... the best DSLR in history... and forgot to market it...
Perhaps they will be able to get both marketing and product right once? ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The recent rumors about mount diameter are more focused on 62mm. A few say 54mm, a few say 73mm.
PhilDunn at DPReview previously said 64mm (and body 147 wide) based on hot shoe size, but just corrected that to 54mm +/-1mm (he forgot a subtraction). Still 147mm wide.
A thought: 49mm might be the even smaller diameter measured where the locking flanges protrude in at some places. But they can be positioned away from the frame corners; if so, it is the 54+/-1mm that matters optically.
-
How about a deal at 58?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The thing I like about 44x33mm is the aspect ratio. 36x27mm…this would be nice (not that I'm expecting it from Canikon).
-Dave-
-
What I am expecting though is a 4x5 crop mode in viewfinder same as the D850. Im hoping since the new camera is mirrorless the crop will be absolute with black borders instead of lines or faded areas.
-
With such a huge hole, adaptors for this camera are going to look like a reverted cone :D
Jokes apart I think this is very good news.
Regards
-
With such a huge hole, adaptors for this camera are going to look like a reverted cone :D
It’s not a huge hole, it’s a (relatively) compact camera. Several estimates based on the hot shoe size put it around or a bit below the 54mm of Canon EF Mount.
P. S. It amuses me that a “compact system camera” forum is speculating about a mount that is 65mm or even 73mm high inside, so 75-80 or more high in all. The Olympus Pen-F and Panasonic GX-9 are EVF system cameras only 72mm high in total; that’s compact!
Jokes aside,49-54mm seems a good size.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/05/another-nikon-mirrorless-camera-picture-leaked.aspx/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why am i now longing for an X1D with GFX guts and a mount that takes Zeiss glass?
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/05/another-nikon-mirrorless-camera-picture-leaked.aspx/
U
Cheers,
Bernard
Either the young lady is tiny or the camera is huge, as big as the D700 I got rid of when I moved to Fuji and bigger than the F2 I traded in when I went digital!!
Dave
-
Either the young lady is tiny or the camera is huge, as big as the D700 I got rid of when I moved to Fuji and bigger than the F2 I traded in when I went digital!!
Hard to tell, but Nikon has made it clear already that ultimate image quality is their top priority, meaning that compactness wasn’t.
I find it interesting that different manufacturers have apparently listened to different users requirements.
Overall though, lenses have a larger impact than the body on the size of the system. And pretty much any lens should be adaptable on this camera.
As far as I am concerned, ergonomics and image quality top compactness when I am serious about photographying. I use my iPhone otherwise.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Aside from the EVF hump the camera's size looks standard midrange Nikon to me. Assuming the pics are legit, that is.
If Nikon's F mount adapter, assuming there is one, can autofocus AI(S) F lenses I might give it a go. ;D
-Dave-
-
Either the young lady is tiny or the camera is huge, as big as the D700 I got rid of when I moved to Fuji and bigger than the F2 I traded in when I went digital!!
Her bottom finger falls below the bottom of the camera, and would just fit on the grip if she moved the hand up to have a finger on the shutter release; how do you see the body (as opposed to the lens) being huge? Chinese actresses (she is Dilraba Dilmurat) are not known for huge hands are they?
The EVF does look reassuringly big, judging relative to the hot shoe size.
-
At least the viewfinder appears to be in line with the lens mount, and not stuck off to one side.
That said, it doesn't strike me as a very good-looking object; nobody will beat Leica M-styling for that prize.
Rob
-
Is there anything out there that says this 'full frame' camera is 24x36mm? For the purpose of a teaser - essentially, an announcement-of-an-announcement - they could justifiably call anything 24x36mm and larger full-frame. And, if it were larger, the shock value of the announcement would be extreme.
For a 24x36mm sensor, the lens mount is odd. Some argue about the ability to make faster lenses, but Leica have been making f/0.95 and f/1 lenses for decades, with a mount that's both narrower and deeper than the E-mount. And Nikon themselves have had no problem making f/1.4 primes for their deep and narrow F-mount. With a telecentric design, it doesn't matter what the throat size is, as long as it is at least as large as the sensor - all the light is coming perpendicular to the sensor anyway, so any light passing through the throat not directly in front of the sensor isn't going to hit it. In any case, superfast lenses would only make up a small niche in any manufacturer's customer base - for the bread-and-butter f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4-f/2 primes, all the larger mount does is make the lenses bigger and heavier.
But a larger-than-24x36mm sensor could be Nikon's best trump card. Nikon came late to the full-frame DSLR party, and has suffered badly for it - Canon grabbed the lions share of the market by being first, and has kept it. Now they're also late to the mirrorless party - Sony has incumbency here, and starts with a huge lead in compatible lenses (adapted lenses are never really the same as native, except where there is no AF anyway). But going for a larger format - 30x45mm, 33x44mm, even 36x36mm - and defining that as their new 'full frame' would turn the tables on Sony. Nikon could then easily claim supremacy in imagy quality. Many current Sony users would have a major reason to switch systems - after all, image quality is the reason they switched from Canon in the first place. So would Canon shooters, who would have to switch systems to move to mirrorless anyway. And, for a lens manufacturer working with a closed mount system, it would make it much harder for Sigma et al to compete for the first few years, because they couldn't simply slap a Nikon mount on their existing lenses and call it a day. Yes, they'd be competing with Fuji, but, comparatively, that is small fry. Sony would struggle to respond - the E-mount can handle 24x36mm, but nothing larger. Even with an edge in sensor technology, a larger sensor is difficult to overcome.
If Nikon came out with a larger sensor, implementing a crop mode to shoot with current lenses via an adapter and designing new lenses around the larger sensor (e.g. 20-40mm, 32-90mm and 90-260mm f/2.8 or f/3.2 zooms), they could well turn the tables on Sony. Even if the initial release were 24x36mm, but they announced that future models would have larger sensors and designed their lenses around them, it would have a similar effect - after all, early DSLRs were all crop models too. And it would justify the mount size and associated lens size. Otherwise, Nikon could again find itself starting from behind, against a larger and better-resourced rival.
-
If Nikon came out with a larger sensor, implementing a crop mode to shoot with current lenses via an adapter and designing new lenses around the larger sensor (e.g. 20-40mm, 32-90mm and 90-260mm f/2.8 or f/3.2 zooms), they could well turn the tables on Sony.
Indeed. But then again, I believe that both Nikon and Canon have a clear opportunity to turn the tables on Sony even without going with a larger sensor.
The actual market share of Sony is probably less than 1% of all full frame users out there. Tiny in the grand scheme of things.
The game is only just starting and a vast majority of FF users will stay with the platform that makes it easiest to use their existing glass while offering the best future proofness in a pure mirrorless world. Sony enabled that to some extend for Canon users who were willing to sacrifice some convenience and performance for better sensors/more compact bodies... The same didn't really happen that much for Nikon till date. There is still huge potential for much better native adapters and the size of the mount will be a good measure of future proofness for new mirrorless lenses.
Besides, although Sony has delivered solid cameras with the a7/a9 and have demonstrated great innovation drive, they are far from perfect. They are great compared to the very flawed first iterations, but still half baked compared to what most photographers would like them to be (ergonomics, EVF, ruggedness, battery life,...).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I thought it was common knowledge that Nikon were launching their mirrorless camera with an adapter to allow current Nikon users to use their existing lens range on the new mirrorless mount. If that is true then the new mirrorless sensor must be no bigger than 24 by 36 or the lenses will not cover it.
-
There's an interesting notion: pure mirrorless world.
Will that ever happen?
A larger format wouldn't make much economical sense me thinks. A larger mount however enables more effective ibis. Perhaps though they added some fancy tricks with sensor movement to accomodate a higher res square image for example, though that strikes me as more gimmicky than sensible and wouldn't dictate a larger mount.
-
I thought it was common knowledge that Nikon were launching their mirrorless camera with an adapter to allow current Nikon users to use their existing lens range on the new mirrorless mount. If that is true then the new mirrorless sensor must be no bigger than 24 by 36 or the lenses will not cover it.
It could still be square 36x36, and at 45mpx you don't exactly need to expose the entire image plane to support a legacy format. Sony also has autoswitch for aps-c lens support on their ff offering.
-
It could still be square 36x36, and at 45mpx you don't exactly need to expose the entire image plane to support a legacy format. Sony also has autoswitch for aps-c lens support on their ff offering.
Well let’s see. Nikon did say FF. I would think that means FF. Square you think? I would not put serious money on that.
-
Well let’s see. Nikon did say FF. I would think that means FF. Square you think? I would not put serious money on that.
No, i don't think square, in fact i think a different format doesn't make economical sense, but a lens should be able to expose a square. Either way, legacy lens support doesn't dictate the format, but i fully agree: Nikon specifically mentions FX format.
-
I thought it was common knowledge that Nikon were launching their mirrorless camera with an adapter to allow current Nikon users to use their existing lens range on the new mirrorless mount. If that is true then the new mirrorless sensor must be no bigger than 24 by 36 or the lenses will not cover it.
That's in fact not an argument against a larger sensor, because Nikon has never prevented the usage of APS-C lenses on FF bodies.
But I don't think the sensor will be larger than 24x36. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Besides, although Sony has delivered solid cameras with the a7/a9 and have demonstrated great innovation drive, they are far from perfect. They are great compared to the very flawed first iterations, but still half baked compared to what most photographers would like them to be (ergonomics, EVF, ruggedness, battery life,...).
Cheers,
Bernard
I do wonder how much of this is true and how much is... well... smelly bovine stuff in a field.
I was an early A7 adopter and I still have my flawed half baked A7. It's been used in all conditions and in all seasons and weathers in streets, forests, hills and beaches in the UK and the far east. I've used it in conditions I could hardly stand up in (once in wind so strong my screen protector blew off) and I've changed lenses multiple times in any and every environment (forests, beaches, hills...) and yet it's hardly missed a beat... I say hardly as it has one issue as there's a black speck in the EVF which looks like a fleck of paint or something, this annoys me but as I grew up with Nikon SLR's which I had for decades and then had Canon DSLR's for over 10 years I'm used to having stuff in the VF.
Reading posts on internet forums I'm amazed that my half baked A7 doesn't slip from my hands and disintegrate, I'm amazed I can use it to take pictures at all.
I'm currently enjoying my A7 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 combination.
I wish Nikon well but lets not pretend that anything that doesn't say Nikon on the front is an unusable piece of junk and that the makers should stick to making playstations.
-
Never said that, you are over-reacting.
Most Sony a7rIII owners I know describe it as being much much better than the v2 and they described the v2 as being much much better than v1.
The rugdness comment comes from a well know test. It never meant that every a7 would fail at the first drop of rain, just that it can and is behind its DSLR competition.
Not sure why you seem to be taking these as personnal offenses.
You took the decision to be an early adopter of the first version of a new line in a new market segment. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that it isn’t pefect.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't think either of these observations are contradictory. IMO it's clear that the Sony still has a way to go design wise to meet what I'd consider ergo and robustness thresholds, while at the same time they can keep on plugging away. I'm also very wary of individual data points. For example I could mention that I've been using Sony bodies since the Nex 5N days, having owned most bodies, when switching to FF have owned a pair of each of the R bodies (rather than S or regular 7 series). I've had to replace a bent body flange on one body (A7R I think), and both of my A7R3 bodies failed for 2 different reasons within a week of each other recently (each took a week for repair under Pro support). I could also mention the times my older 1Ds type bodies had to go in for repair. What does that prove or show? Nothing ....
-
The actual market share of Sony is probably less than 1% of all full frame users out there. Tiny in the grand scheme of things.
Bernard, A7's have already been seeling for 5 years, and selling well. Do you really think in a market where average camera lifetime must be over 3-4 years, i.e. most users bought a new body with the A7's on the market, only 1 out of every 100 FF users has a Sony? I think you are being far too pesimistic here. Or you missed a 0 perhaps?.
Regards
-
Bernard, A7's have already been seeling for 5 years, and selling well. Do you really think in a market where average camera lifetime must be over 3-4 years, i.e. most users bought a new body with the A7's on the market, only 1 out of every 100 FF users has a Sony? I think you are being far too pesimistic here. Or you missed a 0 perhaps?.
No, it seems about right.
FF cameras have been out for many many years. And even after Sony released the a7, it has been consistently outsold by Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs.
It could be 2% or 0.5%, but it is this order of magnitude.
You can build a quick Excel and do the math for yourself.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Exciting times ahead, a lot of speculation at the moment, I'm not that invested in any system at the moment either, at least in full frame terms, I have an A72 and 2 primes and 2 zooms so it wouldn't be that bigger deal for me to jump ship if it suited me, I love the Sony gear but I'm not a fan boy of any system in that respect.
-
No, it seems about right.
FF cameras have been out for many many years. And even after Sony released the a7, it has been consistently outsold by Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs.
It could be 2% or 0.5%, but it is this order of magnitude.
You can build a quick Excel and do the math for yourself.
I'm sorry Bernard but I don't swallow that by far. I don't have the needed figures to make a calculation (if you do I'd be delighetd to see them), but an order of magnitude of 1% is basically irrelevant. Are you telling me Sigma, Laowa, Tamron and other little brands have launched specific E-mount FF lenses just for 1% of the market share?.
I insist, if the camera lifecycle is about 3-4 years, almost every FF user had to renew its FF body with A7 options already in the market (you did and chose the D850, I did and chose the A7 II). Even if Sony were outsold by Canon and Nikon, do you mean Sony's sales market share is so negligible as to just achieve 1 out of every 100 users in half a decade?.
This was 2014 sales market share, and today the A7 III is globally outselling Canikon FF models.
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/12/marketshare.jpg)
Moreover in terms of customer "churn" having a smaller customer base means Sony is in its lifecycle period where it can easily get positive "net adds" (i.e. increase its customer base), while surely Canon and Nikon have entered negative "net adds" because of their much larger customer base moving to the competition. 1% would simply mean this process isn't occurring which is plain wrong. Everytime I travel I see more and more A7's. Even if there are more DSLR's I don't see just one A7 for every 99 Canikon FF's, do you? for every friend with a Sony, do you have 99 friends with a Canikon?. I doubt it.
Regards
-
I insist, if the camera lifecycle is about 3-4 years, almost every FF user had to renew its FF body with A7 options already in the market (you did and chose the D850, I did and chose the A7 II). Even if Sony were outsold by Canon and Nikon, do you mean Sony's sales market share is so negligible as to just achieve 1 out of every 100 users in half a decade?.
If your replenishconjectue were true (which i highly doubt), then you could calculate the marketshare as follows:
If Sony replenished 0% of the market at the launch of the A7 and subsequently grew to 13%, then the total marketshare is the average replenishrate = 13% divided by nr of years.
Means Sony can have at most 3% marketshare.
-
If Sony replenished 0% of the market at the launch of the A7 and subsequently grew to 13%, then the total marketshare is the average replenishrate = 13% divided by nr of years.
Means Sony can have at most 3% marketshare.
That 13% was 2014 sales Sony's marketshare, not today's. Today Sony is selling more FF than Canon and Nikon thanks to the A7 III; it will not last long though.
Information is insufficient but I have made an Excel which in spite of its numerous assumptions (only 50% of FF users bought a new FF body from 2014-2018 and those who did only bought one, users are only Canikon or Sony never mixed, total market is stable, yearly body sales remain constant,...) is unable to reach figures like the 1% suggested by Bernard:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/mirrorlessconjectures.png)
Here is the Excel to play with. Green cells can be adjusted.
http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/mirrorless.xlsx
I don't like to calculate customer base shares without knowing the precise customer base figures, but this is the best I can figure out from available data.
Regards
-
@shadowblade, the Nikon press release specifically says “FX”, so it is 36x24mm.
If the claims of throat diameters like 65mm were true, that would be more than makes sense for 36x24, but the measurements suggesting 51-54 are too small for 44x33; modern fast lenses with exit pupil far higher than the depth of this mount need a throat wider than the image circle. (Leica M does not have the fast telephoto lenses like 200/2 and 400/2.8 that need a wide throat most.)
-
@shadowblade, the Nikon press release specifically says “FX”, so it is 36x24mm.
For this camera, yes. But it says nothing about future cameras using the same mount and lenses. And a larger lens mount can offer more forward compatibility with future, larger sensors.
After all, Canon APS-H and APS-F cameras use the same mount, as do Phase One and Mamiya bodies with different sensor sizes.
If the claims of throat diameters like 65mm were true, that would be more than makes sense for 36x24, but the measurements suggesting 51-54 are too small for 44x33; modern fast lenses with exit pupil far higher than the depth of this mount need a throat wider than the image circle. (Leica M does not have the fast telephoto lenses like 200/2 and 400/2.8 that need a wide throat most.)
Yet Sony has a 400/2.8 for the E-mount, while Nikon has 200/2 and 400/2.8 (and other fast telephotos) for the even smaller and deeper F-mount. Not to mention the PC-E 19mm, which manages to put a wide-angle tilt-shift lens through a narrow throat and deep mount. And you can use any of Canon's long telephotos on E-mount cameras without any optical issues. So, clearly, outside of some extreme lenses, with a likely very small customer base, 46-47mm is a wide enough throat for 24x36mm sensors, with larger mounts adding size without necessarily adding capability.
Of course, it all depends how big this lens mount actually is. F-mount puts a sensor with a 43mm diagonal behind a 44mm mount. 33x44mm sensors have a 55mm diameter - if the mount is 51-54mm in diameter, it would not be able to accommodate this, but a 58mm diameter mount could accommodate it quite comfortably.
-
We don’t have the data, but one input is that there is still a huge number of 5D2/6D and D700/D600 out there it seems.
I believe that your assumption that the average renewal period of FF cameras is 3-4 years is not representative of the reality of the market. It is probably true for the rich hobbyist roaming LL, but most people, starting with many second league pros never upgrade.
We could look at Flickr, but even that would ignore the huge mass of dormant shooters.
But ok, even if Sony has 5 or even 10% of FF cameras (which seems very unlikely) the story remains the same. Canon and Nikon are still by far in a dominant position to convert the remaining 90% of the market to their own mirrorless platform.
I don’t particularly like this situation, but it is the reality resulting from these 2 companies having sold in excess of 100 million lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We don’t have the data, but one input is that there is still a huge number of 5D2/6D and D700/D600 out there it seems.
I believe that your assumption that the average renewal period of FF cameras is 3-4 years is not representative of the reality of the market. It is probably true for the rich hobbyist roaming LL, but most people, starting with many second league pros never upgrade.
We could look at Flickr, but even that would ignore the huge mass of dormant shooters.
But ok, even if Sony has 5 or even 10% of FF cameras (which seems very unlikely) the story remains the same. Canon and Nikon are still by far in a dominant position to convert the remaining 90% of the market to their own mirrorless platform.
I don’t particularly like this situation, but it is the reality resulting from these 2 companies having sold in excess of 100 million lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Nikons market share has been dropping steadily over the last 5 years...this is right out of their financial statements. It is now less than 25% of ICL cameras sold in 2017. Canon has held steady. Mirror less cameras have been eating away at Nikon's share.
-
Nikons market share has been dropping steadily over the last 5 years...this is right out of their financial statements. It is now less than 25% of ICL cameras sold in 2017. Canon has held steady. Mirror less cameras have been eating away at Nikon's share.
I don't believe that this is the case speaking of FF.
Nikon has been loosing to Canon in APS-C body kit sales but increasing its relative marketshare in the high end FF segment. The continued success of the D750/D800/D810/D850 over their Canon equivalent should be ample proof of this. I believe that Sony has been gaining very clearly marketshare over Canon in this segment, I am not too sure about Sony vs Nikon. They may have also, not too sure.
Future will tell, but I believe that this is the segment that matters when assessing the future potential of camera companies.
As I wrote elsewhere, to my eyes low end APS-C DSLR kits are deadman walking. They will be swept away by mobile phones within a couple of years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
@shadowblade, yes 58mm might be barely enough, the Hasselblad’s new X Mount is 61mm and Fujifilm’s G mount is about 63 or 65. Sony’s E mount is about 46, so about 3mm wider than the 36x24 image circle.
Your examples of using the same mount for different formats involve starting with the larger format with film and then reusing the mount with a smaller format for the sake of using exiting lenses: going small to large is harder, as optimal lens designs for the smaller format risk vignetting with the larger.
-
I don't believe that this is the case speaking of FF.
Cheers,
Bernard
What data do you have to make you not believe this?
-
What data do you have to make you not believe this?
I did consult with a fortune teller from Ouganda whose brother in law works at CIPA.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I did consult with a fortune teller from Ouganda whose brother in law works at CIPA.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yep thought so...digging deep to retrieve something huh?
-
Yep thought so...digging deep to retrieve something huh?
Not being able to convince you that I am right would be a serious let down...
On the other hand, do you have data to prove me wrong?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not being able to convince you that I am right would be a serious let down...
On the other hand, do you have data to prove me wrong?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well what I claimed came right from Nikon's financial presentations...what you claimed came from your...
-
That's in fact not an argument against a larger sensor, because Nikon has never prevented the usage of APS-C lenses on FF bodies.
But I don't think the sensor will be larger than 24x36. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I suppose you are right that THIS camera will be FF, but I am not at all sure what to make of Nikon’s explicit statement in the latest video teaser that the new camera is the “Gateway to a New Dimension.” That in combination with the almost psychedelic depiction of the mount on the new camera. I mean if it’s just another regular old FF 24/36 sensor, why bother yelling about a new “dimension” and showcasing a pulsing lens mount?
-
I suppose you are right that THIS camera will be FF, but I am not at all sure what to make of Nikon’s explicit statement in the latest video teaser that the new camera is the “Gateway to a New Dimension.” That in combination with the almost psychedelic depiction of the mount on the new camera. I mean if it’s just another regular old FF 24/36 sensor, why bother yelling about a new “dimension” and showcasing a pulsing lens mount?
My guess is that this is about the mount itself that is larger than F mount.
Now, various Sony users have invested a lot of thread time to demonstrate that the E mount is large enough and it could be argued that the F mount has not prevented Nikon from releasing amazing lenses, yet it seems that Nikon thinks that designing their new system around a larger mount has enough advantages that they are centering their whole communication around this aspect.
So I understand your questioning. Either they don't know what they are doing, or we may know more on Aug-23rd. :)
If there is indeed a larger sensor somewhere down the road that is a key reason for the larger mount, then I would expect Nikon to mention this very clearly during the actual launch.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well what I claimed came right from Nikon's financial presentations...what you claimed came from your...
Could you please share the link to the page where Nikon claims that they have declining market share compared to Canon in the high end FF body segment?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My guess is that this is about the mount itself that is larger than F mount.
Now, various Sony users have invested a lot of thread time to demonstrate that the E mount is large enough and it could be argued that the F mount has not prevented Nikon from releasing amazing lenses, yet it seems that Nikon thinks that designing their new system around a larger mount has enough advantages that they are centering their whole communication around this aspect.
So I understand your questioning. Either they don't know what they are doing, or we may know more on Aug-23rd. :)
If there is indeed a larger sensor somewhere down the road that is a key reason for the larger mount, then I would expect Nikon to mention this very clearly during the actual launch.
Cheers,
Bernard
What I am expecting is the larger than previous mount (Z > F) will facilitate the design and use of 0.95 lenses. I remember some rumours around that, not sure from where, there is so much stuff going around... I suppose that will qualify as a "new dimension"? Or it could simply be that this "new dimension" is just a qualification of the new Z mount being larger than the F mount?
-
I suppose you are right that THIS camera will be FF, but I am not at all sure what to make of Nikon’s explicit statement in the latest video teaser that the new camera is the “Gateway to a New Dimension.” That in combination with the almost psychedelic depiction of the mount on the new camera. I mean if it’s just another regular old FF 24/36 sensor, why bother yelling about a new “dimension” and showcasing a pulsing lens mount?
Let’s all get a grip here. It’s hyperbole isn’t it. Or marketing if you prefer. “A gateway to a New Dimention” as an explicit statement seems highly unlikely to be based on any kind of truth unless Nikon has in fact managed to cram a little black hole into that magnificent new lens mount. Call me sceptical but I think that’s unlikely. Let’s assume it’s not in fact a gateway to another dimension and that statement is false. Let’s assume Nikon is just trying to generate excitement for something other than a wormhole. Could be just a nice new mirrorless camera. I bet that’s what it is.
-
Let’s all get a grip here. It’s hyperbole isn’t it. Or marketing if you prefer. “A gateway to a New Dimention” as an explicit statement seems highly unlikely to be based on any kind of truth unless Nikon has in fact managed to cram a little black hole into that magnificent new lens mount. Call me sceptical but I think that’s unlikely. Let’s assume it’s not in fact a gateway to another dimension and that statement is false. Let’s assume Nikon is just trying to generate excitement for something other than a wormhole. Could be just a nice new mirrorless camera. I bet that’s what it is.
There are of course theories claiming that our conscious experience is nothing but an instance of our being living in a local time frame while being connected to other instances of the same being living their own experiences elsewhere in space and time.
Nikon may have discovered a way to connect owners of their mirrorless body with their being across time and space.
I wonder whether Sony users would agree that this would be a revolution? Of does the a7 already do this?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let’s all get a grip here. It’s hyperbole isn’t it. Or marketing if you prefer. “A gateway to a New Dimention” as an explicit statement seems highly unlikely to be based on any kind of truth unless Nikon has in fact managed to cram a little black hole into that magnificent new lens mount. Call me sceptical but I think that’s unlikely. Let’s assume it’s not in fact a gateway to another dimension and that statement is false. Let’s assume Nikon is just trying to generate excitement for something other than a wormhole. Could be just a nice new mirrorless camera. I bet that’s what it is.
I believe you are absolutely right: a "new dimension" is the same crap as car makers offer you - usually on the trip to and from work. Nothing changes, only the way to sell the same old same old; the new dimension, if and when you get into it, usually means you just got more poor.
I'd love us both to be wrong, but even if we are and heaven does appear to us, complete with its seventh dimension, I have no intention of selling my old D200 (which gets used, on and off) and its replacement, my seldom-used (but much loved) D700. I have no des¡re to buy any other cameras; why would I - I'm all the snapper I ever will be or was. Ain'¡t nothing gonna improve that, but plenty could make it worse!
(If that qualifies as rant, then apologies to Oscar!)
;-)
-
Hahaha. Nope Bernard. The Sony is just a camera. At this point though an actual camera that I shot about 120 images with this morning.
-
Could you please share the link to the page where Nikon claims that they have declining market share compared to Canon in the high end FF body segment?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Go to the Nikon financial pages, open up the different years presentations and look at the graphs of the individual segments. It shows Nikon's view of total cameras and lenses sold and Nikon's shares.
Their share has been sliding steadily every year for the last 5 years if not more. Down to less than 23% of ILC sold last year. They used to compete with Canon in the 40% range not too long ago.
-
(If that qualifies as rant, then apologies to Oscar!)
Duly noted, acceptance under consideration.
-
Nikon may have discovered a way to connect owners of their mirrorless body with their being across time and space.
Bernard
Ha, the best definition of selfie if there ever was one. Perhaps the new dimension refers to a flipup lcd, god forbid...
-
Hi,
Ok, let's contradict everybody so you all hate me and agree on something :D .
According to Nikei: https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nikkei-report-sony-now-has-a-13-3-market-share-in-the-system-camera-market/ (and yes, the source of the graphs is not a very partial site... but first, you need to pay to access to Nikei analysis and second... my japanese is quite rusty), Sony has right now 13,3% of the interchangable lens market in 2017 (this is not taking into consideration things like the Sony A7 III or great part of the sales of Nikon D850). Considering that me main group of released cameras of Sony in the last years where FF, I assume their FF shared market is bigger than 1% as it was commented. In the article they also comment that Sony is growing in number of total sales around 2.9% with respect the previous year (2016).
Nikon did not grow last year in, around -0.6%, in total cameras sales (according to Nikei analysis). Nikon is saying that they had more than expected sales of the D850: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=27344 , that has made their operational profit bigger than previous year. Nikon recognizes the increase of Mirrorless is hurting them:
"In the Imaging Products Business, revenue declined year on year due to a decrease in unit sales of digital cameras overall. Operating profit, however, increased significantly as a result of strong sales of the D850, a digital SLR camera which optimizes the combination of high resolution and high-speed performance, as well as efforts made in
cost improvement and reduction of expenses. " - https://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2019/19first_1_e.pdf
Canon is still growing, with an increase of 3.9% (according to Nikei). This is also confirmed by the financial report of Canon: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=27279
I couldn't find any study or official data about FF camera sales per manufacturer and market share. If somebody has one at hand, I will appreciate if they can share it. Until them, it is speculation.
Regards,
David
-
...I'm all the snapper I ever will be or was. Ain'¡t nothing gonna improve that, but plenty could make it worse!...
Rob, that sounds suspiciously like standing still or being stuck in the mud.
I used to be a whippersnapper and crap snapper to boot. Over the years experience in combination with new opportunities and technologies have hopefully resulted in a little progress. No way would I want to stand still, let alone regress. If I thought for a moment that I'm all that I will ever be or was I'd give up.
Apologies if this reads as the ever so slightly tongue-in-cheek rant it was meant to be.
;-)
-
What I am expecting is the larger than previous mount (Z > F) will facilitate the design and use of 0.95 lenses. I remember some rumours around that, not sure from where, there is so much stuff going around... I suppose that will qualify as a "new dimension"? Or it could simply be that this "new dimension" is just a qualification of the new Z mount being larger than the F mount?
Doesn't exactly sound like a great justification for a much larger mount. f/0.95 or f/1.0 lenses would be a tiny proportion of usage and lens sales. Even if these could be made a bit smaller by using a wider throat, the wider throat would necessitate making every other lens larger to accommodate it - not exactly a good tradeoff when the bread and butter lenses are the f/2.8 zooms, f/1.4-2.0 primes and, for a small subset of fast action cameras, the superteles. Anything faster really belongs in the niche area of oddball artistic lenses rather than the category of general working lenses.
Besides, Leica has made f/0.95 and f/1.0 lenses for the 44mm M-mount, Nikon has made f/1.2 lenses for the 44mm F-mount and Canon made f/1.0 lenses for the 47mm FD mount. And Nikon and now Sony have both made fast superteles (400mm f/2.8) compatible with throat diameters in that range. You can use the Noctilux on an E-mount camera with no optical problems, and you can also use a Canon 400/2.8 or 600/4.0 lens (both designed for much wider throat diameters) on EF-M or E-mount with no optical problems.
EF-M and E-mount's 46mm is actually quite middle-of-the-road for 24x36mm-format lenses - some lens mounts designed for 35mm film had throat diameters as small as 39mm (although these obviously couldn't take telecentric lenses), while some designed for 6x6 film (56x56mm) were as narrow as 57mm. And many of these mounts were designed and made before digital, before high ISO, before fast film, when superfast lenses actually were a necessity just to prevent motion blur. Really, it's Canon's EF mount which is the anomaly here, not F-mount, M-mount or E-mount, which are all in the same ballpark.
I'm not saying there's no justification for a larger throat - just that fast lenses are unlikely to be the reason, unless Nikon has decided to move into a niche market rather than primarily targeting their bread-and-butter audience.
-
Go to the Nikon financial pages, open up the different years presentations and look at the graphs of the individual segments. It shows Nikon's view of total cameras and lenses sold and Nikon's shares.
Their share has been sliding steadily every year for the last 5 years if not more. Down to less than 23% of ILC sold last year. They used to compete with Canon in the 40% range not too long ago.
Right... you (and Nikon) are talking about all DSLRs + the mirrorless 1 series, I am talking about high end FF.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Right... you (and Nikon) are talking about all DSLRs + the mirrorless 1 series, I am talking about high end FF.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, but we don't have these numbers so all you are doing is guessing. So purely meaningless then. Actual figures of ILC sold show Nikon slipping by quite a lot in the last 5+ years. Not too long ago they were right up there with Canon in market share, now they are 1/2 their size and it's basically mirror less that has been eating Nikon's shorts while Canon holds its own.
-
Yes, but we don't have these numbers so all you are doing is guessing. So purely meaningless then. Actual figures of ILC sold show Nikon slipping by quite a lot in the last 5+ years. Not too long ago they were right up there with Canon in market share, now they are 1/2 their size and it's basically mirror less that has been eating Nikon's shorts while Canon holds its own.
This is just a guess of yours too my friend. My guess is that there has simply been less renewal among Nikon DSLRs shooters because the lower end bodies they were selling 5 ears ago were already based on best in class Sony sensors, already had excellent AF performance, while Canon low end bodies were still leaving a lot to be desired. Combined with top class sales and marketing techniques, Canon has simply been able to push many more cheap boxes through their channels.
But to the point, there is solid evidence from monthly sales numbers that Nikon has been selling significantly more high end FF bodies that Canon has, which means that the have increased their share in the upper value market.
This evidence is backed up by our local experience here at LL where the number of Canon FF shooters has been dropping significantly, which hasn't been the case for Nikon shooters.
But anyway, we are not going to agree on this so I'll just leave it at that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Peter Lindbergh uses Nikon.
So that's settled.
-
Bear in mind that Nikon hasn't updated the D610 and D750 in years, while Canon has released the 6D2 and 5D4. You get a spike in sales every time you bring out a new camera, and, at the lower end of the full frame range, Canon's been doing that a lot more than Nikon. Performance has little to do with it - people buying cameras at that end of the full-frame spectrum are likely not looking at differences in base-ISO DR or a camera's ability to track a diving bird plunging into water against a busy background of reeds in low light.
Given this, I doubt we'll see a D620, D650 or D760. Nikon's first mirrorless body will not be D5 class, but will be a D610/D750 replacement, competing against, and in the same price bracket as, the A7III. It's a much safer proposition - far less demanding on the AF, viewfinder and other non-optical, non-sensor performance aspects (especially for a first-generation body) and replacing two bodies which are due for replacement anyway. Probably launched with a 24-70/2.8, a 70-200/2.8 or 24-105/4.0, and a prime (50mm or 85mm) - a good starting kit for basic users. If they're smart, they'll include an adapter for current F-mount lenses in the kit, just like Sony included a Metabones adapter. They may also launch a high-resolution A7r3 competitor, although this would be a riskier proposition with more demands on performance and would cannibalise the D850.
-
We will know in 3 weeks if your forecast regarding the positioning of the Nikon mirrorless is correct or not.
Shall we agree that you’ll either be right or wrong on everything else also?
For the record, the rumors disagree with you since they claim that we will both get a a7III and a7rIII/a9 competitors with better than D5 AF. The teaser also screams high end, but...
Cheers,
Bernard
P.s.: the AF of the a7III appears to be superior to that of the a7rIII...
-
We will know in 3 weeks if your forecast regarding the positioning of the Nikon mirrorless is correct or not.
Shall we agree that you’ll either be right or wrong on everything else also?
For the record, the rumors disagree with you since they claim that we will both get a a7III and a7rIII/a9 competitors with better than D5 AF. The teaser also screams high end, but...
Cheers,
Bernard
P.s.: the AF of the a7III appears to be superior to that of the a7rIII...
Right. So Nikon will release an A7-like camera, with higher resolution than the A7r3, with better AF than the D5. And pigs might fly.
Re: AF performance. A7III tracks over a wider area of the sensor. A7R3 has better eye AF (works at a greater distance). Both seem just as fast tracking something within the area of their respective PDAF zones.
-
And pigs might fly.
I think your line of thinking can be used in the Nikon marketing department. Shoot with the new Nikon mirror less and you will see pigs fly by in the viewfinder.
Nikon...the first PIF camera...Pigs in Flight.
-
Right. So Nikon will release an A7-like camera, with higher resolution than the A7r3, with better AF than the D5. And pigs might fly.
The rumors speak about 2 cameras using 24 and 45 mp. Nothing really impossible so far.
I agree with you, the D5 is hard to beat. We will see.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Right. So Nikon will release an A7-like camera, with higher resolution than the A7r3, with better AF than the D5. And pigs might fly.
Re: AF performance. A7III tracks over a wider area of the sensor. A7R3 has better eye AF (works at a greater distance). Both seem just as fast tracking something within the area of their respective PDAF zones.
I don’t think this scenario is likely at all. We’re all guessing here, of course, so here’s mine...
I think, based on the Nikonrumor site’s releases, that there will be two cameras in quick succession, if not at the same time. One will be a high-res tour-de-force camera in the D850 class that competes with the A7R3 in features and bests it in resolution and ergonomics (for many people). I think it’s autofocus will be very good, but not D5 good, and I expect it will have all of the technology tricks of the D850 like automated focus stacking and time lapse. And I expect (maybe the right word is hope) that it will have the best, highest-scan-rate, highest-DR viewfinder on the market.
I expect the other camera to be a 24Mpix, A73 class camera—a camera with a lower price for a larger market, with very good low light performance and autofocus, but not D5/A9 class autofocus. To do that would make it cost too much for this target market.
Next year, I expect at least two more. One will be an A9 class mirrorless with top-shelf autofocus and frame rates and a price to match. This one will be in the 24Mpix range, because all of the class-leading autofocus cameras are in that range: D5, A9, 1D, & SL all twenty-something megapixels, and I think that’s not just coincidence, I think physics are at play there.
The fourth camera, I have no idea. If Nikon really wanted to make a splash in the video world, they’d release a low-light monster that records 10-bit, high-bitrate video, and outputs 10-bit uncompressed to its HDMI port. If it can autofocus video well, that camera would turn a lot of heads.
Or they could go the APS-C route with the fourth one, though that requires another set of lenses.
That’s my prediction, with the benefit of no actual insight or inside info at all. Anybody setting up a pool?
-
Peter Lindbergh uses Nikon.
Never mind Peter Lindbergh. What about Peter Lik? ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMgg1SVy6zc
Kent in SD
-
I don’t think this scenario is likely at all. We’re all guessing here, of course, so here’s mine...
I think, based on the Nikonrumor site’s releases, that there will be two cameras in quick succession, if not at the same time. One will be a high-res tour-de-force camera in the D850 class that competes with the A7R3 in features and bests it in resolution and ergonomics (for many people). I think it’s autofocus will be very good, but not D5 good, and I expect it will have all of the technology tricks of the D850 like automated focus stacking and time lapse. And I expect (maybe the right word is hope) that it will have the best, highest-scan-rate, highest-DR viewfinder on the market.
I expect the other camera to be a 24Mpix, A73 class camera—a camera with a lower price for a larger market, with very good low light performance and autofocus, but not D5/A9 class autofocus. To do that would make it cost too much for this target market.
That's pretty much what I wrote in my earlier post. The notion that Nikon will make a do-everything supercamera that outperforms both the A7r3 in resolution and D5 in AF, then sell it at a price competitive with the A7III, is just fanboy wishful thinking. I doubt Nikon can even make a mirrorless AF system that matches the D5, 1Dx2 or A9 at the moment. Maybe for the next generation, but not this one.
As I said, I'd expect a 24MP A7III-class camera, with a few core lenses to match. That is, f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4-1.8 primes in the 35-85mm range, not esoteric superfast lenses with limited market appeal. The second camera, if they release one at the same time, will be a high-resolution body, probably using the D850's sensor. I doubt it will match the A7r3 performance-wise, due to being Nikon's first-generation mirrorless camera, but that will be of little consequence to many people who prioritise resolution, and Nikon may undercut the A7r3 on price, given that their camera will have a much smaller lens selection, possibly lower non-sensor performance and due to the need to build up market share. Essentially, it would be like Sony's 2013 release of the A7 and A7r - one entry-level and low-resolution, as well as a higher-resolution body.
It will be interesting to see Sony's next move. No doubt they will know what Nikon are making - after all, they make Nikon's sensors (for mirrorless cameras, this includes the sensor-based aspects of the AF system), and may also be making their EVFs (Sony being one of the main manufacturers of EVFs). Since the Nikon bodies will have been in development for years, the Sony response will likely have been in development for almost as long.
-
The notion that Nikon will make a do-everything supercamera that outperforms both the A7r3 in resolution and D5 in AF, then sell it at a price competitive with the A7III, is just fanboy wishful thinking.
You are the only person in this thread who wrote about this possibility...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You are the only person in this thread who wrote about this possibility...
Cheers,
Bernard
Your own words:
, the rumors disagree with you since they claim that we will both get a a7III and a7rIII/a9 competitors with better than D5 AF.
A camera that competes with the A7III, A7r3 and A9 would have to beat the A7III on price, A7r3 on image quality/resolution and A9 on AF/frame rate. Not going to happen.
-
@shadowblade, I agree that a 50/0.95 is not a real priority; if made it would be a “because we can now” like the Canon 50/1 was for EF mount. To repeat, the main benefits of extra mount width are easier designs for low aperture ratios at focal lengths that are many times the mount depth and benefitting from an exit pupil height far greater than the mount depth. Things like Canon’s 85/1.2, or a 135/1.4 or 200/2 or 400/2.8 are easier to design with less light fall-off (mild vignetting) near the corners. I could post a formula for throat diameter needs based on exit pupil height, f-stop and mount depth.
And it gives IBIS more room to move the sensor, not a factor in any film-era design.
-
Your own words:
A camera that competes with the A7III, A7r3 and A9 would have to beat the A7III on price, A7r3 on image quality/resolution and A9 on AF/frame rate. Not going to happen.
No:
- I am mentioning 2 cameras
- I am not speaking about price
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So, my bet, Nikon will say that both their cameras have the best AF system in their class (Sony always says that in their marketing material... ), fanboys will claim that it is the truth... Anyway, in terms of market, and according to rumors, Nikon will release two cameras:
- A 24 megapixel camera, focusing in prize, that will take the place of their D6XX and D7XX line. This will be a camera with better AF system of the two (Sony A7 III has better AF that the Sony A7r III, in fact, it has the same AF system as the A9, just slower chip reading the image from the sensor, making it imposible to reach 20 fps and that good nearly no-rolling-shutter electronic shutter). This will be the high selling camera for Nikon.
- A 45 megapixel camera (or around that amount... but I suspect Nikon will use the same 45 megapixel sensor of D850 with AF system over it to save costs, they already paid for the design and manufacturing fine tunning of it, now it is just ordering a new batch of them), focusing on image quality and resolution, to attract the possible buyers of a Sony a7r III or D850.
I'm not expecting a Nikon megacamera that beats everything... that it is just wishful thinking. Those two will cover nicely the market of people thinking to switch to a Nikon mirrorless system.
It will be interesting to see Sony's next move. No doubt they will know what Nikon are making - after all, they make Nikon's sensors (for mirrorless cameras, this includes the sensor-based aspects of the AF system), and may also be making their EVFs (Sony being one of the main manufacturers of EVFs). Since the Nikon bodies will have been in development for years, the Sony response will likely have been in development for almost as long.
Sony will probably do nothing. They released end of last year the a7r III and this year the A7 III. Those cameras will still be on the market for another year before being replaced. By the end of the year we will probably see the A7s III, more focused on video and low sensitivity (the A7 III has a sensor that has a high-ISO noise similar to the A7s II right now..., Sony has to best themselves there). Of course, this camera will need to best the Panasonic GH5/GH5s in terms of video features... that it is their competitor in the SLR video market. Maybe we see the infamous a6700...
Next year we maybe see an A9 II... or maybe beginning 2020. Sony will want to have more people in Tokyo Olympics in 2020. And of course, continuing making new lenses.
I highly doubt Sony Imaging Products and Solutions has inside information from the Sony Semiconductors company.
-
No:
- I am mentioning 2 cameras
- I am not speaking about price
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree on the 2 cameras scenario, like Sony did at launch: A7 and A7R.
-
I highly doubt Sony Imaging Products and Solutions has inside information from the Sony Semiconductors company.
Why do you say that?
-
Why do you say that?
Because Sony Semi-conductor, as part of the Sony group, strives to meet very high ethical standards in terms of not leaking their customers information?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Because Sony Semi-conductor, as part of the Sony group, strives to meet very high ethical standards in terms of not leaking their customers information?
Cheers,
Bernard
This reminds me of my 27 year career at Intel. There was absolutely zero cross-talk between the unit that worked with the Windows PC industry and the unit that worked with Apple. Even when Apple announced it was switching from Motorola to Intel processors, it took virtually everyone, except the super secret Intel/Apple team by surprise. Even the most senior people, except those that had an absolute need to know, had no idea.
-
Why do you say that?
Because Sony Imaging Products commented that several times in interviews... they don't get inside information about what the company is doing to other competitors.
One of the reasons that Sony did making Sony Semiconductors an independent company was to make imaging products competitors (from mobile phones to cameras) less worried that Sony could get inside information from their designs.
-
This reminds me of my 27 year career at Intel. There was absolutely zero cross-talk between the unit that worked with the Windows PC industry and the unit that worked with Apple. Even when Apple announced it was switching from Motorola to Intel processors, it took virtually everyone, except the super secret Intel/Apple team by surprise. Even the most senior people, except those that had an absolute need to know, had no idea.
Yes, there is lot of examples like that in tech semiconductor industry...
-
Because Sony Imaging Products commented that several times in interviews... they don't get inside information about what the company is doing to other competitors.
One of the reasons that Sony did making Sony Semiconductors an independent company was to make imaging products competitors (from mobile phones to cameras) less worried that Sony could get inside information from their designs.
There has also been statements that the semiconductor group reserves their latest sensor developments for the Sony cameras...before offering the technology to others.
-
There has also been statements that the semiconductor group reserves their latest sensor developments for the Sony cameras...before offering the technology to others.
That was a confusion created by an interview done by Imaging Resource, they clarified that Sony does not keep sensor technology for themselves, you can read the clarification here: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/03/26/sony-thailand-factory-tour-qa-mapping-out-the-future-of-the-interchangeable together with a very interesting interview.
If you like sensor technology, Imaging Resource has a nice piece also of the process how Nikon designs their sensors using Sony foundries (well, or whatever other foundry they use in the past or future) https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/07/17/pixels-for-geeks-a-peek-inside-nikons-super-secret-sensor-design-lab
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
No:
- I am mentioning 2 cameras
- I am not speaking about price
Cheers,
Bernard
You seemed to be talking about one camera that did everything, covering the A7III, A7r3 and A9.
If it's two cameras, it will happen, but not in the first generation of Nikons - more likely in the next generation of Sonys (A7r4 or A9r).
Matching the A7III is easy enough, although building up a market share from scratch against an established lineup of E-mount lenses may be a bit harder (probably easier for an entry-level body, whose users will often only get two or three lenses at most anyway - as long as you have the bases covered, you're fine).
But there is no way they will match both the A9 and A7r3 in the same camera this year. It's one or the other. The A9 uses a stacked sensor to achieve its AF performance. The A7r3 sensor lacks that, but has close to twice the resolution and higher dynamic range. Same with the D850 sensor (which doesn't even have on-sensor AF). Basing it on the D5 sensor wouldn't help either - not only does it lack the resolution to compete with the A7r3, but it also lacks on-sensor AF, the D5's AF performance being derived from off-sensor components rather than the sensor itself. So, they'd need an entirely new sensor that not only matches the D850 in resolution, but also somehow has an on-sensor AF system that matches the A9 or D5, with the off-sensor data bandwidth and processing power to support 20fps at 45MP. If Nikon could do that, they'd have done it two years ago. More likely, it's something for the A7r4 or A9r (with the next-generation A9 improving the AF further and likely moving to something like 6k or 8k video output, as the 'action' body in the lineup).
-
So, my bet, Nikon will say that both their cameras have the best AF system in their class (Sony always says that in their marketing material... ), fanboys will claim that it is the truth... Anyway, in terms of market, and according to rumors, Nikon will release two cameras:
- A 24 megapixel camera, focusing in prize, that will take the place of their D6XX and D7XX line. This will be a camera with better AF system of the two (Sony A7 III has better AF that the Sony A7r III, in fact, it has the same AF system as the A9, just slower chip reading the image from the sensor, making it imposible to reach 20 fps and that good nearly no-rolling-shutter electronic shutter). This will be the high selling camera for Nikon.
- A 45 megapixel camera (or around that amount... but I suspect Nikon will use the same 45 megapixel sensor of D850 with AF system over it to save costs, they already paid for the design and manufacturing fine tunning of it, now it is just ordering a new batch of them), focusing on image quality and resolution, to attract the possible buyers of a Sony a7r III or D850.
I'm not expecting a Nikon megacamera that beats everything... that it is just wishful thinking. Those two will cover nicely the market of people thinking to switch to a Nikon mirrorless system.
That's pretty much my thinking.
I'd also expect the 24MP camera to have better AF than the 45MP camera, since the sensor design is likely to be new and designed from the ground up with on-sensor PDAF in mind (possibly even the same basic sensor as the A7III, with modified filters/microlenses to Nikon's specifications), while the 45MP version will probably use a modified version of the D850 sensor, with more limited capacity to support PDAF (unlike the A7r2/A7r3 sensor, it was not designed specifically for mirrorless use, since the D850 didn't need it). The 45MP version will cost more than the 24MP version, regardless of AF performance, but will probably undercut the A7r3, since it won't be able to compete on lens selection and is unlikely to compete on AF. It will be like Sony's initial launch of the A7 and A7r in 2013, with a cheaper, lower-resolution, higher-performance body, and a high-resolution version that doesn't perform nearly as well but is optimised for studio/landscape use.
Sony will probably do nothing. They released end of last year the a7r III and this year the A7 III. Those cameras will still be on the market for another year before being replaced. By the end of the year we will probably see the A7s III, more focused on video and low sensitivity (the A7 III has a sensor that has a high-ISO noise similar to the A7s II right now..., Sony has to best themselves there). Of course, this camera will need to best the Panasonic GH5/GH5s in terms of video features... that it is their competitor in the SLR video market. Maybe we see the infamous a6700...
They're not going to replace the A9 or A7r3. But they may release an A9r in the first half of next year, combining technologies from the A9 and A7r3 and trumping the Nikon/Canon releases with a 60+MP, A9-level AF, 10fps flagship model. If they do, that sensor will probably find its way into the A7r4 a year or so later - Sony's never been afraid to cannibalise its own lineup.
They'll also release an A7s3, but that's already expected.
Next year we maybe see an A9 II... or maybe beginning 2020. Sony will want to have more people in Tokyo Olympics in 2020. And of course, continuing making new lenses.
I would expect 2020. They would want to launch it in an Olympics year, so as to have a new product to sell rather than a one-year-old product, and there isn't enough time for two generations of the A9 between now and July 2020. Also, they'll want 8k video for it (being the Tokyo Olympics) - a 2020 launch allows more time for camera bandwidth, card storage and batteries to catch up (sensors are already there), as well as users' computers to be upgraded to the point where they can actually process 8k video instead of sparking a torrent of complaints along the lines of 'the files are too big for my computer/my computer's too slow', as would likely happen if they released an 8k video camera now.
In the meantime, they'll likely bring out a few more long lenses (500/4, 600/4 and possibly an equivalent to the 180-400/4 or 200-400/4) to allow the new camera to be used to its full capacity when it comes out.
I highly doubt Sony Imaging Products and Solutions has inside information from the Sony Semiconductors company.
At the board level, they would.
Even if the company itself (outside of the board) does not, they don't need it.
Sony cameras get their sensors from Sony Semiconductors. Sony Semiconductors is constantly developing and testing new prototypes, keeping a 'catalogue' of prototypes that Sony camera (and others) can select from when designing a camera. And these prototypes will incorporate technologies from every source, whether developed by Sony or taken from a Nikon sensor developed in conjunction in Sony - Sony camera doesn't need to know where each individual technology came from, only that Sony Semiconductor is offering them a prototype that uses it.
-
The main logical argument I read here is “Nikon machting Sony in resolution and AF in their first try would make me feel insecure as a Sony customer”. ;)
I have already written 20 comments ago that I thought that matching the D5 would be challenging, but rather credible leaks mention that they may.
For what it’s worth, the Nikon 1 series AF is 7-8 years old tech and was already in DSLR class from a speed standpoint. It seems reasonable to expect Nikon to do better 7 years later in a body costing 7 times more, right?
It seems pretty obvious that the AF is a key area and that Nikon will deliver a very solid performer since they have both had the technology for years and a clear history of delivering the best DSLR AF performance.
Regarding your theory that the high res sensor may have worst AF, we will see. In the DSLR world Nikon has always equipped their high res body with the same AF sensor tech as their sport body. The main reason why the D800/D4 or D850/D5 don’t perform exactly the same is related to different mirror boxes. There is a lot less valid justification in the mirrorless world.
The only one I can think of is the speed of data sampling as it id read off the sensor. But this would be an indirect consequence of resolution, not a direct one. And it would assume that the AF info is read with the same mechanism as the imaging information, which may or may not be the cass. It seems to be a technological implementation story rather than a fundamental limitation. Your guess is as good as mine in terms of Nikon relying on off the shelf sensor AF Sony technology vs developping their own.
In any case, I just don’t buy your explanation about the high res body being based on an existing D850 sensor. Or, more accurately, on a sensor that wasn’t designed with mirrorless in mind.
But we will know in 2 weeks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...
But there is no way they will match both the A9 and A7r3 in the same camera this year. It's one or the other.
...
Basing it on the D5 sensor wouldn't help either - not only does it lack the resolution to compete with the A7r3, but it also lacks on-sensor AF, the D5's AF performance being derived from off-sensor components rather than the sensor itself.
Well, this is all true, but the A9 is no match for the A7R3 in resolution either. It seems obvious from all the real-world cameras that there is a trade-off between autofocus and frame rate on one hand and resolution and DR on the other. The reason for the frame rate trade off would be all about data rates—you just have to move a lot more data at 45 Mpix than at 24. It’ll get worse if DR reaches the point where 16 bits are required to represent it.
Focus speed is more of a mystery to me, but all of the best autofocus cameras are twenty-something megapixels. Can that be coincidence? Even Leica, who doesn’t seem to care at all about how much they have to charge for a camera, made the SL 24 Mpix, so I suspect it’s not down to money.
-
Well, this is all true, but the A9 is no match for the A7R3 in resolution either. It seems obvious from all the real-world cameras that there is a trade-off between autofocus and frame rate on one hand and resolution and DR on the other. The reason for the frame rate trade off would be all about data rates—you just have to move a lot more data at 45 Mpix than at 24. It’ll get worse if DR reaches the point where 16 bits are required to represent it.
I never said that the A9 was a match - if it were, I'd be shooting an A9 rather than an A7r3. I was merely responding to the assertion that Nikon's new camera will compete with both the A7r3 and A9. That would require a completely unprecedented leap in capability - more likely as an evolution of the A7r3 (as the A7r4 or A9r) than from a company which has never made a full-frame mirrorless camera before.
Focus speed is more of a mystery to me, but all of the best autofocus cameras are twenty-something megapixels. Can that be coincidence? Even Leica, who doesn’t seem to care at all about how much they have to charge for a camera, made the SL 24 Mpix, so I suspect it’s not down to money.
It's down to bandwidth and frame rate.
In SLRs, there's no connection between the sensor and the AF system. You can put the same sensor in two different cameras with two completely different AF systems, or vice versa. The 1Ds3 had the same AF system as the 1D3, while the D3x had the same AF system as the D3. You could easily put a D850 sensor into a D5 and get the same AF performance.
But people who need the fastest possible AF often need frame rate more than resolution. And that applies just as much to SLRs as mirrorless cameras. The 1Ds3 could only manage 5fps. The D3x only managed around 2-3fps. Even with top-tier AF systems, if you can only manage slow frame rates, you don't have much of an action camera. And, for a non-action camera, the AF system is largely wasted. It's only in the latest generation of bodies - A7r3 and D850 - that resolution and speed been combined to achieve both high resolution and acceptable frame rates for fast action.
-
The main logical argument I read here is “Nikon machting Sony in resolution and AF in their first try would make me feel insecure as a Sony customer”. ;)
I change systems every few years anyway, due to fairly high attrition from broken gear (I have a 1Ds3 with a bullet lodged in it, and I'm pretty sure a crocodile has my 5D2 with attached lens), thefts and obsolescence. But the next one will almost certainly be either Canon or Sony - whoever has the most promising lineup when I next have a large chunk of gear destroyed - not the comparative minnow which now has to move into a completely new field of camera technology, without the benefit of being an incumbent with large pre-existing market share. Sony made their move five years ago; Canon has far greater resources.
I have already written 20 comments ago that I thought that matching the D5 would be challenging, but rather credible leaks mention that they may.
Where are these leaks, and why are they credible? The only thing I've seen on Nikonrumors reads like some fanboy's wishlist.
For what it’s worth, the Nikon 1 series AF is 7-8 years old tech and was already in DSLR class from a speed standpoint. It seems reasonable to expect Nikon to do better 7 years later in a body costing 7 times more, right?
Only when moving small pieces of glass, tracking slow-moving, simple subjects, with lenses that don't even need to focus all that accurately, since DOF is so large. Quite different to focusing a 200/2.8 lens on a running subject and achieving accurate focus on the nearest eye.
Olympus E-PEEN series M43 cameras can do the same thing. You'd never put them in the same class.
[QuoteIt seems pretty obvious that the AF is a key area and that Nikon will deliver a very solid performer since they have both had the technology for years and a clear history of delivering the best DSLR AF performance.[/quote]
Which does not translate at all to being able to build a class-leading sensor-based hybrid PDAF/CDAF system. They've never even made an on-sensor PDAF system.
In any case, I just don’t buy your explanation about the high res body being based on an existing D850 sensor.
But we will know in 2 weeks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Then what are they going to base it on? And how many different sensors is Nikon going to support at the same time? How many can they afford to develop at the same time? The D850 only just came out.
The A7r3 sensor was amortised over two generations and three cameras (A7r2, A99II, A7r3). The previous 36MP sensor went into a lot of different cameras from multiple manufacturers, with only small differencea between them. And Sony is a huge company with the world's leading market share in sensors. The D850 sensor has gone into exactly one camera, and Nikon is a comparative minnow. If they developed that many sensors, they'd never get their money back.
-
How can you know before product announcement that you will not be using Nikon equipment moving forward?
How has Canon’s greater resources helped them deliver best in class DSLRs to their customers these past 8 years?
When do you think Nikon froze their mirrorless design and how could that have related to the D850 development?
When you write "They've never even made an on-sensor PDAF system.", are you aware that the Nikon 1 series was the first camera ever released with an on-sensor PDAF system? Besides, as was just pointed out to me by Jack, they have owned patents on this for 6 years... https://nikonrumors.com/2017/08/03/new-nikon-multi-pixel-pdaf-sensor-patent.aspx/
...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/09/third-nikon-mirrorless-camera-teaser-released.aspx/#more-124463
Nikon is saying "we have invested all our knowledge in this camera". Looks like a high end release.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon is saying "we have invested all our knowledge in this camera". Looks like a high end release.
To me that looks like "Everything will be fine" from your mom right when you get into surgery, words expected to be heard but zero real information. No camera brand would admit they put partial knowledge on a new development :D
-
To me that looks like "Everything will be fine" from your mom right when you get into surgery, words expected to be heard but zero real information. No camera brand would admit they put partial knowledge on a new development :D
Well... never under-estimate Nikon's ability to mess up marketing. ;D
Don't forget that they released the D3x and didn't say a word about its dynamic range... https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d3x/pdf/d3x_24p.pdf
They are just telling us that it is one of their most strategic camera ever. And coming from them, it tells me something because... as far as I recall, they have always made a big splash when they wanted to/had to. The D1 was the first native DSLR at a moment when Canon was leading in the film world thanks to USM, the D3 broke new grounds in high ISO and AF when Canon was leading in FF bodies, the D3x was the first high DR camera, the D800 broke new grounds in resolution,... there is little historical reason to think that they would mess up what themselves describe as one of their most strategic camera release ever.
All of their recent DSLR lenses have been outstanding in terms of look and technical qualities too. Their new mount should have provided them with all the design freedom they needed as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How can you know before product announcement that you will not be using Nikon equipment moving forward?
Probability. Mirrorless is a new field - all camera companies needed to produce new mounts, new lenses, new AF systems and new ways of doing things. Existing SLR market share has limited value. Canon and Sony are huge companies, with major sources of income outside photography to keep them running during any bumpy transition period. Nikon is almost entirely reliant on still cameras. Sony got a five-year head start. Canon is a much bigger company than Nikon, and has a mature and effective dual pixel AF system (with the potential to become the best AF system out there, even better than Sony's current system, although Sony has recently patented a similar technology). So, with Sony starting out ahead, and Canon and Nikon starting from around the same point, but Canon running with far greater horsepower, odds are that Canon will end up with the more capable lineup and greater third-party support. Nikon will have to pick its battles carefully, spending resources to fill underserved market segments, rather than simply throwing resources into a broad, omnidirectional push into mirrorless like Canon can.
It's not for nothing that, even ten years ago - before Sony had even made a full-frame SLR - Canon named Sony as its greatest long-term rival in the camera field, not Nikon. That prediction is just starting to bear out now.
Odds are that, in five years' time, it will be one of the big two - Canon or Sony - at the top, and not the much smaller Nikon. It's simply down to size.
How has Canon’s greater resources helped them deliver best in class DSLRs to their customers these past 8 years?
They haven't. It's also obvious that their efforts weren't oriented in that direction. Canon have been coasting in the SLR world since the 5D3, if not the 5D2, relying on incumbency, existing market share and brand name to keep the cash flowing while they focused their efforts elsewhere.
What has Canon been working on in the past eight years? Video. Dual pixel AF and other video AF technologies. EVFs. Data processing for video and live view. Video-oriented lens technology. Fast sensor readouts, to support video frame rates.
And, guess what? All these technologies are equally applicable to mirrorless cameras, and will help Canon move forward in that era.
Meanwhile, Nikon has been busy breeding a better horse and more efficient carriage, while Sony's car has gone from walking pace, to running, to now matching the horse, with much more potential for future development, and Canon's been developing their alternate car engine and associated technologies, in readiness to move into that market when the car finally outpaces the horse. Much of Nikon's horse-breeding and carriage development, eking every last bit of performance out of it before it becomes obsolete, won't be applicable when they eventually move to cars, while most of Canon's work will - while Sony decided to abandon the horse at the first whiff of petrol, moving into that emerging market and building up market share and technology before anyone else realised the horse was approaching its use-by date.
It is telling that Canon's new 70-200/2.8 is a bare-minimum rehash of their existing lens, and that Canon didn't even bother teying to disguise that fact. It's just a way to keep SLR users happy and, perhaps, to simplify their manufacturing processes. Their real work is going into the mirrorless 70-200/2.8, with mechanics and electronics optimised for mirrorless focusing. They know they need it for a successful full-frame mirrorless launch, and will have it ready.
When do you think Nikon froze their mirrorless design and how could that have related to the D850 development?
They haven't frozen it. They just haven't proceeded as fast as the other two major players. Sony's bern making full-frame mirrorless cameras for five years. Canon's been using mirrorless-related technologies in their cameras and (especially) video cameras for just as long, with each iteration improving on the last - to make a full-frame mirrorless camera essentially involves repackaging the same technologies into a different body. In fact, the 6D2 can essentially be run as a full-frame mirrorless camera, retaining effective AF in live view mode, quite unlike the Nikon bodies (and Canon non-dual pixel bodies). Meanwhile, Nikon had not demonstrated most of the required technologies at all, and it took them until quite recently to even demonstrate a half-decent live view display.
When you write "They've never even made an on-sensor PDAF system.", are you aware that the Nikon 1 series was the first camera ever released with an on-sensor PDAF system? Besides, as was just pointed out to me by Jack, they have owned patents on this for 6 years... https://nikonrumors.com/2017/08/03/new-nikon-multi-pixel-pdaf-sensor-patent.aspx/
I meant full-frame. Sony's been doing it since the A7. Canon did it with the 6D2. Nikon has yet to do it.
True pixel-based PDAF systems, like Canon's dual pixel, are likely to be the future. Sony recently got a patent for something similar, but this is one area where Canon has the lead over Sony. Make it quad pixel and every pixel becomes a cross-type sensor. Sony's separate layer approach (using certain rows of AF pixels) may be better in dark conditions, but this could be surmounted by binning pixels together for the purpose of AF, effectively making bigger and more sensitive AF pixels.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/09/third-nikon-mirrorless-camera-teaser-released.aspx/#more-124463
Nikon is saying "we have invested all our knowledge in this camera". Looks like a high end release.
Cheers,
Bernard
Looks like high-end marketing speak. Every company says something along these lines, for every release. Canon said it every time they rehashed their tired old 18MP APS-C sensor in a new body.
-
Great then, you have nothing to fear, your Sony will remain on top. ;D
I’ll remain fact based when selecting my future mirrorless system. The better photography tool will win, regardless of the brand.
I am the first to applaud the work done by Canon on video AF. But, although their technology is mirrorless based onviously, I don’t think that their algos are so relevant for still. The focusing strategies are pretty different.
But anyway, I don’t really care.
Let the better company win.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great then, you have nothing to fear, your Sony will remain on top. ;D
I’ll remain fact based when selecting my future mirrorless system. The better photography tool will win, regardless of the brand.
I am the first to applaud the work done by Canon on video AF. But, although their technology is mirrorless based onviously, I don’t think that their algos are so relevant for still. The focusing strategies are pretty different.
But anyway, I don’t really care.
Let the better company win.
Cheers,
Bernard
Ok, I read the new comments very quickly so probably missing something... if that it is the case just let me know.
For me, being a Sony user (right now, I was a Canon user several years ago...), I wouldn't mind Nikon releasing an overall better mirrorless system that Sony, that will really force Sony (I'm not expecting Canon to do too much...) to improve... if they can. If Nikon releases a better system would I change to it? No... economically for me it is not possible. So I will buy a Sony 100-400 in the future (closing the lens that I typically use) and maybe in 10 years I see if it compensates to me to change to other system. But looking forward to what Nikon has to offer and how the technology evolves... to satisfy the nerd inside of me :)
-
It's down to bandwidth and frame rate.
In SLRs, there's no connection between the sensor and the AF system. You can put the same sensor in two different cameras with two completely different AF systems, or vice versa. The 1Ds3 had the same AF system as the 1D3, while the D3x had the same AF system as the D3. You could easily put a D850 sensor into a D5 and get the same AF performance.
But people who need the fastest possible AF often need frame rate more than resolution. And that applies just as much to SLRs as mirrorless cameras. The 1Ds3 could only manage 5fps. The D3x only managed around 2-3fps. Even with top-tier AF systems, if you can only manage slow frame rates, you don't have much of an action camera. And, for a non-action camera, the AF system is largely wasted. It's only in the latest generation of bodies - A7r3 and D850 - that resolution and speed been combined to achieve both high resolution and acceptable frame rates for fast action.
In mirrorless systems there is a connection between the resolution and the AF system. The A9 is able to read the image from the sensor in a rate of 60 images per second, that information is used by the LSI chip in the sensor of the camera to help the tracking algorithms. I'm assuming that this sensor being 24 megapixels "only", they are able to reach that speed... in something like 42 megapixeles they are probably not going to be able to do it (right now). So, less megapixeles, you are able to read faster the image from the sensor and use the whole image to improve the tracking algorithms for things like Eye AF.
-
This is apparently indeed the case with Sony’s implementation, but nothing would prevent a different implementation where the AF pixels are read at a higher speed than the imaging ones (a multiple obviously).
In fact I am wondering whether the Sony implementation is really the one you are describing for the PDAD based focusing phase. It may be the case if a final contrast based AF is needed. But this also is technological in nature.
In other words, I believe that a lot can still be invented here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How has Canon’s greater resources helped them deliver best in class DSLRs to their customers these past 8 years?
...
Cheers,
Bernard
Canon took a different approach these last few years by making bucket loads of money, not having to restructure, not having to take huge write downs, not having to close down plants.
-
But anyway, I don’t really care.
Let the better company win.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oh but you do Bernard. Your talk about Nikon being the greatest says so.
-
Canon took a different approach these last few years by making bucket loads of money, not having to restructure, not having to take huge write downs, not having to close down plants.
Yes, they did. How did it help the photographers who had trusted them is the question I am interested in as a photographer.
When I put my invester hat on I’ll think about them... but will probably reach the same conclusion...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Oh but you do Bernard. Your talk about Nikon being the greatest says so.
What have I written about Nikon that isn’t factual?
I’ll be more than happy to stand corrected... because I really don’t care.
There are many things I care about, don’t get me wrong. I care a lot about the sharpness of my images, never post an image that is not tack sharp at 100% on screen even if nobody would notice at typical web sizes, I care about sorting out my trash, I care about the way my daughter treats people, I care about world politics, the selfish decisions of Trump and how they must inspire millions of kids to act stupidely themselves,... the list is pretty much endless... but whether Nikon manages to top Sony with their first mirrorless body is something I find intriguing, but I don’t care who wins even if I think Nikon probably will.
I don’t know how old you are nor what kind of experiences you have been through in life, but there comes a time when you just deal with who you are. You just say things the way you feel them. I have mostly reached this stage. If I cared I would just say it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The future, it is difficult to predict...
Best regards
Erik
What have I written about Nikon that isn’t factual?
I’ll be more than happy to stand corrected... because I really don’t care.
There are many things I care about, don’t get me wrong. I care a lot about the sharpness of my images, never post an image that is not tack sharp at 100% on screen even if nobody would notice at typical web sizes, I care about sorting out my trash, I care about the way my daughter treats people, I care about world politics, the selfish decisions of Trump and how they must inspire millions of kids to act stupidely themselves,... the list is pretty much endless... but whether Nikon manages to top Sony with their first mirrorless body is something I find intriguing, but I don’t care who wins even if I think Nikon probably will.
I don’t know how old you are nor what kind of experiences you have been through in life, but there comes a time when you just deal with who you are. You just say things the way you feel them. I have mostly reached this stage. If I cared I would just say it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What have I written about Nikon that isn’t factual?
I’ll be more than happy to stand corrected... because I really don’t care.
There are many things I care about, don’t get me wrong. I care a lot about the sharpness of my images, never post an image that is not tack sharp at 100% on screen even if nobody would notice at typical web sizes, I care about sorting out my trash, I care about the way my daughter treats people, I care about world politics, the selfish decisions of Trump and how they must inspire millions of kids to act stupidely themselves,... the list is pretty much endless... but whether Nikon manages to top Sony with their first mirrorless body is something I find intriguing, but I don’t care who wins even if I think Nikon probably will.
I don’t know how old you are nor what kind of experiences you have been through in life, but there comes a time when you just deal with who you are. You just say things the way you feel them. I have mostly reached this stage. If I cared I would just say it.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, that last paragraph: perfectly put, and where, if we are lucky, we eventually reach.
But beware: with it comes the award of curmudgeon and the accompanying smile that says yep, that's okay too!
-
Too bad you boys had to wait until you are on in age to deal with just who you are. Did you wear a masquerade when younger?
I'm on in age as well and it hasn't changed my approach to life and my outlook of myself. I never cared what other people thought of me and still do not...everyone is entitled to their opinion...even the ones that are wrong. ;D
-
Bernard, that last paragraph: perfectly put, and where, if we are lucky, we eventually reach.
But beware: with it comes the award of curmudgeon and the accompanying smile that says yep, that's okay too!
Yep! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is apparently indeed the case with Sony’s implementation, but nothing would prevent a different implementation where the AF pixels are read at a higher speed than the imaging ones (a multiple obviously).
In fact I am wondering whether the Sony implementation is really the one you are describing for the PDAD based focusing phase. It may be the case if a final contrast based AF is needed. But this also is technological in nature.
In other words, I believe that a lot can still be invented here.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Benard,
What you said it could be very true... my speculation why Sony maybe does it this way, and this goes very very far away of what I could know about CMOS sensor technology and AF technology, so, take it with a very big grain of salt:
- For things like Eye AF or Face detection my speculation is that they are using information from more than the PDAF pixels. PDAF pixels give information about where to move the lens, rest of pixels information about what the camera is seeing.
- Not sure if the Sony tracking algorithms use this. But since they can read the whole image (or a big number of pixels), for what you can understand from Sony presentations, it will be interesting for Sony engineers to use all the info improve their algorithms.
I suspect that the ability or read quick an image in Sony sensor does not come from the need of better AF reading (it is a benefit to it...), I think their major objective was to reduce EVF lag and eliminate blackout (one of the major criticism for action photography that they had before the A9). Also, for video and action photography, this minimizes the effect of rolling shutter (curiously enough... Sony with the A9 did a Canon like move... not allowing to have Picture Profiles for video on it).
Now other thing, again, big grain of salt here, reading only the PDAF pixels will probably require specific control lines for those pixels in sensor design, this can complicate the design of the metal connections of the sensor chip. Although... after writing this, and thinking of the stacked sensor design of the A9 and A7 III chip, since the image is very quickly copied to a DRAM chip, access to the PDAF pixels only will be just addressing those memory address that it should be very quick...
As I said in this thread or in other one talking about mirrorless... I have a very big nerdy side :D
Regards,
David
-
Face recognition is always done over the entire sensor (or at least over a big subset of pixels), to run Neural Network algorithms. Even cheap mobiles do it that way.
Regards
-
Face recognition is always done over the entire sensor (or at least over a big subset of pixels), to run Neural Network algorithms. Even cheap mobiles do it that way.
Regards
Most certainly yes, but this isn’t incompatible with having dedicated faster read out of the AF pixels.
The position of the eye in the image doesn’t change much in 1/30th of a second (assuming it is the time needed for a full read out).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
LOL (https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/10/nikon-mirrorless-camera-memes-only-for-people-with-a-sense-of-humor.aspx/)
Nikon mirrorless camera memes (only for people with a sense of humor)
Peter
--
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/12/this-is-how-the-back-of-the-nikon-mirrorless-camera-looks.aspx/#more-124550
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have to admit, I have never seen fanboy syndrome so well illustrated anywhere else.
Congratulations, LuLa and Nikon or, in the interests of fair play: Nikon and LuLa.
Rob
-
I have to admit, I have never seen fanboy syndrome so well illustrated anywhere else.
Congratulations, LuLa and Nikon or, in the interests of fair play: Nikon and LuLa.
I have just realized, with the amount of amazement you can guess, that... we have never defined clearly what a fanboy is... ;D
So... I'll start: to me a fanboy is an individual whose love for a brand makes forget all notion of objectivity. The fanboy isn't as much defined by the way he speaks about his brand of choice, as it is by the derogative way he speaks about other equipments, over emphasizing their issues and minimizing their qualities. A major manifestation of this being trolling in un-releted forum posts. For instance, bringing in insistently Sony topics in a Nikon thread,...
Can we agree on this totally objective definition? 8)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have just realized, with the amount of amazement you can guess, that... we have never defined clearly what a fanboy is... ;D
So... I'll start: to me a fanboy is an individual whose love for a brand makes forget all notion of objectivity. The fanboy isn't as much defined by the way he speaks about his brand of choice, as it is by the derogative way he speaks about other equipments, over emphasizing their issues and minimizing their qualities. A major manifestation of this being trolling in un-releted forum posts. For instance, bringing in insistently Sony topics in a Nikon thread,...
Can we agree on this totally objective definition? 8)
Cheers,
Bernard
Sounds about right
-
I have just realized, with the amount of amazement you can guess, that... we have never defined clearly what a fanboy is... ;D
So... I'll start: to me a fanboy is an individual whose love for a brand makes forget all notion of objectivity. The fanboy isn't as much defined by the way he speaks about his brand of choice, as it is by the derogative way he speaks about other equipments, over emphasizing their issues and minimizing their qualities. A major manifestation of this being trolling in un-releted forum posts. For instance, bringing in insistently Sony topics in a Nikon thread,...
Can we agree on this totally objective definition? 8)
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't see why not.
;-)
-
I have just realized, with the amount of amazement you can guess, that... we have never defined clearly what a fanboy is... ;D
So... I'll start: to me a fanboy is an individual whose love for a brand makes forget all notion of objectivity. The fanboy isn't as much defined by the way he speaks about his brand of choice, as it is by the derogative way he speaks about other equipments, over emphasizing their issues and minimizing their qualities. A major manifestation of this being trolling in un-releted forum posts. For instance, bringing in insistently Sony topics in a Nikon thread,...
Can we agree on this totally objective definition? 8)
Cheers,
Bernard
Not sure IMO. For me the necessary and sufficient condition for being a fanboy is more general than objectiveness related, being the lack of objectiveness just a symptom of fanboyism, not the definition itself.
A fanboy is a user who will always want/desire/prefer/need (I still don't have the right word clear here) his favourite, and usually owned, camera brand to prevail over the rest, no matter if that means being objective or illusional, no matter if that objectively (economically, in terms of performance,...) benefits him or not. It's about having some kind of irrational empathic feeling for the corporation which manufactures his stuff.
In this way a fanboy is very close to a massive sport supporter (football, basketball,... team sports in general), some particular car brand lover (I declare myself an Alfa Romeo nearly fanboy for instance), or even those people with deep patriotic roots, which is probably one of the least rational forms of fanboyism since most patriots were just born in their home country by coincidence; only voluntarily chosen immigrant patriots make really sense.
Regards
-
I don't see why not.
;-)
A thing I’ve noticed with fanboys is that they get very upset if asked to think for themselves. I suspect the basic deal is that they don’t want to have to take responsibility for their own life and have handed it over to an authority figure in exchange for loyalty. So long as they remain loyal the authority figure will run their life for them. Hence the barmy overcompensating brand loyalty. Thus the most terrifying thing for the fanboy is having to stand alone, start over and ... change brands.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/13/breaking-nikon-z6-and-z7-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras-and-three-lenses-coming-on-august-23rd-z-noct-nikkor-58mm-f-0-95-lens-to-be-announced-later.aspx/#more-124577
Chees,
Bernard
-
Not sure IMO. For me the necessary and sufficient condition for being a fanboy is more general than objectiveness related, being the lack of objectiveness just a symptom of fanboyism, not the definition itself.
A fanboy is a user who will always want/desire/prefer/need (I still don't have the right word clear here) his favourite, and usually owned, camera brand to prevail over the rest, no matter if that means being objective or illusional, no matter if that objectively (economically, in terms of performance,...) benefits him or not. It's about having some kind of irrational empathic feeling for the corporation which manufactures his stuff.
In this way a fanboy is very close to a massive sport supporter (football, basketball,... team sports in general), some particular car brand lover (I declare myself an Alfa Romeo nearly fanboy for instance), or even those people with deep patriotic roots, which is probably one of the least rational forms of fanboyism since most patriots were just born in their home country by coincidence; only voluntarily chosen immigrant patriots make really sense.
Is fanboyism an intrinsic preliminary condition irrelevant of (potentially still unconfirmed) reality?
For instance, am I/will I still be a Nikon fanboy if the Z6 ends up having the best (mirrorless) AF on the market? Do I become a skilled forecaster? Or is the fact that I mention the possibility - based on credible rumors and past track record - of a bright future for Nikon an unmistakable proof that I am a fanboy?
Would I be more of a fanboy if I trashed talked Sony (which I have never ever done - I love Sony and many of their products including their a7/a9 cameras even if I don’t find them perfect)?
In other words, I am fully comfortable with being called a Nikon fan, but I would rather leave the boy part to those whose forecasts have been clouded by their own lack of objectivity (not talking about you). ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To save a click - copied from nikonrumors.
Nikon Z6: high speed, low light model (24MP)
Nikon Z7: high-resolution model (45MP)
The new Nikon mirrorless lenses could be called Z-Nikkor.
There will be a Nikon Z-Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/0.95 lens! Fourth Z-mount lens and it will be announced after August 23rd.
Lenses should be 24-70mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8 and one more wide angle lens (24mm f/1.8 or 28mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8).
Assuming I decide to bite after Photokina, I'd probably pickup the high res body + the fast wide with the 58mm to follow when funds allow.
-
Assuming I decide to bite after Photokina, I'd probably pickup the high res body + the fast wide with the 58mm to follow when funds allow.
I will personally probably wait for a thorough AF comparisons relative to Sony. AF will IMHO make or break this camera and is by far the single most important aspect (for stills for me).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I will personally probably wait for a thorough AF comparisons relative to Sony. AF will IMHO make or break this camera and is by far the single most important aspect (for stills for me).
Cheers,
Bernard
By "after Photokina" I mean once everything has been released and tested. I should have been more specific.
-
By "after Photokina" I mean once everything has been released and tested. I should have been more specific.
Got it, thanks. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is fanboyism an intrinsic preliminary condition irrelevant of (potentially still unconfirmed) reality?
For instance, am I/will I still be a Nikon fanboy if the Z6 ends up having the best (mirrorless) AF on the market? Do I become a skilled forecaster? Or is the fact that I mention the possibility - based on credible rumors and past track record - of a bright future for Nikon an unmistakable proof that I am a fanboy?
Would I be more of a fanboy if I trashed talked Sony (which I have never ever done - I love Sony and many of their products including their a7/a9 cameras even if I don’t find them perfect)?
In other words, I am fully comfortable with being called a Nikon fan, but I would rather leave the boy part to those whose forecasts have been clouded by their own lack of objectivity (not talking about you). ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
The accuracy of your predictions have nothing to do with being or not being a fan boy. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
-
I will personally probably wait for a thorough AF comparisons relative to Sony. AF will IMHO make or break this camera and is by far the single most important aspect.
Cheers,
Bernard
Agree.
The other issue is the lack of f/2.8 zooms at launch. These are the bread and butter for many categories of photographers. No matter how good the AF is, if the right lenses aren't available, people won't buy it. A 58/0.95 is no substitute - this is a lens of limited appeal, useful for artsy creative types doing street photography (although how much more useful than a f/1.4 lens of the same focal length is questionable) but absolutely useless for the vast majority of work.
No-one is going to buy existing F-mount lenses to use them on an adapter, in full knowledge that Z-mount equivalents are likely to come out in a few years time and that their lenses are likely to lose a lot of their value as Z-mount takes over and SLRs start to disappear. Those who don't already own them won't go out and buy them, but will either stay on the sidelines or go and buy the Sony system instead, where mirrorless f/2.8 zooms are already available.
-
The other issue is the lack of f/2.8 zooms at launch. These are the bread and butter for many categories of photographers. No matter how good the AF is, if the right lenses aren't available, people won't buy it. A 58/0.95 is no substitute - this is a lens of limited appeal, useful for artsy creative types doing street photography (although how much more useful than a f/1.4 lens of the same focal length is questionable) but absolutely useless for the vast majority of work.
No-one is going to buy existing F-mount lenses to use them on an adapter, in full knowledge that Z-mount equivalents are likely to come out in a few years time and that their lenses are likely to lose a lot of their value as Z-mount takes over and SLRs start to disappear. Those who don't already own them won't go out and buy them, but will either stay on the sidelines or go and buy the Sony system instead, where mirrorless f/2.8 zooms are already available.
Yes... I am wondering how Sony was able to sell a7/a7r as well as a7ii/a7rii bodies during the first 2.4 years of the system's existence before their added the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 zooms... ;)
Could it be that you were among those that bought one of these during that period? ;D
For the 24-70 f2.8, adapting the existing lens is certainly a valid option for existing Nikon pro users, looking into replacing their DSLR by a Z6/Z7, but my guess is that many will add first the z cameras to their existing line up to benefit from the smaller size. For these a 24-70 f4 is a reasonable solution. Besides, Nikon has been producing 24-70 f2.8 lenses of high quality for more than 10 years, it shouldn't be very hard for them to design one for the Z. It isn't like if a 24-70 f2.8 were an innovative lens in anyway.
My view is that there would be very little value in getting a dedicated 70-200 f2.8 for mirrorless, since the the Nikon is already the best zoom available and the size of the Sony is similar anyway.
If their marketing dpt learned something - but this is a major IF - they will probably release a lens roadmap together with the cameras. Do you think it would be smart for them to do so? Would you like to see such a roadmap as a potential Z camera buyer?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes... I am wondering how Sony was able to sell a7/a7r as well as a7ii/a7rii bodies during the first 2.4 years of the system's existence before their added the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 zooms... ;)
Could it be that you were among those that bought one of these during that period? ;D
1. Canon had a major weakness in sensors, not having one greater than 22MP and with a DR and pattern noise issue at base ISO. There was an opening for Sony to exploit this - those who care most about resolution and DR also often care the least about AF. This opening no longer exists for Nikon - anyone with a Canon lens collection who wanted a better sensor has already moved to Sony.
2. In 2013, there was no choice. If you wanted a full-frame mirrorless camera, it was Sony or nothing. Sony did not have f/2.8 zooms in a mirrorless format, but neither did anyone else. Today, it would be a choice between a more mature system with fast native zooms and primes, or a fledgling system with very little.
3. When the A7r was launched, Sony could use size as a selling point. Even if fast zooms and the typical pro lenses weren't available, the system had a significant size advantage over SLRs. Not an issue for many users, but a big selling point for a significant subset. Nikon can't use it as a selling point this time - Sony cameras are just as small, using the right lenses, and there are a whole lot more small Sony mirrorless lenses available than Nikon.
Essentially, Sony managed to get a flawed camera system into the marketplace by being first, then having a few years to tinker with it and expand the lens lineup, and due to Canon's weakness. Nikon doesn't have that luxury this time. As Nikon should well know from their DSLR experience, there is a huge benefit to being first. If you're not first, you have to be perfect - and that's the whole system, not just the camera.
For the 24-70 f2.8, adapting the existing lens is certainly a valid option for existing Nikon pro users, looking into replacing their DSLR by a Z6/Z7, but my guess is that many will add first the z cameras to their existing line up to benefit from the smaller size. For these a 24-70 f4 is a reasonable solution. Besides, Nikon has been producing 24-70 f2.8 lenses of high quality for more than 10 years, it shouldn't be very hard for them to design one for the Z. It isn't like if a 24-70 f2.8 were an innovative lens in anyway.
My view is that there would be very little value in getting a dedicated 70-200 f2.8 for mirrorless, since the the Nikon is already the best zoom available and the size of the Sony is similar anyway.
Doesn't help anyone not already invested in the Nikon system or entice anyone not already a Nikon user. No-one is going to buy an F-mount lens that doesn't fit Z-mount, for the express purpose of using it on an adapter. Not only would that mean buying into a system that's reaching its use-by date, with a lens likely to lose much of its value as F-mount loses support, but it also means giving up a good chunk of the lens' performance.
Even with a perfect adapter, containing an off-sensor PDAF system designed to drive legacy lenses, you'd lose a third of a stop of light and introduce reflections due to the transparent mirror. In reality, tolerances in the adapter and mount would introduce alignment errors that may be outside the capacity of microadjustment to compensate for, and, worse, may be slightly different every time you put on the lens. Without the mirror and off-sensor PDAF, you'd eliminate the light loss and alignment errors, but lose AF speed and accuracy in trying to drive a lens with motors not designed with mirrorless cameras in mind.
If their marketing dpt learned something - but this is a major IF - they will probably release a lens roadmap together with the cameras. Do you think it would be smart for them to do so? Would you like to see such a roadmap as a potential Z camera buyer?
Cheers,
Bernard
That would be the smartest thing they could possibly do. 'We don't have a 70-200/2.8 now, but we will have one in March 2020' is a lot more sellable than 'We don't have a 70-200/2.8 and Sony do, but you should buy our system anyway because, uh, we're Nikon and we've been making cameras for a hundred years and, uh, I guess that means we're just better...' But they need to stick to it - any delays or cancellations is just going to make people doubt their ability to fulfil their commitments. Also, they need to keep a close eye on what Canon and Sony do - there's no point in committing to bring out a particular lens in five years' time if Canon and Sony have it ready for release tomorrow.
-
All good points you make Shodowblade.
Regarding the idea of Nikon giving a roadmap reagarding future lenses and other system developements. That would be great. It would also be a change in marketing philosophy from Nikon. At the moment they seem to think secrecy and feeding the rumor mill is the way to go. It might drive the hype but it’s not at all reassuring if you are planning a future in mirrorless cameras. Imagine you jump into Nikon and then no one makes lenses for the system other than Nikon because they so effectively close the lens mount to reverse engineering and then they take forever to roll out the lenses. You will be screwed. At this moment it is all going to be on faith and hope.
-
OMG... you are right, the Z system is doomed. ;D
Nikon employees should just quit and go on a long vacation, secretely shooting with Sony cameras and those great super compact f2.8 zoom lenses offering zero value compared to their DSLR counterparts.
What if...
- The Nikon sensor were close to one stop better noisewise than the Sony one?
- Adapters were released that enabled the remaining Canon users to adapt their lenses on the Z with good performance?
- The Nikon AF mirrorless technology were able to drive natively F mount lenses without loss of performance?
- Nikon did come up with native f2.8 zooms within 6 months?
- ...
There is a long list of possible positive options that would mitigate the lack of f2.8 zooms at launch. I don't understand why you don't give these more weight in your thinking process?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Calm down Bernard. No one is saying it’s doomed. People are just pointing out the pitfalls and thinking about some of the issues. It’s interesting.
It’s also obvious that Sony owners will be commenting here. They are after all the biggest group with experience using mirrorless cameras. As a Sony user I admit to being intrigued by what Nikon will offer. I’m also curious about how they plan on overcoming the challenges inherent to offering a new system.
-
Calm down Bernard. No one is saying it’s doomed. People are just pointing out the pitfalls and thinking about some of the issues. It’s interesting.
No worries, I am very amused by all this. :)
But our friend Shadowblade is pretty much saying it is doomed, or at least it clearly feels like he hopes it is. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well as I said before. I hope Nikon knock it out the park. I will be upgrading my FF Sony I. About a year and the better Nikon do the better my new Sony will be.
-
OMG... you are right, the Z system is doomed. ;D
Nikon employees should just quit and go on a long vacation, secretely shooting with Sony cameras and those great super compact f2.8 zoom lenses offering zero value compared to their DSLR counterparts.
When did I say anything about 'super compact' f/2.8 lenses?
Sony has compact lenses if you want them. They also have f/2.8 zooms if you want them. Not both in the same lens.
At launch, Z-mount will have neither. No fast zooms, and only three lenses to choose from, all of whose bases Sony already cover and more. They're pushing into a crowded map, not empty space.
What if...
- The Nikon sensor were close to one stop better noisewise than the Sony one?
Except that they're not. We have recent sensors to compare - D850 and A7r3 (and the A7r3 is already a last-generation design, being the same as the A7r2 sensor, but with better supporting hardware). What makes you think Nikon has suddenly come up with a next-generation super-sensor that Sony can't match, while somehow still managing to manufacture that same sensor for Nikon?
- Adapters were released that enabled the remaining Canon users to adapt their lenses on the Z with good performance?
The same adapters already exist for Sony bodies. Most people who intend to switch and bring their lenses across have already switched. The rest are sticking with Canon SLRs and will only switch when they have to (when Canon ditches EF mount and goes mirrorless - provided they even ditch EF mount). The thing is, that doesn't mean they have to switch to Nikon - Canon, Nikon and Sony mirrorless systems would all be valid options, similarly-performing adapters would be available for all, but only Sony currently has a comprehensive list of native lenses.
- The Nikon AF mirrorless technology were able to drive natively F mount lenses without loss of performance?
You may as well ask for magic - this is an engineering impossibility.
SLR lenses have motors designed for single, large movements, not continuous, small, rapid movements. They can't take advantage of all the focus tools used by mirrorless bodies, which combine PDAF, CDAF and AI-based pattern recognition techniques at the same time. To focus the lenses as if they were on an SLR, you'd need an adapter with its own off-sensor AF system - essentially a pellicle mirror, similar to Sony's A99II. But putting this mirror in the light path costs you about a third of a stop of light and introduces reflections. So, you gain AF performance, but lose optical performance. If you don't have a separate AF system, you're then back to using the camera to drive the lens in a way it wasn't designed for, in which case you can't expect performance any better than Metabones or Sigma adapters connecting Canon/Sigma lenses to current Sony cameras.
In addition, adapters introduce tolerances which aren't there with a native lens. Due to slight movement in the system ('no movement' doesn't exist unless you weld them together), these may be slightly different each time you attach the lens. On-sensor focus systems can negate these, since they focus using the imaging sensor, but off-sensor focus systems require microadjustment, and it's hard to adjust for something when the required value is slightly different every time you attach the lens.
Finally, how much is this super-adapter going to cost? Not only do you have the body of an adapter and basic electronics - expensive enough as they are - but now you've also added a fragile and expensive pellicle mirror, more supporting electronics and an AF system that's, at minimum, the equivalent of the D850 or D500, if not the D5 (there would be little point in using it if it weren't to match the performance of those cameras). Now you've got an adapter which probably costs half as much as a high-end camera - all to attach a bunch of what would then be legacy lenses to the new system and achieve performance inferior to what you could achieve by attaching those same lenses to a D850 or D5 in the first place.
It would probably work out a lot better if Nikon gave away these adapters for free with the new cameras, as Sony did with Metabones adapters for the first few years, but, due to the complexity and cost of these adapters and Nikon's smaller size and near-complete dependence on the still camera market, it would be a much more expensive proposition for them to do so.
- Nikon did come up with native f2.8 zooms within 6 months?
If these were coming, they'd have announced them. F/2.8 lenses are the bread and butter a large chunk of working photographers - wedding shooters, event shooters, photojournalists, etc. If they were coming any time soon, Nikon would want potential buyers to know about them.
There is a long list of possible positive options that would mitigate the lack of f2.8 zooms at launch. I don't understand why you don't give these more weight in your thinking process?
Because most of them are either very unlikely or technically impossible.
-
But our friend Shadowblade is pretty much saying it is doomed, or at least it clearly feels like he hopes it is. ;D
I'm an investor. Sentimentality doesn't make for a good investment choice.
Sony got a three-lap head start in the mirrorless race. Canon and Nikon are starting the race at around the same time, but Canon has a lot more horsepower, a better-equipped pit crew, experience building cars for races in two other categories, and, even if they lose this one, have cars in other races for backup. Nikon has one car, in one race, with less resources than the other teams.
This isn't Cool Runnings or Dodgeball. I wouldn't be betting on Nikon.
-
I'm an investor. Sentimentality doesn't make for a good investment choice.
Sony got a three-lap head start in the mirrorless race. Canon and Nikon are starting the race at around the same time, but Canon has a lot more horsepower, a better-equipped pit crew, experience building cars for races in two other categories, and, even if they lose this one, have cars in other races for backup. Nikon has one car, in one race, with less resources than the other teams.
This isn't Cool Runnings or Dodgeball. I wouldn't be betting on Nikon.
That's like saying you wouldn't bet on Ferrari because they only do F1, and by the same token people must be bonkers "investing" in Fuji.
-
That's like saying you wouldn't bet on Ferrari because they only do F1, and by the same token people must be bonkers "investing" in Fuji.
No, it's saying that you wouldn't bet on a racing team because one of their competitors got a head start in the race (Sony) and the other (Canon) is three times the size, with a more powerful engine (way bigger R&D budget) and more experience building cars (they've been putting mirrorless-related technologies in their still and video cameras for years). Not to say they can't score a few wins here and there, particularly if they stick to niche areas (like Leica) - just that they won't be able to keep up in the long run, unless one or both of the others does something really stupid.
-
No, it's saying that you wouldn't bet on a racing team because one of their competitors got a head start in the race (Sony) and the other (Canon) is three times the size, with a more powerful engine (way bigger R&D budget) and more experience building cars (they've been putting mirrorless-related technologies in their still and video cameras for years). Not to say they can't score a few wins here and there, particularly if they stick to niche areas (like Leica) - just that they won't be able to keep up in the long run, unless one or both of the others does something really stupid.
One question you have never answered... how has Canon's large resources helped them help their photographers these past years? As an investor, do you just based your beliefs on theory or do you also look at facts?
How do you explain the fact that the D850 is clearly superior to the 5DMKIV/5DR, like the D810 was clearly superior to the 5DMKIII?
Or... do you disagree with this assessment?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One question you have never answered... how has Canon's large resources helped them help their photographers these past years? As an investor, do you just based your beliefs on theory or do you also look at facts?
Canon doesn't exist to please photographers. It exists to make money for shareholders. And it's done a far better job of it than Nikon these past ten or so years.
A strong company is in a much better position to put more resources into R&D and develop stronger products in the future, further increasing their strength versus the competition. A weaker company, with fewer resources, may win some battles - even a string of them - but, ultimately, can't out-develop a stronger, better-resourced one, assuming that one party isn't completely incompetent. Corporate and military history attests to this (including the history of incompetent leadership squandering a position of strength to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - see Kodak for an example).
Canon has released very little high-end photo gear these last few years. But they've developed a lot of technologies that will serve them well in mirrorless cameras to come - dual pixel AF, EVFs, lens motors and focusing systems, diffraction optics, processors, higher-resolution sensors, etc. These have shown up piecemeal in various Canon products - video cameras, mirrorless crop cameras, lenses, even non-photographic products - but, so far, they haven't been all put together into a single product (full-frame mirrorless system), likely because other key technologies weren't ready yet. They've been coasting along on their large market share through the end of the SLR era, while ploughing their resources into developing technologies needed for the next, mirrorless era. And now, with that era beginning, they have a lot of patents, prototypes and more mature technologies (dual pixel AF first and foremost) that will allow them to hit the ground running.
Meanwhile, Nikon's been busy perfecting the ultimate horse and cart, expending their resources developing technologies that let them release better products in the present, but which don't help them much with mirrorless cameras. They needed to do this - without all the advances Nikon made which allowed them to pull ahead quality-wise after Canon started giving up on SLR (probably after the 5D2 or 7D), Nikon, which was already behind at the time, would have fallen way behind already. But now, with SLRs reaching their end, they're having to start from scratch with mirrorless, on even ground with Canon and Sony, and likely lack the resources to do this at the same speed.
Basically, Canon and Sony can afford to make missteps and chase dead ends - they have the resources to do that. Nikon needs to make and execute their plans perfectly. There's just much less of a margin for error on their part.
-
Color me un-impressed... but we will see.
I hope you are right. I would love to see an amazing mirrorless camera from Canon, but I haven't been impressed since the 1Ds. And I am looking at this as a potential customers of theirs, a photographer.
If you are right that they would't work for me but their share holders instead, then I am not sure I would invest in their system moving forward.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Would also like to see Canon pull one out the hat. I remember taking delivery of my 1Ds. It was a jaw dropping moment. For me the most important camera I have owned. Prior to that I had owned 3 Kodak digital cameras and a Kodak back so digital was hardly new to me.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Canon nailed it again with the mirrorless release.
-
How do you explain the fact that the D850 is clearly superior to the 5DMKIV/5DR, like the D810 was clearly superior to the 5DMKIII?
Bad examples - D850 was released two years after the 5Ds and a year after the 5D4, while the D810 was released two years after the 5D3. D800 vs 5D3 is a better comparison.
Regardless, the point stands. After the 5D2 and 7D were released, Canon's pretty much been focusing exclusively on video technologies and dual-use technologies. Even the 1Dx2's AF system is materially similar to the 7D's - there's just a lot more of it. They had the lion's share of the market, and were happy to coast along while developing the technologies required to dominate the next era. At that stage - even before Sony had made a full-frame camera - they had identified Sony, not Nikon, as their real rival, and worked towards that end.
The thing is, a mirrorless camera is pretty much a video camera with a higher-resolution sensor and a slower frame rate. With future action cameras, even that distinction becomes blurred - action stills cameras are getting faster and faster, while video cameras are getting higher and higher resolution. At some point, they meet - probably at 8k's 39MP/25fps. And guess what Canon's spent the past ten years developing?
I can't say whether Canon or Sony will come out on top in the mirrorless era - at present, it looks like Sony is in a better position, but only because they have a rapidly-maturing product line while Canon has yet to show its cards, and the current state of its developments. That could change with Canon's first release. But, no matter how good the Z6/Z7 turn out to be, it's unlikely that Nikon will come out on top, unless you define 'top' in a Leica-like, niche, prestige product sense rather than a commercially successful/technologically superior sense. In the long run, they may do better by designing and making glass for the two big players (and for other optical systems - cars, security systems, robots, etc.), in a similar vein to Sigma or Zeiss, than by making cameras themselves. There's big money in optics - Sony knows this, through its sensor business (photographic, non-phone cameras being a tiny, and shrinking, proportion of their imaging business) - but a sensor needs a lens to go with it, and Nikon makes lenses better than most.
-
Frankly, I would love to see Nikon’s approach to mirrorless be a bit more niche than mass market. Products with very clear point of view in design and usability can be excellent, market-leading products. Apple’s entire history bears this out.
Why does this discussion always seem to sound like everybody’s SLRs are going to expire in 30 days, and the choices available at that moment will be the whole future?
The D850, the D5, the 5Dx et al will serve pros for some time to come. Meanwhile I hope mirrorless doesn’t come a just a one-for-one replacement for what we have now. I hope there are more innovations in how we think about and are able to use cameras. For example:
The most interesting lenses for the A7 series (to me) are the Zeiss Loxias. The combination of manual focus with electronic activation of camera features is new and a lovely way of working.
The Leica SLs 24-90mm zoom is a much more interesting range than the much-copied 24-70. That extra reach is just so useful in so many situations. It’s well worth giving up constant aperture for that.
The company that makes a full-frame camera with very good video autofocus and high-bit 10-bit 4:2:2 recording in a camera this size will make a huge splash in the video world. If that camera does low light well, the ripples will be even bigger. I own Sony cameras because of their video capabilities, and the recording specs are only barely good enough. I’d switch in a heartbeat to a camera with similar specs, but a better codec. So would many others.
For myself, I don’t see replacing DSLR with mirrorless just yet. I see having an using both for the immediate future. Plenty of time for a system to get its feet on the ground if it’s done well.
-
Bad examples - D850 was released two years after the 5Ds and a year after the 5D4, while the D810 was released two years after the 5D3. D800 vs 5D3 is a better comparison.
Regardless, the point stands. After the 5D2 and 7D were released, Canon's pretty much been focusing exclusively on video technologies and dual-use technologies. Even the 1Dx2's AF system is materially similar to the 7D's - there's just a lot more of it. They had the lion's share of the market, and were happy to coast along while developing the technologies required to dominate the next era. At that stage - even before Sony had made a full-frame camera - they had identified Sony, not Nikon, as their real rival, and worked towards that end.
The thing is, a mirrorless camera is pretty much a video camera with a higher-resolution sensor and a slower frame rate. With future action cameras, even that distinction becomes blurred - action stills cameras are getting faster and faster, while video cameras are getting higher and higher resolution. At some point, they meet - probably at 8k's 39MP/25fps. And guess what Canon's spent the past ten years developing?
I can't say whether Canon or Sony will come out on top in the mirrorless era - at present, it looks like Sony is in a better position, but only because they have a rapidly-maturing product line while Canon has yet to show its cards, and the current state of its developments. That could change with Canon's first release. But, no matter how good the Z6/Z7 turn out to be, it's unlikely that Nikon will come out on top, unless you define 'top' in a Leica-like, niche, prestige product sense rather than a commercially successful/technologically superior sense. In the long run, they may do better by designing and making glass for the two big players (and for other optical systems - cars, security systems, robots, etc.), in a similar vein to Sigma or Zeiss, than by making cameras themselves. There's big money in optics - Sony knows this, through its sensor business (photographic, non-phone cameras being a tiny, and shrinking, proportion of their imaging business) - but a sensor needs a lens to go with it, and Nikon makes lenses better than most.
Why does everything have to be a race with winners and losers? It’s not most people’s experience at all. They buy a camera they like, they use it. Eventually it falls to bits and they buy another camera. That is all. There are going to be three main mirrorless companies. Each will offer their own unique blend of feature and IQ. None is going to be worse than any other. Take your pick. If someone can’t take a really first-rate image with a camera from any of them then the problem is not going to be with the equipment.
-
Why does everything have to be a race with winners and losers? It’s not most people’s experience at all. They buy a camera they like, they use it. Eventually it falls to bits and they buy another camera. That is all. There are going to be three main mirrorless companies. Each will offer their own unique blend of feature and IQ. None is going to be worse than any other. Take your pick. If someone can’t take a really first-rate image with a camera from any of them then the problem is not going to be with the equipment.
Yep
-
Thank you D. Fuller for a wise, positive and “non-partisan” perspective. Though big, fast lenses are needed sometimes by some photographers, far greater usable ISO speeds have greatly expanded the “use cases” for somewhat more compact kit like good quality f/4 or f/2.8-4 zoom lenses, and they can offer wider zoom ranges to 4x or even 5x. That seems one good market to target with the slightly more compact mirrorless systems.
And the more I look at Nikon’s teasers, the more it looks like a relatively compact body, just high enough to fit the rear screen and lens mount.
-
Why does everything have to be a race with winners and losers? It’s not most people’s experience at all. They buy a camera they like, they use it. Eventually it falls to bits and they buy another camera. That is all. There are going to be three main mirrorless companies. Each will offer their own unique blend of feature and IQ. None is going to be worse than any other. Take your pick. If someone can’t take a really first-rate image with a camera from any of them then the problem is not going to be with the equipment.
But hey, these discussions are seldom about images but almost invariably about "the next best thing in my life." Not the same consideration at all, and I agree with you entirely about making good images with what exists and has already existed for ages. If you can't make what we already have do it, then baby, nothing ever will!
Rob
-
Why does everything have to be a race with winners and losers? It’s not most people’s experience at all. They buy a camera they like, they use it. Eventually it falls to bits and they buy another camera. That is all. There are going to be three main mirrorless companies. Each will offer their own unique blend of feature and IQ. None is going to be worse than any other. Take your pick. If someone can’t take a really first-rate image with a camera from any of them then the problem is not going to be with the equipment.
Because business is a race with winners and losers. Selling cameras is a business. And all three companies are competing for the same market.
It's the same in any sector. Ford doesn't want you to buy Toyota - it wants you to buy Ford. And vice versa. Given that they operate in the same space, they have to compete for the same customers, by producing a better product and through better marketing. Each company funds innovations using money generated through sales (complemented by capital raisings and amplified through investments). If they have more money, they can fund more developments and produce a better product. This, in turn, can sell better, which funds more R&D, and so on, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This is one of the key reasons the majority of new companies fail, or are bought out by their larger rivals, and why almost all mature industries are dominated by a few large companies, generally in the same ballpark size, rather than by a large number of small companies. Smaller companies that survive usually do so by finding a niche that's inconvenient or impractical for a larger company to fill (e.g. being too small or too geographically remote to be worthwhile for the larger company) rather than by competing directly - see Leica in the luxury camera space.
Nikon could do well as a niche manufacturer, putting Sony sensors and other electronics into packages to cover markets too small and unique to be worthwhile for Canon and Sony, or as an optics manufacturer. They will have a hard time competing against the other two directly. The only reason they could compete in the DSLR era was because they had a long history as a film camera maker, from a time when camera bodies were much simpler, largely mechanical devices requiring far less R&D than now, that (prior to AF) could mostly be produced in a well-equipped machine shop, and had come out on top. The large reservoir of existing F-mount lenses and users served them well in the move to digital. Canon had greater resources and could fight back, and losing the full frame DSLR race was costly to Nikon in terms of market share. Now, Nikon is in the reverse position, with a smaller customer base than Canon, but is also smaller than Canon and Sony and less well-equipped to compete in contested territory on a level footing. They can compete if they manage to greatly expand their optics division, doing for optics what Sony did for sensors, with a huge customer base outside the camera world; they will struggle as a mostly camera-only, in-house-only (making optics only for Nikon products) company, except as a niche manufacturer.
-
But hey, these discussions are seldom about images but almost invariably about "the next best thing in my life." Not the same consideration at all, and I agree with you entirely about making good images with what exists and has already existed for ages. If you can't make what we already have do it, then baby, nothing ever will!
Rob
Because business and technical discussions are a lot more interesting. Anyone can take a photo, just like any car can drive at 100kph. It's a lot more interesting to talk about vehicle performance and compare characteristics between vehicles than about how all of them can go at the same 40kph on the congested freeway anyway.
-
Nikon could do well as a niche manufacturer, putting Sony sensors and other electronics into packages to cover markets too small and unique to be worthwhile for Canon and Sony, or as an optics manufacturer. They will have a hard time competing against the other two directly. The only reason they could compete in the DSLR era was because they had a long history as a film camera maker, from a time when camera bodies were much simpler, largely mechanical devices requiring far less R&D than now, that (prior to AF) could mostly be produced in a well-equipped machine shop, and had come out on top. The large reservoir of existing F-mount lenses and users served them well in the move to digital. Canon had greater resources and could fight back, and losing the full frame DSLR race was costly to Nikon in terms of market share. Now, Nikon is in the reverse position, with a smaller customer base than Canon, but is also smaller than Canon and Sony and less well-equipped to compete in contested territory on a level footing. They can compete if they manage to greatly expand their optics division, doing for optics what Sony did for sensors, with a huge customer base outside the camera world; they will struggle as a mostly camera-only, in-house-only (making optics only for Nikon products) company, except as a niche manufacturer.
I now remember your numerous posts prior to the D850 release about how it was going to be a second tier device with an old sensor chip... the actual result... the best DSLR ever by a wide margin...
The only time in DSLR history where Canon was ahead technologically was the 1Ds till D3 period. Nikon was consistently in the lead before and after that for still photographers. On the body fromt, starting with the D30 and then 5Dmk II, Canon’s success always was in their ability to market well good quality cheaper cameras with low margins, a segment that we know is going to die soon from smart phone competition.
I am fully aware that Canon makes excellent glass, but so does Nikon. There is very little to tell them apart from a lens line-up/quality standpoint. It doesn’t look like Nikon didn’t have the R&D muscle, does it?
Overall, your theory that nikon doesn’t have the means to stay on top is absolutely not backed up by facts.
With all due respect, I am having serious doubts about your understanding of the current stakes and ability to forecast. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I now remember your numerous posts prior to the D850 release about how it was going to be a second tier device with an old sensor chip... the actual result... the best DSLR ever by a wide margin...
The only time in DSLR history where Canon was ahead technologically was the 1Ds till D3 period. Nikon was consistently in the lead before and after that for still photographers. On the body fromt, starting with the D30 and then 5Dmk II, Canon’s success always was in their ability to market well good quality cheaper cameras with low margins, a segment that we know is going to die soon from smart phone competition.
I am fully aware that Canon makes excellent glass, but so does Nikon. There is very little to tell them apart from a lens line-up/quality standpoint. It doesn’t look like Nikon didn’t have the R&D muscle, does it?
Overall, your theory that nikon doesn’t have the means to stay on top is absolutely not backed up by facts.
With all due respect, I am having serious doubts about your understanding of the current stakes and ability to forecast. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Can you point me to a photo you took with your Nikon system that could not be taken by a Sony or Canon system? Your whole view as "being on top" is getting comical as all these 3 manufactures make absolutely top notch gear, greatly exceeding the photographer's abilities.
What is obvious is Canon is much more "on top" when it comes to revenue and market share and Sony is greatly closing in on number 2 spot. Those are figures that have meaning...your view of "on top" is basically meaningless as the manufactures have all passed the "good enough" gate with their equipment.
-
Either Nikon isn't able to catch up with technology any longer... or technology is a commodity.
You guys can't have both... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I now remember your numerous posts prior to the D850 release about how it was going to be a second tier device with an old sensor chip... the actual result... the best DSLR ever by a wide margin...
Please link to the relevant quote. And note the difference between when I mentioned possibilities or options and when I said Nikon would do something. Could and would are two different words - mentioning a possibility, with varying probability, is different from making a prediction.
I'm starting to think you're just putting words in my mouth and having me say whatever happens to be convenient for you at the time.
The only time in DSLR history where Canon was ahead technologically was the 1Ds till D3 period. Nikon was consistently in the lead before and after that for still photographers. On the body fromt, starting with the D30 and then 5Dmk II, Canon’s success always was in their ability to market well good quality cheaper cameras with low margins, a segment that we know is going to die soon from smart phone competition.
Nikon had no answer for the 5D2 until the D800. That was a four year gap. Canon pretty much held the technological lead from the beginning of DSLRs until Nikon got hold of Exmor (and not the first-generation A900/D3x sensor). That was around the time Canon pretty much moved their focus to video and stopped/slowed any significant development of SLR-specific technologies.
I am fully aware that Canon makes excellent glass, but so does Nikon. There is very little to tell them apart from a lens line-up/quality standpoint. It doesn’t look like Nikon didn’t have the R&D muscle, does it?
Nikon is an optics company. Lenses are their forte. I'm talking about electronics here, not lenses.
-
Apologies, time's up my friends. I am not going to waste any second trying to dig old post of yours, I have a very vivid recollection of the negative campaign you performed about a year ago.
The D3x was announced a few months after the 5DII and was the first Exmor Nikon. 4 months, not 4 years. We speak about technology, right?
How about refocusing this thread on what it is about, which is the new Nikon mirrorless cameras?
Please feel free to talk about Sony and Canon elsewhere.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Apologies, time's up my friends. I am not going to waste any second trying to dig old post of yours, I have a very vivid recollection of the negative campaign you performed about a year ago.
The unreliability of memory and recollection as evidence are well-documented.
The D3x was announced a few months after the 5DII and was the first Exmor Nikon. 4 months, not 4 years. We speak about technology, right?
Did you miss the part where i said not the first-generation A900/D3x sensor, or did you just choose to ignore it and quote selectively? The first-generation Exmor had serious weaknesses at anything above base ISO, couldn't be considered a general-purpose sensor and wasn't a competitor for the 5D2 (which was used as much as a video camera as anything else).
-
The first-generation Exmor had serious weaknesses at anything above base ISO, couldn't be considered a general-purpose sensor and wasn't a competitor for the 5D2 (which was used as much as a video camera as anything else).
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3X-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III___485_483_436
If find the gap between your statements above and the facts presented by DxO Mark to be a good summary of the level of credibility your claims have. Final answer from me.
How about refocusing this thread on what it is about, which is the new Nikon mirrorless cameras?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3X-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III___485_483_436
If find the gap between your statements above and the facts presented by DxO Mark to be a good summary of the level of credibility your claims have. Final answer from me.
How about refocusing this thread on what it is about, which is the new Nikon mirrorless cameras?
Cheers,
Bernard
Your point being?
You've brought up a graph of DR measurements. No-one ever disputed Exmor's base ISO performance. But DR isn't everything. The point is, it had no DR advantage above ISO 400, produced noisy images at higher ISO, couldn't shoot video, had a barely-functional live view and came in a package costing three times as much as the 5D2 meant that it was not a competitor, but, rather, a specialised camera useful for a few applications, but with little utility as a general-purpose camera. Compare and contrast the number of wedding photographers using the D3x as opposed to the 5D2/D3/1Ds3/D700, for example.
Nikon did not come up with a high-resolution, high-DR camera which could also compete as a general-use camera until the D800, or even, arguably, the D810 (the D800 having a noticeable non-sensor performance deficit compared to the 5D3, which was made up for by Canon's sensor weakness).
-
If find the gap between your statements above and the facts presented by DxO Mark to be a good summary of the level of credibility your claims have. Final answer from me.
I had no idea of your previous discussions but I think this is ad-hominem, and anyway you both are becoming too personal. Let's enjoy what the Big Three have to offer us all.
My conviction is that both Canon and Nikon from their duopoly position have been deliberately lagging the development of the entire mirrorless market during the last decade. This quite disappointed me since mirrorless is the only kind of camera I've been interested in since the first Olympus PEN and Panasonics appeared on the market, nevertheless their numerous flaws, because those were the cameras that made sense to me (I always wondered why my 350D couldn't preview the scene just like my cheap Pentax Optio 50 did, and how DSLR users could be happy with that). But I don't blame Canon or Nikon, will be happy if they finally come with good ML FF systems.
Regards
-
My contention still stands that the less meaningful the differences between brands become in real-world use, the more heated the exchanges between "competing" brand acolytes tend to be. The need for tribe-based conflict is a weird, and often self-defeating, aspect of human nature.
-Dave-
-
Let me throw some (Japanese) market share stats in.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcnaward.jp%2Faward%2Fgallery%2Fdetail%2Fcontents_type%3D251%26date%3D2018&edit-text=
discussed in English at
https://www.dpreview.com/news/0966656912/2018-japan-bcn-camera-rankings-canon-dominates-dslrs-tops-sony-in-mirrorless
Note though that, contrary to the DPReview headline, [UPDATE: thank to Mike Broomfield for correcting my misundestanding—so the weirdness is the lede mentioning Canon and Sony—#2 and #3 in this category—while not mentioning Olympus being #1, again] the market share leader in mirrorless system cameras is Olympus at 27.7%, ahead of Canon at 21.3% which edges Sony into third place at 20.2% How Sony's third became "tops" in the DPReview headline is a mystery. Maybe by the unstated restriction to 36x24mm format! That comes to mind because there are several assertions in this thread that are false as stated, but become true if you ignore the far greater part of the ILC market that involves smaller formats.
BTW, it is not clear to me one way or the other whether Sony's "first mover" advantage in 36x24mm format mirrorless systems will be enough to guarantee that Nikon will forever trail Sony in that sector, let alone whether Sony will stay ahead of Canon if/when it enters that segment: consider how Canon's EOS-M mirrorless system with only a handful of dedicated EF-M lenses available has taken the lead over the Sony and Fujifilm in "APS-C" format mirrorless systems that were on the market earlier and (to me at least) are clearly more impressive. Factors like overall brand strength and the attraction of using same-brand SLR lenses with same-brand adaptors can favor the overall ILC leaders, Canon and Nikon.
-
Let me throw some (Japanese) market share stats in.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcnaward.jp%2Faward%2Fgallery%2Fdetail%2Fcontents_type%3D251%26date%3D2018&edit-text=
discussed in English at
https://www.dpreview.com/news/0966656912/2018-japan-bcn-camera-rankings-canon-dominates-dslrs-tops-sony-in-mirrorless
Note though that, contrary to the DPReview headline, the market share leader in mirrorless system cameras is Olympus at 27.7%, ahead of Canon at 21.3% which edges Sony into third place at 20.2% How Sony's third became "tops" in the DPReview headline is a mystery. Maybe by the unstated restriction to 36x24mm format! That comes to mind because there are several assertions in this thread that are false as stated, but become true if you ignore the far greater part of the ILC market that involves smaller formats.
BTW, it is not clear to me one way or the other whether Sony's "first mover" advantage in 36x24mm format mirrorless systems will be enough to guarantee that Nikon will forever trail Sony in that sector, let alone whether Sony will stay ahead of Canon if/when it enters that segment: consider how Canon's EOS-M mirrorless system with only a handful of dedicated EF-M lenses available has taken the lead over the Sony and Fujifilm in "APS-C" format mirrorless systems that were on the market earlier and (to me at least) are clearly more impressive. Factors like overall brand strength and the attraction of using same-brand SLR lenses with same-brand adaptors can favor the overall ILC leaders, Canon and Nikon.
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sony-claims-they-are-now-number-one-in-the-usa-full-frame-market-will-it-last/ (https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sony-claims-they-are-now-number-one-in-the-usa-full-frame-market-will-it-last/)
1. USA market vs Japan market
2. Full-frame vs overall - no doubt Olympus, Canon and Fuji sell a lot of crop-body cameras, but these tend to be low-margin products whose users often only buy one or two lenses, rather than a whole collection.
3. Absolute numbers vs percentage growth. Sony has nowhere to go but up, so their percentage growth is always going to be high, but that says nothing about absolute numbers. Canon and Nikon have more or less reached a steady equilibrium, where it's mostly users of older full-frame bodies replacing their systems, with a slow leakage of users replacing Canon/Nikon SLRs with Sony mirrorless bodies or Fuji medium format bodies (a leakage which may be arrested by Canon/Nikon mirrorless bodies, depending on their performance). In terms of absolutenumbers, it does say that around 40% of full-frame body sales this year have been of Sony bodies, but this may be misleading, owing to too short a time scale (more on that later)
Sources are at the bottom of the link - NPD group market research provided most of them, so it's not coming from Sony itself.
Three-year rolling average would be more useful than year-to-year change, though, due to camera release cycles and the effect of new releases - sales figures are likely to be 'spiky' rather than smooth, with upward 'spikes' every time a new body is released (and actually available in stores). No doubt the Jan-Jun 2018 figures would have been heavily padded by the A7r3 release in late 2017 (the A9 only came out towards the end of the corresponding period in 2017).
The line stating, 'Four out of every 10 full-frame cameras sold during this time period have come from the Sony brand' (referring to the first half of 2018) is interesting. This came soon after the release of the A7r3, while the A7III was released during that timeframe. New releases tend to produce a flurry of sales in the first year (possibly not immediately, due to lack of availability of bodies), with demand then tapering off. Nikon's D850 was Sony's only real competitor during that period, being released two months before the A7r3 and only really becoming widely available at the start of 2018. Canon hasn't released a higher-end full-frame body since 2016, with only the low-profile 6D2 coming in July 2017 (six months before the start of the period in question). All other full-frame cameras would have more or less returned to a 'baseline' sales rate. Basically, the 6-month period is far too short a period to view changes in market share. Even the year-on-year figures provided for 2016-2017 are too short a period. You really need a three- or four-year rolling average to see changes in the market between brands, in order to take into account camera release cycles.
-
Let me throw some (Japanese) market share stats in.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcnaward.jp%2Faward%2Fgallery%2Fdetail%2Fcontents_type%3D251%26date%3D2018&edit-text=
discussed in English at
https://www.dpreview.com/news/0966656912/2018-japan-bcn-camera-rankings-canon-dominates-dslrs-tops-sony-in-mirrorless
Note though that, contrary to the DPReview headline, the market share leader in mirrorless system cameras is Olympus at 27.7%, ahead of Canon at 21.3% which edges Sony into third place at 20.2% How Sony's third became "tops" in the DPReview headline is a mystery. Maybe by the unstated restriction to 36x24mm format! That comes to mind because there are several assertions in this thread that are false as stated, but become true if you ignore the far greater part of the ILC market that involves smaller formats.
BTW, it is not clear to me one way or the other whether Sony's "first mover" advantage in 36x24mm format mirrorless systems will be enough to guarantee that Nikon will forever trail Sony in that sector, let alone whether Sony will stay ahead of Canon if/when it enters that segment: consider how Canon's EOS-M mirrorless system with only a handful of dedicated EF-M lenses available has taken the lead over the Sony and Fujifilm in "APS-C" format mirrorless systems that were on the market earlier and (to me at least) are clearly more impressive. Factors like overall brand strength and the attraction of using same-brand SLR lenses with same-brand adaptors can favor the overall ILC leaders, Canon and Nikon.
The way they worded the headline is a bit awkward but if you isolate it's clear they meant Canon "beats" Sony .. ie
"Canon dominates DSLRs, (and) tops Sony in mirrorless.
This is another tidbit. I looked for the numbers and could not find them ...
"Sony Takes Over As No.1 In U.S. Full-frame Cameras"
"As DSLRs fade into the history books of photography, Sony has emerged as the official leader in full-frame cameras in the US. Newly-released NPD data shows the remarkable growth Sony has achieved through a combination of innovative next-generation mirrorless cameras and a thriving community of active creators who are reimagining what photography and videography can be. "
https://alphauniverse.com/stories/sony-takes-over-as-no-1-in-u-s--full-frame-cameras--launches-historic--be-alpha--campaign/
-
The way they worded the headline is a bit awkward but if you isolate it's clear they meant Canon "beats" Sony .. ie
"Canon dominates DSLRs, (and) tops Sony in mirrorless.
This is another tidbit. I looked for the numbers and could not find them ...
"Sony Takes Over As No.1 In U.S. Full-frame Cameras"
"As DSLRs fade into the history books of photography, Sony has emerged as the official leader in full-frame cameras in the US. Newly-released NPD data shows the remarkable growth Sony has achieved through a combination of innovative next-generation mirrorless cameras and a thriving community of active creators who are reimagining what photography and videography can be. "
https://alphauniverse.com/stories/sony-takes-over-as-no-1-in-u-s--full-frame-cameras--launches-historic--be-alpha--campaign/
As I mentioned, different market, and full-frame only. The sources are listed at the bottom - they come from a market research firm, not from Sony's own bragging.
The Canon vs Sony contest is shaping up to be a very interesting one, and it may have less to do with camera body technology than lens technology.
Very broadly, you can divide the (better-than-phone-camera) market into three groups - performance-seeking, price-limited and size/weight-limited. Obviously, there is overlap - you can be a performance-seeker, but be price- or size-limited away from medium format, for instance, but, broadly speaking, any piece of equipment will be more or less attractive to each group based on its characteristics.
Camera forums and high-end users tend to represent the 'performance-seeking' group. This is where the A7r3, D850, D5, fast supertele lenses, super-sharp f/1.4 and faster primes, not to mention medium format, belong - a zone where price represents little object and customers are willing to carry big, heavy lenses and backpacks full of gear to get the best possible shots. Canon and Sony are both highly competitive in this field. Right now, Sony probably has the advantage, since they have an established full-frame body lineup that improves markedly with each generation and a rapidly-expanding lens lineup, while Canon is still rooted in old SLR technology and needs to get its full-frame mirrorless system off the ground; this is not irreversible, though, since Canon is a large company with more than enough resources to chase and catch up, much as Sony did when it went from being mainly an electronics company to competing with Canon and Nikon for the camera market.
But it is with the other two groups, representing a far bigger market, that Canon may have an upper hand in the medium term - and it largely comes down to their lens technology, not their sensor or body technology.
Canon has invested a lot of effort into developing diffraction optics and other beyond-classical optics. This allows lenses to be made smaller, lighter and cheaper (once mass production and economies of scale come into it) than non-DO lenses. Initially, there was a performance deficit, with the 'onion ring' bokeh in early-generation DO lenses, but improved manufacturing techniques for more precise optical surfaces, particularly on the nano-scale (similar to what Sony initially advertised in its G Master series), has largely mitigated this, and continues to improve. When used, it allows Canon to make a smaller lens with the same optical characteristics (focal length, aperture and image circle), or a lens of the same size with wider aperture, longer focal length or covering a larger image circle.
It wasn't so long ago that Canon said that, in a few years' time, we'd have compact zoom lenses with a 10-1000mm focal length range. They didn't mean that this would happen using ordinary optics. What Canon's developments would allow is things such as a full-frame mirrorless camera, the size of a Leica M-series, with a range of small, compact zoom and prime lenses stretching from 16mm f/4 to 200/4 and beyond - essentially, a full-frame Olympus E-series M43 camera with much greater capability. A lot of people - particularly the travelling crowd - aren't willing to lug a D850 or A7r3 with 10kg of lenses around, but are more than happy to bring an Olympus E-series with two or three small lenses. Canon could one-up them, delivering much more capability in a package of the same size. Or, for the more budget-minded, optical developments would allow for a 1.6x crop camera with a 10-1000mm lens (angle of view similar to 16-1600mm on full-frame) in a relatively compact package, delivering similar utility to Nikon's P900, but with much better image quality (particularly in low light) due to the much larger sensor.
Sony has its RX series bodies, as well as a number of pancake-type lenses. But, without new optics - diffraction optics, optical metameterials, electroactive optical materials, etc. - they can't go much further than this. Sure, they can continually improve sensors and electronics, as they will always do, but they won't be able to make significantly faster or longer lenses without running into physical size or cost limits, let alone come close to matching the effective reach of 'compact' (to use the term loosely) cameras such as Nikon's P900 and P1000, whose 24-2000mm or 24-3000mm equivalent angles of view really provide the imprimatur for their existence (their 1/2.3" sensors being otherwise low-end even by compact camera standards).
It goes further than this. Canon is both an electronics company, capable of producing its own sensors, and an optics company, while Sony is primarily an electronics company, which has only recently started to make forays into optics, since acquiring Minolta. There is no reason Canon can't make a play for the lucrative phone market, so far dominated by Sony, by producing combined sensor-optics packages containing either a standard-sized sensor with a more capable lens, or a bigger and better sensor with a lens covering the same angle of view, in the same size and price range as current phone camera packages. Or the drone camera market, with a large (1.5x/1.6x crop or even full-frame) sensor and lens in the same durable, lightweight package and price range as current small-sensor offerings. You couldn't do either with classical optics - you'd run into size and/or cost limits. But new developments in optics allow capabilities which would previously have required many large, heavy glass elements to be constructed using far fewer, lighter elements, in a smaller overall package. And this is where Canon has a huge lead over Sony, and could potentially capitalise on it, particularly outside of the 'performance-over-all-else' subset of cameras.
To compete with this, Sony would do well to pick up some more optics capability. Sigma, perhaps, or even Nikon. Maybe, somewhere in Sony's boardrooms, some committee has a hidden goal of trying to cripple Nikon financially, while retaining their technical expertise, making them ripe for a takeover (Sony could buy out Nikon now, but it would cost them a lot). Canon would be able to buy them out too, but would have far less reason to; essentially, their only reason to do so would be to keep them out of Sony's hands, and, given the relative sizes of Canon and Sony, a bidding war could cripple both of them.
-
The Canon vs Sony contest is shaping up to be a very interesting one, and it may have less to do with camera body technology than lens technology.
Right... does the scenario still apply if Canon doesn't announce a FF mirrorless on Sept 4th? ;D ;D ;D
Is the performance of this fantasy camera and its lenses going to play any role at all? Or is the Canon logo enough to support your views of the world?
Is Nikon going to still sell a few Z of are they going to be shortcutted to fanboy bankruptcy in the coming days without getting the chance?
Sharing you knowledge with us would be most appreciated. 8)
Cheers,
Bernard
p.s.: I thought this thread was about the new Nikon mirrorless camera... obviously I was wrong... ;)
-
Now you're just trolling.
Right... does the scenario still apply if Canon doesn't announce a FF mirrorless on Sept 4th? ;D ;D ;D
Doesn't matter whether they announce it on September 4, two months later, or two years down the line. The underlying technologies remain, and the same groups of customers are still there. Budget-minded and casual users, in particular, can easily change systems with each generation, since they aren't beholden to a large collection of lenses. Same with any camera bodies using non-interchangeable lenses.
I take a longer view on things. Looking at their strategic direction over the last ten years, so does Canon. And, given their jump into mirrorless when it was still an underperforming, immature technology, in a world dominated by SLRs, so did Sony. Not to mention their purchase of Minolta, which took 11 years to really bear fruit for them.
Is the performance of this fantasy camera and its lenses going to play any role at all? Or is the Canon logo enough to support your views of the world?
The performance barely matters, so long as it hits a certain minimum standard. And both Canon and Sony are capable of hitting that standard (as are Nikon, Olympus, Fuji and a few others).
As long as basic functionality is there and performance is in the same ballpark (by 'same ballpark' I mean 'focuses where you point it' and 'sharp enough', not 'has 1.5 stops extra DR at base ISO' or 'has 5% extra tracking accuracy when shooting a cheetah sprinting in long grass at sunrise'), it's the other things that determine success - size and weight, price, zoom range, ruggedness, even colour scheme. These cameras aren't aimed at high-end users - put simply, you're not the target audience here. They want a camera that delivers better image quality than a phone, doesn't cost as much as a small car and is small and unobtrusive enough to take anywhere they might want to take photos (particularly travel and holidays). And that standard isn't hard to hit. Beyond that, it's all about 'what can it do' rather than 'can it do X really, really well' - think wide-angle capability, macro capability, ultra-long focal lengths, low-light capability, ability to be used underwater, image stabilisation, etc., rather than MTF charts or small amounts of DR.
And these technologies add to the performance. If you're working with a size and weight limit, diffractive optics lets you put a longer lens, faster lens and larger sensor into a package of the same size. Irrelevant if you're just after the best performance possible, but very relevant if you have a size/weight/price limit. The budget/size-limited camera market is many times larger than the high-end market, not to mention the phone camera market. Canon's and Sony's goal is to make as much money as possible, not to make the best possible camera for you.
Also, it's not a 'fantasy camera'. The technologies are experimental, have been prototyped, have patents and are in continual development - big difference. It may just exist in the lab at the moment, but can be brought to the forefront when the conditions are right (usually other needed technologies or manufacturing capabilities). In other words, not too different from mirrorless cameras 10 years ago, or CMOS 20 years ago.
Is Nikon going to still sell a few Z of are they going to be shortcutted to fanboy bankruptcy in the coming days without getting the chance?
They probably will - mostly to those who are already shooting Nikon. Winning new users will be an uphill battle, unless they specifically go for the Leica/Hasselblad luxury crowd (which is a very small market even in comparison to the full-frame market).
But how many they sell, and how good the camera is, is almost irrelevant in the long run. You can win every battle and still lose the war. Betamax was better than VHS. Strategically, Nikon is hemmed in at the bottom end. They can't compete at the low-margin budget end, since they don't make their own sensors and must buy them at whatever cost the fab plants decide to sell them for; at best, this leaves them competing with Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm and the like, who all buy their sensors from the same few sources, while, at worst, Canon and/or Sony could decide to really dominate the lower end and just undercut all of them with their own manufactured sensors. This forces them into the higher-end range, which has higher margins, but is a much smaller market in absolute terms. And even here, in the mirrorless market (where they do not enjoy fifty years of pedigree and F-mount lens collections), they risk being crowded out by Canon and Sony, pushing them into the even higher-priced luxury market, which has high profit margins but low volumes and where the Nikon name doesn't carry the same cachet as names like Leica and Hasselblad. Until they can either make their own sensors, or sensors become so cheap that they become an insignificant part of the cost of even a budget camera, or they pull out of the camera market entirely and become an optics company, Nikon are essentially at the mercy of their suppliers, living in small niches where the bigger companies don't find it worthwhile to compete, but unable to dislodge the big two from contested ground.
-
Some comments on these two different sets of sales stats:
1) Sony’s is for only a half year; one in which it launched a new model and another the previous October, whereas Nikon’s latest release was July 2017 and Canon’s was June 2017. BCN instead is full year data.
2) BCN has a link for previous years back to 2011, and some trends are clear:
- Olympus and/or Panasonic on top most years; moreso if you aggregate MFT.
- Sony a bit of a downward trend since its great 2015
- Canon trending up since at least 2015
- Panasonic trending down (maybe due to its shift to lower volume higher end video-oriented models)
- Olympus flat the last two years; a bit down on share compared to the pre-Canon era.
- Even the annual aggregates have some big jumps up and down, suggesting volatility related to the release of a single popular model or new technology
3) Japan vs USA indeed. Given that Japan is far ahead of the USA in mirrorless adoption, it’s sales data might be a better “leading indicator”
-
Some comments on these two different sets of sales stats:
1) Sony’s is for only a half year; one in which it launched a new model and another the previous October, whereas Nikon’s latest release was July 2017 and Canon’s was June 2017. BCN instead is full year data.
2) BCN has a link for previous years back to 2011, and some trends are clear:
- Olympus and/or Panasonic on top most years; moreso if you aggregate MFT.
- Sony a bit of a downward trend since its great 2015
- Canon trending up since at least 2015
- Panasonic trending down (maybe due to its shift to lower volume higher end video-oriented models)
- Olympus flat the last two years; a bit down on share compared to the pre-Canon era.
- Even the annual aggregates have some big jumps up and down, suggesting volatility related to the release of a single popular model or new technology
3) Japan vs USA indeed. Given that Japan is far ahead of the USA in mirrorless adoption, it’s sales data might be a better “leading indicator”
Given that the Sony full frame mirror less cameras were released less than 5 years ago, it's a hell of an accomplishment to outsell the two big guns in the largest camera market which just happens to also be the slowest to adapt to mirror less cameras in general.
Also given that BCN looks at the Japanese market which typically want smaller crop cameras, it's no surprise that Sony full frame cameras don't sell as well in that market.
Sony has stated a few years ago they are focusing on the high end ( meaning high margin ) market where the phone cameras do not compete.
-
Sony has stated a few years ago they are focusing on the high end ( meaning high margin ) market where the phone cameras do not compete.
Are you suggesting that phone-cameras in any significant way compete with the mainstream format mirrorless camera formats, MFT or APS-C? Maybe I get a hint from the use of the misleading anachronism “crop”; none of these mirrorless systems rely on forcing a crop on a lens system designed for 35mm film format; at most that slightly applies to APS-C format DSLRs for which format-specific lens development is stalled.
-
Are you suggesting that phone-cameras in any significant way compete with the mainstream format mirrorless camera formats, MFT or APS-C? Maybe I get a hint from the use of the misleading anachronism “crop”; none of these mirrorless systems rely on forcing a crop on a lens system designed for 35mm film format; at most that slightly applies to APS-C format DSLRs for which format-specific lens development is stalled.
Yes I am suggesting that the lower end of all cameras including mirror less is being hurt by phone cameras. Looking at the latest report from Olympus shows their mirror less sales have declined by 11% in the 1st quarter this year compared to last...and their future forecast indicates yet further declines. High end cameras are much more isolated from the phone cameras as they serve a different niche.
-
I just hope that this time Nikon evolves beyond the pitiful 1EV step for exposure bracketing...
-
I just hope that this time Nikon evolves beyond the pitiful 1EV step for exposure bracketing...
Granted. You have two wishes remaining!
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/16/first-nikon-z-mirrorless-camera-report-from-somebody-who-actually-used-the-camera.aspx/
Chees,
Bernard
-
Can I just say that Nikon is rubbish and have never made a decent camera in the history of forever and Sony is brilliant and better than anyone else at making cameras and make the best cameras and Nikon will never make one as good as a Sony and ... oh, wait. Someone's already said it. I suppose I might as well just wander off and grow up :-(
-
Can I just say that Nikon is rubbish and have never made a decent camera in the history of forever and Sony is brilliant and better than anyone else at making cameras and make the best cameras and Nikon will never make one as good as a Sony and ... oh, wait. Someone's already said it. I suppose I might as well just wander off and grow up :-(
:)
Not that fast... you...
- have to write it at least 30 times
- add Canon to the mix
- double check that your post indeed lack any degree of objectivity
- triple check that you are still aligned with all the perfect fanboy guidelines
- make sure you have exhausted the will of all posters interested in discussing the original subject matter...
And then do it again.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some comments on these two different sets of sales stats:
1) Sony’s is for only a half year; one in which it launched a new model and another the previous October, whereas Nikon’s latest release was July 2017 and Canon’s was June 2017. BCN instead is full year data.
Well, the D850 wasn't actually released until September (despite its July announcement) and wasn't widely available in stores until early 2018. The A7r3 was widely available from November.
Regardless, it is the A7III that really skews the data and just illustrates why 6 month or 1 year periods are too short to see any sort of a long-term trend in camera markets.
2) BCN has a link for previous years back to 2011, and some trends are clear:
- Olympus and/or Panasonic on top most years; moreso if you aggregate MFT.
Only in terms of bodies sold, and only if you look at mirrorless only.
But Olympus and Panasonic only make APS-C bodies. They sell them hard - more so than Canon, Nikon or Sony - and have been in the mirrorless game longer than all but Sony (whose initial NEX came out around the same time but suffered from a deficit in compatible lenses compared with Olympus/Panasonic), so they can be seen as the incumbents in the APS-C mirrorless world, just as Canon is incumbent in SLRs (owing to their early development of CMOS, full frame and video) and Sony in full-frame mirrorless (with their five-year head start over anyone else). But budget APS-C bodies are nowhere near as profitable on a per-unit basis than higher-end bodies - the margins on the bodies are much lower, since the customer base is much more price-sensitive, while they sell fewer, and less expensive, lenses per body, since the average customer is a hobbyist or even a non-photographer who just wants a better-than-phone-camera and two or there small lenses to take on holiday or to social events, rather than an enthusiast or pro with their body weight or more in camera gear.
This does not diminish Olympus and Panasonic ar all - they have clearly been very successful within their defined market segment - but merely means that figures must be put into context. More bodies moved, but much less profit per body, with quoted figures restricted to a market that probably has more non-photographers using better-than-phone cameras than anywhere else (Tokyo teens often been seen with compact or small mirrorless cameras in social settings, while every second domestic traveller seems to have one) and more of an emphasis on small size than most other places.
- Sony a bit of a downward trend since its great 2015
This is likely a misleading artifact stemming from the release cycle of cameras, and another illustration of why annual figures are too short a period and create too 'noisy' a result compared with three-year rolling averages.
In 2015, Sony releases the A7r2 and A7s2, while the A7II only became available a few days before the year started. That's three big 'spikes' all in the same year. In contrast, 2016 saw nothing, while 2017 saw the A9 (a much smaller customer base, although highly profitable per unit sold, after counting lenses), with the A7r3 coming right at the end, with sales coming mostly in 2018. For that reason (A7r3 and A7IiI) 2018 may show up as another big year for Sony in the charts, although a three-year rolling average is likely to show a steady increase in Sony's market share rather than the cluster of tall spikes you'd see in yearly or six-monthly charts.
- Canon trending up since at least 2015
In terms of mirrorless cameras, they could hardly have gone lower from where they were. Their gradually-expanding lens choices and steadily-improving dual pixel AF has also made them much more viable in recent years, whereas they would previously have represented a poor choice against M43, despite the larger sensor size. Also, Canon mirrorless bodies seem to be heavily marketed in Japan in a way I haven't seen outside of there, whether here in Australia, in the Middle East or other parts of Asia.
- Panasonic trending down (maybe due to its shift to lower volume higher end video-oriented models)
Agree.
- Olympus flat the last two years; a bit down on share compared to the pre-Canon era.
This may be due to market saturation. Anyone who wants a compact M43 body already has one. Olympus' market, at least in Japan, may be starting to reach a steady-state phase mostly driven by replacement of old bodies with new rather than through new customers. Also, Canon is now a more credible compact option than before and has the advantage of larger sensor size while still having small lenses. (Sony not so much - they may have small APS-C bodies, but many compact lenses to go with it.
- Even the annual aggregates have some big jumps up and down, suggesting volatility related to the release of a single popular model or new technology
Pretty much what I've been saying. We need rolling averages, or the figures to calculate them, not annual or 6-monthly figures.
3) Japan vs USA indeed. Given that Japan is far ahead of the USA in mirrorless adoption, it’s sales data might be a better “leading indicator”
Only in some ways. Japan is far ahead in terms of mirrorless uptake, but also has a far larger proportion of people using better-than-phone cameras. In the west, it tends to be quite binary - either people are using a phone camera, or they're loaded with the biggest and best, with fewer people using in-between options (compact mirrorless and non-interchangeable lens bodies). In Japan (and I've also noticed Hong Kong and Singapore) you see all sorts of people carrying all sorts of cameras, using them in situations where, elsewhere, you'd typically see people pulling out phone cameras instead. So this tends to inflate the lower end of the market.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/16/first-nikon-z-mirrorless-camera-report-from-somebody-who-actually-used-the-camera.aspx/
Chees,
Bernard
If the body / EVF are the same across both cameras I would prefer 24MP to 45MP. Unfortunately I also really want D850 color fidelity, ISO 64 and no AA filter.
If Nikon specced a 24MP sensor with D850 response and higher ISO capability id be in heaven. I'd be happy to sacrifice resolution. Unfortunately my basic understanding is that having both high + low ISO performance is a "you cannot have you cake and eat it too" situation.
-
Unfortunately my basic understanding is that having both high + low ISO performance is a "you cannot have you cake and eat it too" situation.
True. You really have to think about cameras as we used to think about film stocks. The D850 is the Panatomic-X, while the A7s is the Tri-X (higher sensitivity and granier) and the D750 or A73 is the plus-X.
Not a perfect analogy, but it is kind of how I think about them.
-
True. You really have to think about cameras as we used to think about film stocks. The D850 is the Panatomic-X, while the A7s is the Tri-X (higher sensitivity and granier) and the D750 or A73 is the plus-X.
Not a perfect analogy, but it is kind of how I think about them.
Thats a good way to think about it actually.
To be honest I don't even mind about the high ISO performance, I'd just like D850 image fidelity (colour, low ISO, no AA) in a lower resolution sensor. It would be nice to save some $$ as well but thats secondary. I travel a lot and do a lot of photoshop work on the road. It would be nice to work on smaller files as beautiful as the 45MP ones.
Over the last 12 months working mostly in fashion and commercial I have not once seen a client worry about megapixels. I see 1 series bodies being used to shoot billboards, 5D3s on countless editorials and various other 18-30MP cameras used all the time. I appreciate some people need the resolution but many of us do not.
I shoot a D850 because I love the file quality.
-
Granted. You have two wishes remaining!
:) All three wishes are the same!
Interesting, I seem to be getting cameras which have "Z" in them..
Mamiya RZ Pro II, Mamiya ZD, Pentax 645Z and now this Nikon is the Z mount?? They better fix the bracketing:)
-
Hi,
All those cameras are pretty close regarding high ISO. DxO-mark's sport rating, maximum usable ISO:
Sony A7III 3730
Sony A7s 3702
Sony A7rII 3523
Nikon D850 2660
Nikon D750 2956
The figures above are essentially maximum usable ISO.
So, you can eat the cake and still have it...
Best regards
Erik
True. You really have to think about cameras as we used to think about film stocks. The D850 is the Panatomic-X, while the A7s is the Tri-X (higher sensitivity and granier) and the D750 or A73 is the plus-X.
Not a perfect analogy, but it is kind of how I think about them.
-
But Olympus and Panasonic only make APS-C bodies. They sell them hard - more so than Canon, Nikon or Sony - and have been in the mirrorless game longer than all but Sony (whose initial NEX came out around the same time
about the same time: Panasonic G1 = Sep 2008, Sony Nex3/Nex5 = May 2010... yes, about the same time ;D
-
about the same time: Panasonic G1 = Sep 2008, Sony Nex3/Nex5 = May 2010... yes, about the same time ;D
Given that the G1, E-P1 and Nex5 were released 10 months apart (G1 in Sep 2008, E-P1 in July 2009, Nex5 in May 2010), and Olympus and Panasonic are often mentioned in the same breath (given that they share the same mount - and it was really the E-PEN series that gave M43 its popularity, not the Lumix), yes, they were all around the same time - all within the prehistory of mirrorless cameras, given that it is now eight years down the track. It's in the same vein as we would say that the Nikon D1 and Canon 1D were released 'around the same time', even though they were two years apart - in the timescale of current-day digital cameras, it's all prehistory.
Anyway, you're missing the wood for the trees - taking half a sentence out of a 1000-word post (a scene-setting sentence at that, not even an actual point of argument) and using that as your point of rebuttal. That's little better than seizing on spelling or obscure grammar rules to try to invalidate an argument and would be thrown out of any debate.
-
On my wall I have a bunch of prints of pictures taken with various generations of Nikon. I used to be pretty happy with them, but looking at Nikon's market share, I realise they are not that good after all. Darn :-(
-
Nikon D1 - 15-June-1999
Canon 1Ds - 24 sept 2002
3 years 3 months, not 2 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon D1 - 15-June-1999
Canon 1Ds - 24 sept 2002
3 years 3 months, not 2 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
I said 1D, not 1Ds.
1Ds was a whole new level in capability, anyway, being the first full-frame body.
-
Hi,
All those cameras are pretty close regarding high ISO. DxO-mark's sport rating, maximum usable ISO:
Sony A7III 3730
Sony A7s 3702
Sony A7rII 3523
Nikon D850 2660
Nikon D750 2956
The figures above are essentially maximum usable ISO.
So, you can eat the cake and still have it...
Best regards
Erik
I don't own all of those cameras, but I'd disagree with DXO on some of those ratings for the ones I have. As I most often use the A7s, for example, its base ISO is 3200, and it's usable up to about 12,000, Maybe 25,000 if you have no better choice. (Everything above that is pretty much a party trick, IMO.)
I take your point, though. The A7r2 (which I did own, but traded for the r3 because I hated it) does quite well at ISOs nearly as high. But--and this is my real point--it has a different look. Large pixel cameras render differently from small pixel cameras, even when both are downsampled. And to me, it's always seemed similar to the differences in the look of different film stocks. Maybe it's just a metaphor, but it seems s a useful one.
To bring this back on topic, it will be interesting to see how the Nikon mirrorless cameras render--how they differ from each other and the rest of the field, both in the low ISO/high res arena and low light/high iso. I tend to like Nikon's rendering more than Sony's, so I'm hopeful...
-
I don't own all of those cameras, but I'd disagree with DXO on some of those ratings for the ones I have. ...
This might be related to DXO's nonsensical mis-use of ISO definitions, where they use a measure of highlight headroom that is irrelevant as a measure of low-light handling. I will avoid repeating my lengthy previous debunkings, but the essence of it is this:
even if two cameras have equally good low-light performance, with the same combinations of shutter speed, aperture ratio and ISO setting giving equal noise levels, and with their light metering system choosing or recommending equal combinations of shutter speed and aperture ratio at a given ISO setting, the camera that has more highlight headroom in the raw files is declared by DXO to have a lower "true ISO", and so looks worse on DXO's low light handling comparisons.
This happens because DXO confuses a guideline for minimum safe exposure index (to have an acceptably low risk of highlight clipping) at a given ISO setting with a measure of low-light handling ability.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/16/first-nikon-z-mirrorless-camera-report-from-somebody-who-actually-used-the-camera.aspx/
The first two points raise a conundrum:
1) The Nikon Z6/Z7 have many similarities to the Sony's 7 series
2) The new Z-mount is almost as large as medium format mount for some 6x6 SLR cameras
comparing front-on photos of the rumored "Z-cameras" and a Sony A7 series model with no lens, the mount on the Nikon only has a few mm less space below and above than on the Sony. So if the bodies are of similar size as claim (1) suggests, the Z mount can only be a few mm larger than E -mount's 46.2mm: about 50mm?
Alternatively, if Z mount is nearly 6x6 MF size as in claim (2) the Z body is 40% or more higher—and also 40% or more wider, as the height-to-width ratios are similar—huge, and seemingly at odds with claim (1).
P.S. AFAIK, Hasselblad V mount has a throat diameter of about 75-80mm, so my 40% is a low estimate.
But we do get some objective facts:
3) Handling and ergonomics are perfect
-
We will know in 4 days, but it seems likely that the Z mount is btw 55 and 58mm.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't own all of those cameras, but I'd disagree with DXO on some of those ratings for the ones I have. As I most often use the A7s, for example, its base ISO is 3200, and it's usable up to about 12,000, Maybe 25,000 if you have no better choice. (Everything above that is pretty much a party trick, IMO.)
I take your point, though. The A7r2 (which I did own, but traded for the r3 because I hated it) does quite well at ISOs nearly as high. But--and this is my real point--it has a different look. Large pixel cameras render differently from small pixel cameras, even when both are downsampled. And to me, it's always seemed similar to the differences in the look of different film stocks. Maybe it's just a metaphor, but it seems s a useful one.
To bring this back on topic, it will be interesting to see how the Nikon mirrorless cameras render--how they differ from each other and the rest of the field, both in the low ISO/high res arena and low light/high iso. I tend to like Nikon's rendering more than Sony's, so I'm hopeful...
I think Sony A7s base ISO is still ISO 100. Looking at http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm , looks like that Sony is doing something at ISO 3200. Not sure if aptina-like amplification as in A7r II, A7 III, A9, A7r III or D850. Maybe for that reason Sony forces you to use ISO 3200 if shooting video with picture profiles active or for that reason is why night photographers like to use the camera at that ISO as minimum: https://www.lonelyspeck.com/sony-a7s-astrophotography-review/
-
This might be related to DXO's nonsensical mis-use of ISO definitions, where they use a measure of highlight headroom that is irrelevant as a measure of low-light handling.
How on earth can highlight headroom be irrelevant as a measure of low-light handling? Surely it can only be irrelevant if blown highlights are irrelevant.
For example, let's say two different models of camera are used at their nominated ISO of 100, using the same 'real' f/stop and 'real' shutter speed for the same subject in the same lighting.
Let's say both cameras have equally low noise in the shadows, but one camera has blown highlights which cannot be recovered.
DXO would claim that the camera producing the blown highlights has a higher 'real' ISO than the other camera. Whether or not that 'real' ISO is 80, or 120, or 150, is irrelevant for the practical concerns of photographers who want the best technical image quality with low noise in the shadows and no blown highlights.
It's the comparison that's important, in relation to noise levels at 'effectively' the same shutter speeds and f/stops, in relation to the same ISO sensitivity; and that's what DXO does very well.
-
Never said that, you are over-reacting.
Most Sony a7rIII owners I know describe it as being much much better than the v2 and they described the v2 as being much much better than v1.
The rugdness comment comes from a well know test. It never meant that every a7 would fail at the first drop of rain, just that it can and is behind its DSLR competition.
Not sure why you seem to be taking these as personnal offenses.
You took the decision to be an early adopter of the first version of a new line in a new market segment. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that it isn’t pefect.
Cheers,
Bernard
er...
Besides, although Sony has delivered solid cameras with the a7/a9 and have demonstrated great innovation drive, they are far from perfect. They are great compared to the very flawed first iterations, but still half baked compared to what most photographers would like them to be (ergonomics, EVF, ruggedness, battery life,...).
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm not taking this personally, I just get tired of all the... hyperbole.
-
I'm curious about the new 24-70 zoom. I imagine it will be lighter than the 2.8 model, but will it just be a kit lens? Also I imagine non of this will be available for another year or so.
-
How on earth can highlight headroom be irrelevant as a measure of low-light handling? Surely it can only be irrelevant if blown highlights are irrelevant.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding me; yes even at ISO speeds well above the photosite-satutation based "base ISO speed", there is a risk of blown highlights. But it come from over-amplifying and thus causing clipping in the amplifier or ADC [I will call this "clipping"]; the photosites themselves will be far short of full in that situation, and so not at risk of blowing highlights at the photosite level.
The way to reduce this risk — as used by every ILC camera maker to varying degrees — is to be conservative with the amplification, placing midtones at a raw level three, four or more stops below maximum raw level, not at the 2.5 which is indicated as a bare minimum of highlight headroom in the ISO SSat standard. And yet better avoidance of highlight clipping is what DXO "punishes" by falsely declaring that the ISO speed is lower, causing DXO's measure of maximum usable ISO speed to bw lower for a camera that allows more raw headroom for better clipping avoidance.
And as always note that the amplification is still enough that the lower bits are resolving far more finely than the noise levels, so this "less high" amplifcation used in some cameras is not causing any problems with quantization noise.
Note: some camera have two photosite-saturation-based base ISO speeds, switching to a higher one at sufficiently high ISO speed settings by reducing the photosites' well capacity.
-
I'm curious about the new 24-70 zoom. I imagine it will be lighter than the 2.8 model, but will it just be a kit lens? Also I imagine non of this will be available for another year or so.
I'd bet on a lot sooner than that based on Nikon history of announcements and availability.
-
I'd bet on a lot sooner than that based on Nikon history of announcements and availability.
Indeed, their recent track record is less than a month btw announcement and availability.
This being said, the latest rumors speak of November.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looks like we won't be getting a 28mm or 24mm at launch. I understand why they went with the classics but not what I was hoping for.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/20/new-nikon-mirrorless-camera-teaser-video.aspx/#more-124873
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed, their recent track record is less than a month btw announcement and availability.
This being said, the latest rumors speak of November.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeh, availability of one at a time like the 850. Can anyone buy one yet? ;)
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/20/new-nikon-mirrorless-camera-teaser-video.aspx/#more-124873
A few words jump out: “take anywhere” and “so lightweight”. Maybe this new “compact system camera” will actually be compact!
-
Yeh, availability of one at a time like the 850. Can anyone buy one yet? ;)
I have been shooting the D850 for nearly 12 months.
The D850 has been available in stock everywhere for months but in the US.
Trump must be another Sony fanboy. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Besides, various reports are starting to appear that the replacement of the D3400 may come soon in the form of an F mount based APS-C mirrorless body.
Nikon already has 3 AF-P zoom lenses compatible with contrast AF.
The D3400 is already pretty compact and lightweight, removing the mirror should further improve its bulk.
This could be an amazing support for the tens of millions of compact manual focus F mount lenses with legacy look that can be bought dirt cheap.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Besides, various reports are starting to appear that the replacement of the D3400 may come soon in the form of an F mount based APS-C mirrorless body.
One last round of hopes for an "21st century EVF camera with an antiquated, overly deep lens mount designed for film SLRs and lenses in a different format size"? I do however hope that a more mainstream 24x16 format Z-mount body follows soon, once Nikon has stated its seriousness about EVF cameras with some high quality 36x24 format offerings.
BTW, unless I am missing something, Nikon's most recent "entry level 36x24 format" body is the almost four year old D750. (Or if the D610 is considered as the current entry level FX model, it is even older: October 2013.) If so, does this hint that Nikon sees future demand for DSLRs mostly at the high end, where the fastest continuous AF, maximum compatibility with expensive F-mount lens collections and so on still favor them, while it is already winding down DSLR development at the lower levels? Wild speculation I suppose.
-
BTW, unless I am missing something, Nikon's most recent "entry level 36x24 format" body is the almost four year old D750. (Or if the D610 is considered as the current entry level FX model, it is even older: October 2013.) If so, does this hint that Nikon sees future demand for DSLRs mostly at the high end, where the fastest continuous AF, maximum compatibility with expensive F-mount lens collections and so on still favor them, while it is already winding down DSLR development at the lower levels? Wild speculation I suppose.
Nikon has been stating in their business reports for years now that they are targeting the high end, which clearly means that they see no significant revenue potential in the low end. I believe that they have simply been executing on this strategy. Their recent DSLRs have been focused on the best possible performance technology can deliver, so are their lenses.
As I have written several times, I think they are right. The low end will be dead to smartphones in less than 3 years just like compact cameras have died already.
There is really no reason why low end DSLR/mirrorless should do better. They are mostly used the same way as compacts were, meaning with only a standard zoom lens on 99% of the time that's not that good, nor that bright. The smartphones are now reaching the level of quality that people bought their low end DSLRs/mirrorless for. And if they haven't the next gen will.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon has been stating in their business reports for years now that they are targeting the high end, which clearly means that they see no significant revenue potential in the low end.
I am not sure if Nikon is talking about $1500-$2300 36x24 format camera when it says "low end"; after all, Nikon has introduced five or six less expensive DSLRs since the D750 (all in DX format). Amongst DSLRs, "low end" is sub-$1000; in Nikon's camera range as a whole; it means the cheaper fixed lens compact cameras that every camera maker is moving away from.
And I repeat that the idea of phone-cameras replacing ILC cameras with sensors about twenty times larger with interchangeable lenses offering vastly better low-light/high speed abilities and wide zoom ranges is absurd; computational photography cannot magically overcome the fundamental (quantum mechanical!) advantages that come from far greater light gathering ability and true optical zoom. Note again those five or six newer and "even lower end" Nikon DSLRs.
-
And I repeat that the idea of phone-cameras replacing ILC cameras with sensors about twenty times larger with interchangeable lenses offering vastly better low-light/high speed abilities and wide zoom ranges is absurd; computational photography cannot magically overcome the fundamental (quantum mechanical!) advantages that come from far greater light gathering ability and true optical zoom. Note again those five or six newer and "even lower end" Nikon DSLRs.
I fully agree with what you are writing, but the thing is that smartphones don't need to reach low end DSLR/mirrorless performance level to kill them (just like they didn't need to overtake compact digital cameras to kill them), they just need to reach the level of quality people need taking into account the huge usability advantage of the smartphone.
There are plenty of lenses add-ons for smartphones that enable optical zooming and this is only going to be improving moving forward.
Anyway, we will see moving forward.
At least Nikon seems to think that low end has no future. It doesn't mean they won't release any more cameras in that segment, just that it will probably not be a strategic area of investment for them.
I personally prefer them to focus their resources on high end bodies and lenses, this is where they have proven their ability to deliver unique value to the market.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/21/breaking-the-first-leaked-press-photo-of-the-nikon-z6-and-z7-mirrorless-cameras.aspx/
Sounds good to me:
- identical UI btw the 2 models
- feels like a mix btwn Nikon and Leica - they have apparently streamlined the UI while keeping the essential physical controls available
- looks very solid
- they finally got rid of the cheap looking gold plating on the lens and simplified the naming
But anyway, I don’t believe that anyone was expecting them to mess up the physical part of these cameras.
It appears that the specs should follow soon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/21/breaking-the-first-leaked-press-photo-of-the-nikon-z6-and-z7-mirrorless-cameras.aspx/
Now that we can see the sensor inside the mount, and assuming that the central light blue part is the active 36x24mm region, I eyeball the throat diameter as about 7-8mm more than sensor diagonal, so I would say around 50-51mm throat diameter. Which is enough to easily accommodate any optical design that works with Canon EF mount, so long as Z mount is under 20mm deep as rumored.
P. S. And mount external diameter of about 61-65mm.
P. P. S. The original source https://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/08/z6z7.html has more images, including the three rumored lenses and an "FTZ" mount adaptor with tripod mount.
-
Now that we can see the sensor inside the mount, and assuming that the central light blue part is the active 36x24mm region, I eyeball the throat diameter as about 7-8mm more than sensor diagonal, so I would say around 50-51mm throat diameter. Which is enough to easily accommodate any optical design that works with Canon EF mount, so long as Z mount is under 20mm deep as rumored.
Per the computation I just did in PS, I predict 55.5mm for the internal mount size (ignoring the inside mounting ribs).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Per the computation I just did in PS, I predict 55.5mm for the internal mount size (ignoring the inside mounting ribs).
Cheers,
Bernard
Could be; my eye-balls's error bars might reach to 55mm! Agreed that it is a mistake to go top-left to bottom right, due to those ribs; I speculate that they caused the initial 49mm figure.
-
Could be; my eye-balls's error bars might reach to 55mm! Agreed that it is a mistake to go top-left to bottom right, due to those ribs; I speculate that they caused the initial 49mm figure.
Now, on the other hand I didn’t take perspective into account, so you may end up being right. ;)
I’d say 54mm.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/21/breaking-the-first-leaked-press-photo-of-the-nikon-z6-and-z7-mirrorless-cameras.aspx/
is that 24-70/4 a double trombone ? ugly !
-
If true, nice to see they have not forgotten old customers.
As ever, a zoom appears as unconvincingly pointless to me as ever. The only one I bought was the Nikkor 24-70 and I dumped it as rapidly as possible: I hate avoidable bulk.
No, my life never did depend on having a zoom to hand, and I seriously doubt that anybody else's did either. Junk insurance policy for the lazy.
:-)
-
If ugly only applied to that lens it wouldn't be all that bad. That camera may produce the very best pixels that the industry currently has to offer, but, boy, is that gizmo an easthetic horrorshow or what? Somebody here once mentioned that the best camera is the camera you actually want to pick up and take pictures with. Let's just say that I now realize why people are willing to spend the extra cash on a Leica.
-
If ugly only applied to that lens it wouldn't be all that bad. That camera may produce the very best pixels that the industry currently has to offer, but, boy, is that gizmo an easthetic horrorshow or what? Somebody here once mentioned that the best camera is the camera you actually want to pick up and take pictures with. Let's just say that I now realize why people are willing to spend the extra cash on a Leica.
It goes to show that aesthetics is really a matter of taste.
I find it pretty appealing and the Nikon logo has nothing to do with that impression I can assure you. ;D
In fact the first thought I had when I saw it was “this is what a usable Leica should be”. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If ugly only applied to that lens it wouldn't be all that bad. That camera may produce the very best pixels that the industry currently has to offer, but, boy, is that gizmo an easthetic horrorshow or what? Somebody here once mentioned that the best camera is the camera you actually want to pick up and take pictures with. Let's just say that I now realize why people are willing to spend the extra cash on a Leica.
Reminds me of all the other cameras I wouldn't want to pick up.
;-)
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/22/nikon-d850-vs-nikon-z6-vs-nikon-z7-specifications-comparison.aspx/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It goes to show that aesthetics is really a matter of taste.
I find it pretty appealing and the Nikon logo has nothing to do with that impression I can assure you. ;D
In fact the first thought I had when I saw it was “this is what a usable Leica should be”. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Of course, Bernard, if you come from an 850, it could be considered an improvement.... ;-)
-
Of course, Bernard, if you come from an 850, it could be considered an improvement.... ;-)
;D
Don't get me wrong, I love the look of a square block of polished steel, I just don't think it does such a good job as a camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I want to pick up a camera that feels good in my hand, has the controls I need where I can reach them, and produces the best image possible. I spend most of my time looking through it, not at it, so I don't really care what it looks like. That said, the N7 looks pretty much like any other reflex camera... true, the grip sticks up a bit, but if that makes it easier to grip, so be it.
-
I want to pick up a camera that feels good in my hand, has the controls I need where I can reach them, and produces the best image possible. I spend most of my time looking through it, not at it, so I don't really care what it looks like. That said, the N7 looks pretty much like any other reflex camera... true, the grip sticks up a bit, but if that makes it easier to grip, so be it.
As photographers, we are visual artists, and as visual artists our task is none other than caring how something looks. See the conundrum?
-
Don't get too horny Bernard, but 5-axis IBIS and ISO64 (only on the Z7) seem to be confirmed. You can pre-order.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/22/nikon-d850-vs-nikon-z6-vs-nikon-z7-specifications-comparison.aspx/
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/nikonz.png)
Regards
-
As photographers, we are visual artists, and as visual artists our task is none other than caring how something looks. See the conundrum?
+1
Some of the mirrorless cameras, Sony in particular, and now Nikon, look like designed by IKEA or LEGO. Do you need to assemble it first?
-
Some of the mirrorless cameras, Sony in particular, and now Nikon, look like designed by IKEA or LEGO.
Oh yeah, while DSLR's have been sculpted by Michelangelo...
(https://http2.mlstatic.com/D_Q_NP_873229-MLA27035099020_032018-Q.jpg)
-
As photographers, we are visual artists, and as visual artists our task is none other than caring how something looks. See the conundrum?
Indeed.
As visual artists I wouldn't recommend anyone come shopping with my wife and I. It doesn't matter if it's an egg cup or a car, the process is just mind numbing. And don't even get me started on clothes: we're as bad/good as each other.
-
I have seen many ugly photographers producing spectacular images.
At least on paper it looks as an amazing camera, so good that the only thing Nikon-haters can say is that it is ugly
-
Believe me, this is not just Nikon...
-
I've also seen many ugly images made by beautiful photographers.
-
And the new 24-70 looks like designed by Sigma :P
-
I've also seen many ugly images made by beautiful photographers.
Well, it does not take much effort :)
-
Oh yeah, while DSLR's have been sculpted by Michelangelo...
(https://http2.mlstatic.com/D_Q_NP_873229-MLA27035099020_032018-Q.jpg)
Yes, sculpted, but not by Michelangelo... more like Henry Moore... no sharp edges ;)
-
Sharp edges
Losing them was reason that the F2 was picked up before the F; I think that shutter went up to 1/2000th instead of the F's 1/1000th, but I very seldom found myself above 1/250th on either
These usually high speeds popular today seem to be the product of sensors being too damned fast and people exploring wide-open aperture photography, even when there's no logic to it.
Oh well, guess it's a fun thing to do...
:-)
P.S. Let nobody forget: Canon made the first melted Mars Bar bodies.
-
... P.S. Let nobody forget: Canon made the first melted Mars Bar bodies.
;D
-
+1
Some of the mirrorless cameras, Sony in particular, and now Nikon, look like designed by IKEA or LEGO. Do you need to assemble it first?
Hmmm... But the Sony and Nikon look very little like each other.
-
As photographers, we are visual artists, and as visual artists our task is none other than caring how something looks. See the conundrum?
For some visual artists, attractive form follows function, so it is the ones shaped like a bar of soap—and about as easy to grip securely with a heavy lens attached—that are ugly.
Anyway, for my eyes it’s back to looking at the specs and hoping to look at sample images soon.
-
One possible very bad news that they may only feature one memory card slot.
When I thought that only Phase One could still make such terrible design decisions. ;)
Other than that the specs look great. If AF performance is up to speed we have a great first FF mirrorless camera from Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One card slot - are they serious? Sure the chance of failure is extremely low but for most working photographers that isn't good enough. I find myself on 100k+ / day sets (digitech on the side) quite often and a card failure would probably ruin someones career if they weren't tethered.
-
For some visual artists, attractive form follows function, so it is the ones shaped like a bar of soap—and about as easy to grip securely with a heavy lens attached—that are ugly.
This is my view as well.
I find as much beauty in a rhino as in a tiger.
The beauty in a camera shouldn’t be assessed as a static object but as dynamic extension of one’s arm, eye, mind. It is the fluidity of the experience, the ability of the tool to just vanish and enable the achievements of one’s artistic goal that determines beauty for me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One card slot - are they serious? Sure the chance of failure is extremely low but for most working photographers that isn't good enough. I find myself on 100k+ / day sets (digitech on the side) quite often and a card failure would probably ruin someones career if they weren't tethered.
Yes...
Even the Nikon APS-C bodies in the D7000 series had two slots.
That was one major reason why I picked the H6D-100c over the IQ100...
If confirmed this may mean that I would only use a Z as a testing ground for mirrorless, meaning I would possibly only buy a Z6 with one lens as a go everywhere camera.
Now XQD cards are probably the most reliable (never had a failure), but still...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Im hoping they put a second slot in the battery grip.
-
Im hoping they put a second slot in the battery grip.
I am not sure that adding a high speed databus connection btwn the body and the grip would be such a good design.
Now that would ensure that 3rd party grips aren’t easily released... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not sure that adding a high speed databus connection btwn the body and the grip would be such a good design.
Now that would ensure that 3rd party grips aren’t easily released... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
You are correct I did not even think of the data requirements going though the grip. I think we'll get 2 slots - all shall be revealed in a few hours anyway.
-
Nikonrumors is now back pedaling a bit on this lack of double memory slots, we shall see in 4 hours. ;)
This picture seem to hint at the fact that there is only an XQD slot, but there may be a SD hidden behind it.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/22/more-nikon-z6-leaks-new-specs-pictures.aspx/
On the D850 the SD slot only takes 5 mm extra next to the XQD.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/first-real-world-image-of-the-nikon-z-leaked-plus-specs-and-size-comparison-with-other-mirrorless-cameras/ (https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/first-real-world-image-of-the-nikon-z-leaked-plus-specs-and-size-comparison-with-other-mirrorless-cameras/)
- The Z7 looks like a mirrorless D850 with higher frame rate. Other sources are stating it's based off the same sensor.
- The number of AF points is far less relevant than the performance of those points. That goes equally for the D850, A7r3, A7III, A9 and these new cameras. It doesn't matter if you have 1000 AF points if they don't perform. Equally, the D850 seems to AF just fine, despite its 150-or-so points (their reduced accuracy and consistency vs the A7r3 points, as documented on Jim Kasson's website, being related to the nature of DSLR vs mirrorless focusing rather than being due to the number of points, and their speed makes up for it).
- I doubt Nikon would be so monumentally stupid as to give these cameras one card slot only. They aren't competing against the first- or second-generation A7r, which were, in many ways, basically fit-for-release prototypes released into an environment with no peer competition - they're competing against the A7r3 and A9 (as well as whatever Canon decides to release) for high-end users. For this, dual card slots is almost a must. Note that the rumour says one XQD card. XQD cards are a fair bit larger than SD cards (although not huge by any means). There could well be one XQD card and one SD card slot - a bit like how many SLRs have one CF slot and one SD slot for backup.
- 9/10/12fps is really much of a muchness. It puts all of them in the same class frame rate wise - more than fast enough for sports and fast action, but not quite an A9. No-one ever faulted the D3 for having 9fps instead of 10fps like the 1D3, or the D5 for having 12fps instead of 14. The more relevant question is whether this is with electronic shutter only or not, and what happens to the viewfinder during shooting.
- If the Nikon has dual card slots, then price could turn out to be the killer, particularly if the rumour about both bodies having the same price is true. £3399 for the Z7 vs £2899 for the A7r3, with far fewer native-mount lenses available, is enough of a step up in price to hurt the Nikon. If the Z6 is also £3399, it would be absolutely ridiculous vs the A7III.
- In the context of these cameras, the A7s3 will be a very interesting release, since it will likely be closest to the Nikons in terms of release date and price (the A7III being a budget design which just happens to perform very, very well). If they manage to bump up the resolution to 24MP and integrate A7r3/A9-type AF capability, while maintaining the focus on high-ISO capability like the rest of the A7s series, the Z6 could be in trouble
-
- I doubt Nikon would be so monumentally stupid as to give these cameras one card slot only.
I hope that you are right.
I would be incredibly ironic to see Nikon over-achieve on all the super challenging technological aspects you have been highlighting for weeks in terms of AF, sensor, weight, size, heat, ability to release 2 cameras,... to see them fail on this super basic aspect that is only a marketing decision. ;D
Now, Nikon may think that the level of performance of their camera is so high (in particular on the AF front) that buyers will be able to overcome this limitation with limited actual practical impact. And this may be paving the way for upcoming Z8/Z9 cameras with higher megapixels and speed that would have double slots.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There's an interesting new/old comparison photo (or mockup?) below, the Nikon mount looks huge, enough for 44x33 MF, or maybe in-body stabilisation for video..
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com
Edmund
-
the Nikon mount looks huge, enough for 44x33 MF
mount yes, but what about contact pins above sensor inside the chamber for communication w/ lenses - are you sure they will allow such sensor ?
-
There's an interesting new/old comparison photo (or mockup?) below, the Nikon mount looks huge, enough for 44x33 MF, or maybe in-body stabilisation for video..
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com
Edmund
Bigger than Sony’s APS-C 46mm, but it looks well under 55mm, so not nearly big enough to work with the 55mm diagonal of 44x33mm sensors.
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/22/nikon-z-and-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6-lens-japanese-pricing.aspx/
Prices in Japan are clearly targeting the upper end segment.
Nikon is obviously very confident about the level of performance of these bodies... it doesn't look like they have targeted the a7rIII, but more the a7rIV. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Live from Nikon event:
- Z mount inner diameter is 55mm, flange distance is 16mm
-> best future potential
- z7: 45.7 mp, 493 focus points (phase + contrast), end of Sept availability, open price, est retail 440,000 Japanese Yen incl tax
- z6: 24.5 mp, ISO 100-51200, 12 fps, end of Nov availability, est retail 270,000 Japanese Yen incl tax
shared features: fully weatherproof, expeed 6 (new middle range sharpening), EVF (aspherical glass used, quad-VGA EVF, 3.6 mp), IBIS (5 axis, 5 stop), FF 4K 30p, FF HD 120, 10 bits NLOG HMDI output, lenses with quiter AF and little focus breathing, smooth focus, aperture change, battery pack available, new lens production quality/tolerances, full compatibility with existing flashes.
All lenses announced and planned belong to a new S line (highest quality, seems to correspond to Canon L)
- 3 lenses as rumored (24-70 f4, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8), said to be amazing performers at full aperture from closeup to infinity, very little CA (including axial), great corner performance, great bokeh, multi-focus systems, great AF performance
- 58mm f0.95 Noct under developement - super sharp and great bokeh
- 5 lenses in 2019 (20mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 14-30 f4)
- 3+ lenses in 2020 (50mm f1.2 - first of a new f1.2 line, 24mm f1.8, 14-24mm f2.8)
Prices/releases dates of lenses in Japan:
- 24-70: end of Sept, suggested retail 136,000 Yen excl tax
- 35mm f1.8: end of Sept, suggested retail 114,000 Yen excl tax
- 50mm f1.8: end of Oct, suggested retail 83,000 Yen excl tax
- mount f->Z: end of Sept, suggested retail, 36,000 Yen excl tax
Unfortunately, the single card slot is confirmed as well as the lack of eye AF feature (even if face detection AF is said to be very effective). These 2 may be dealbreakers for many potential buyers.
Battery life is reported to be good from DPreview, with 1,600 images per battery charge in real world usage.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Terrible presentation from Nikon ambassadors but what can you expect. I thought the zoom was a good size but im not a fan of the double telescope, 1k for 1.8 lenses is steep.
Only things I want to know about are EVF quality, availability of grip and card slots. Looks like I might be sticking with SLRs for a while but maybe that will change when I hold one.
Way less sexy than a D850 also.
EDIT
Raw specs - https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/mirrorless/z_7/spec.htm
1/200 sync
XQD only (1 slot?)
-
So what happens if Sony stop making XQD cards....?
-
As a Sony user my 2c. I think it looks OK. Never been a huge fan of the melted cheese styling of the big DSLR’s. I don’t think the looks are such a big deal anyway quite honestly and I don’t find the camera actually offensive.
Single card slot doesn’t bother me. I shoot a lot and I have never had a SD card fail and these new cards are reported even more stable. CF were a lot more wobbly. Anyway all my commercial stuff is shot therhered. I don’t do weddings.
The 24 to 70 F4 would be a buy for me. Wouldn’t go near the very fast primes. Not my style.
I think all round a pretty solid looking entry into FF mirrorless. Doesn’t tempt me to swop to Nikon but if I was just entering the mirrorless field this would be worth a look for me. If it had been around two years ago there is a strong chance I would have bought this. I had to overcome some pretty strong prejudices initially to go Sony.
-
So what happens if Sony stop making XQD cards....?
- Lexar is supposed to restart manufacturing of XQD cards,
- Delkin is making some too,
- Nikon is now selling some too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For me here... the most interesting announcement from Nikon is the lens roadmap... it shows a clear compromise with the new mount system, for any person that has doubts about the future of a new lens mount system. Because if you relay in AF, you will want to go native at some point...
In terms of features of the cameras, Looking at the sheet, I don’t see something that is that much stronger or weaker than the competition, but I suppose we will need to wait to autumn for some independent review and analysis of the cameras.
Looks like Nikon went for video market also, something they didn’t took that seriously in the F mount...
My two cents...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
So what happens if Sony stop making XQD cards....?
Nothing, XQD is a format proposed by Sony, Nikon and SanDisk... part now of the CompactFlash association... and several manufacturers announcing cards now...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Can we mount canon lenses on these?
Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk
-
Can we mount canon lenses on these?
Most certainly, although it will remain to be seen how they behave AF wise.
You should even be able to mount Sony mirrorless lenses on this. The mount is much larger with a more shallow flange distance, it should be enough to build a adapter. Since the Sony AF protocol is public, the adapter manufacturers will just need to reverse engineer the Nikon Z/S protocol.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So what happens if Sony stop making XQD cards....?
Apparently CFexpress cards will also work down the road with a firmware update.
-
I would like to know if they have different aspect modes. A proper 4x5 would be lovely. I would also like information about the grip and am a bit perplexed it wasn't in the roadmap. I have pre-ordered without a deposit requirement from my local dealer, I'll see what the next few weeks brings.
-
Nice coverage in DPReview:
- Z 7 first impressions - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7-first-impressions-review
- Z 7 impressions: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4160692612/nikon-z7-what-you-need-to-know-about-nikon-s-first-mirrorless-full-frame-ilc
- Z 7 with adapted lenses: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0039746111/what-s-the-nikon-z-like-with-adapted-lenses?slide=9
- Hands on with Z lenses: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1697483390/hands-on-with-nikon-s-three-z-series-lenses
P.D.: not sure who in Nikon marketing thought about the name strategy... but it looks ugly that white space between the Z and model number of the camera...
-
They also have a long video https://youtu.be/DrWv6D3v95g
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
One slightly disappointing piece of information I have just come across I was not aware of is that the 58mm f0.95 appears to be a manual focus lens.
I have been working without issues with with my Otus glass so far, so this can be done, and will be much easier with an EVF, but it is nonetheless a bit sad that the new AF isn't compatible with super bright glass.
I also find it misguiding that nothing in the lens naming reveals this aspect.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon Z, my current takeways.
Positive:
- what may be the most future proof mount ever introduced
- perfect body size/weight with an ergonomics that is appealing for Nikon users
- same of better image quality as the D850
- very solid first entry in the high end mirrorless world
- the basics seem to be well implemented, from EVF, to AF, to F mount adapter
- the quality of the lenses promises to be outstanding
- Lens roadmap published with many appealing lenses
- much better video specs (from AF to quality of files)
- only a month from annoucment to availability of first producs, this isn't a paperware announcment
- silent shooting
- sensor stabilization
- weather sealing
- current batteries can be used and USB charging
- LCD with good resolution
Negative:
- only one memory card slot
- no eye AF (we will need to see how good the face AF is)
- some physical controls may be missing, will need to see how easy the function buttons/User setting will be able to compensate - the only one that worries me is AF modes control
- non open mount will complicate delivery of adapters
- prices a bit on the high side (more so in Japan than in the US)
- the 58mm f0.95 is MF only, but then again we don't know if it even possible technologically to AF such a design
- buffer a bit shallow but should be fine for non action shooting
Overall, as a Nikon user heavily invested in F mount lenses, I find the Z7 an appealing proposition, a bit more so that the Sony a7rIII. I would probably look at things differently without my F mount lenses.
The only aspect I am really worried about in fact is the lack of double memory slot. This is in a context where my XQD cards have been 100% reliable till now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon Z, my current takeways.
Positive:
- what may be the most future proof mount ever introduced
- perfect body size/weight with an ergonomics that is appealing for Nikon users
- same of better image quality as the D850
- very solid first entry in the high end mirrorless world
- the basics seem to be well implemented, from EVF, to AF, to F mount adapter
- the quality of the lenses promises to be outstanding
- Lens roadmap published with many appealing lenses
- much better video specs (from AF to quality of files)
- only a month from annoucment to availability of first producs, this isn't a paperware announcment
Negative:
- only one memory card slot
- no eye AF (we will need to see how good the face AF is)
- some physical controls may be missing, will need to see how easy the function buttons/User setting will be able to compensate - the only one that worries me is AF modes control
- non open mount will complicate delivery of adapters
- prices a bit on the high side (more so in Japan than in the US)
- the 58mm f0.95 is AF only, but then again we don't know if it even possible technologically to AF such a design
- buffer a bit shallow but should be fine for non action shooting
Overall, as a Nikon user heavily invested in F mount lenses, I find the Z7 an appealing proposition, a bit more so that the Sony a7rIII. I would probably look at things differently without my F mount lenses.
The only aspect I am really worried about in fact is the lack of double memory slot. This is in a context where my XQD cards have been 100% reliable till now.
Hi Bernard,
More or less I agree with you. I saw in DPReview that they complained a bit about the lacking of 3D Tracking and some of the way the AF configuration operates, but the latter I assume that it could be improved in future firmware releases. The same goes for Eye AF, if the processor in the Z cameras can handle it, it can be added later on via firmware update.
From a video point of view I will add a positive and a negative to your list:
- Positive: 10 bit HDMI output, interesting for people that does color grading.
- Negative: In FF 4k mode, they are doing line skipping, so less image quality. If you want the best quality you need to record in DX/Super 35mm that does a pixel by pixel reading. More sharper image.
Yes, if I had a lot of F lenses, my route will be the Nikon system for sure, the Sony system will not make sense at all. With that roadmap of lenses looks like Nikon is not thinking this just like an exercise to see how many user will be interested in this kind of system. My position is different, having switch from Canon to Sony in the last two years, now I have an investment in cameras and lenses... so I will stick with Sony for the next years (in the future, who knows?).
P.D.: I suppose you wanted to say "the 58mm f0.95 is MF only"
Regards,
David
-
P.D.: I suppose you wanted to say "the 58mm f0.95 is MF only"
Hi David,
Yes, thanks, corrected.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Would have liked to see the 750 buttonplacement (lefthand thumb for chimping) with less clutter on the righthand side.
What do we make of a 60hz vf refreshrate for say a z6 in eventsetting?
Or the cipa rating of 330 in a similar setting? Maybe yes as a silent second body?
-
I correct myself... looks like Z 6 is not doing line skipping in FF mode...
Hi Bernard,
More or less I agree with you. I saw in DPReview that they complained a bit about the lacking of 3D Tracking and some of the way the AF configuration operates, but the latter I assume that it could be improved in future firmware releases. The same goes for Eye AF, if the processor in the Z cameras can handle it, it can be added later on via firmware update.
From a video point of view I will add a positive and a negative to your list:
- Positive: 10 bit HDMI output, interesting for people that does color grading.
- Negative: In FF 4k mode, they are doing line skipping, so less image quality. If you want the best quality you need to record in DX/Super 35mm that does a pixel by pixel reading. More sharper image.
Yes, if I had a lot of F lenses, my route will be the Nikon system for sure, the Sony system will not make sense at all. With that roadmap of lenses looks like Nikon is not thinking this just like an exercise to see how many user will be interested in this kind of system. My position is different, having switch from Canon to Sony in the last two years, now I have an investment in cameras and lenses... so I will stick with Sony for the next years (in the future, who knows?).
P.D.: I suppose you wanted to say "the 58mm f0.95 is MF only"
Regards,
David
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Most certainly, although it will remain to be seen how they behave AF wise.
You should even be able to mount Sony mirrorless lenses on this. The mount is much larger with a more shallow flange distance, it should be enough to build a adapter. Since the Sony AF protocol is public, the adapter manufacturers will just need to reverse engineer the Nikon Z/S protocol.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm not so sure that a Sony FE - Nion Z mount adapter is feasible. With the Sony flange distance of 18mm and Nikon 16mm the adapter can only be 2mm thick. It will have to support a solid backing to both sets of contacts and a CPU for AF and aperture control. Obviously no space for that inside like the Metabones Canon _Sony so it will have to hang off the bottom, to only 2mm of metal. I just don't see it. A completely dumb adapter could be made like the Leica M - Sony but I see no purpose to use lenses like that.
-
Indeed, 2mm isn’t enough with the same diameter, but the much larger diameter may make something possoble.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm not so sure that a Sony FE - Nion Z mount adapter is feasible. With the Sony flange distance of 18mm and Nikon 16mm the adapter can only be 2mm thick. It will have to support a solid backing to both sets of contacts and a CPU for AF and aperture control. Obviously no space for that inside like the Metabones Canon _Sony so it will have to hang off the bottom, to only 2mm of metal. I just don't see it. A completely dumb adapter could be made like the Leica M - Sony but I see no purpose to use lenses like that.
Without electronics it will only be useful if you want to adapt Zeiss Loxia lens or Voigtlander ones, or any other complete manual one. E system is fully electronic. To focus the lens (it is focus by wire) or change aperture you need the electronics. And, anyway, I will expect that Zeiss creates Loxia equivalentes to Z mount (no Batis ones) and the rest of manual focus lenses like Voitglander or Laowa to port their designs to the system...
-
Without electronics it will only be useful if you want to adapt Zeiss Loxia lens or Voigtlander ones, or any other complete manual one. E system is fully electronic. To focus the lens (it is focus by wire) or change aperture you need the electronics. And, anyway, I will expect that Zeiss creates Loxia equivalentes to Z mount (no Batis ones) and the rest of manual focus lenses like Voitglander or Laowa to port their designs to the system...
That's a good point about Loxia and VC lenses but I agree with you that Zeiss and Voigtlander will likely bring out NZ versions pretty quickly once they've figured out the NZ protocol (to pass EXIF data). I think there will be a market for Leica M - NZ and it will be interesting to see the 1st tests and find out if the Leica WA lenses suffer from edge and corner smearing as they do on the Sony due to the cover glass.
-
That's a good point about Loxia and VC lenses but I agree with you that Zeiss and Voigtlander will likely bring out NZ versions pretty quickly once they've figured out the NZ protocol (to pass EXIF data). I think there will be a market for Leica M - NZ and it will be interesting to see the 1st tests and find out if the Leica WA lenses suffer from edge and corner smearing as they do on the Sony due to the cover glass.
I will not keep my hopes up for that. Nikon cover glass in the latests models is more or less more close to Sony sensor width than Leica one: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter/ . If they want to keep less problems using adapted F lenses in Z mount, I don't think they will have a very thin sensor layer like Leica likes to use.
-
That's a good point about Loxia and VC lenses but I agree with you that Zeiss and Voigtlander will likely bring out NZ versions pretty quickly once they've figured out the NZ protocol (to pass EXIF data). I think there will be a market for Leica M - NZ and it will be interesting to see the 1st tests and find out if the Leica WA lenses suffer from edge and corner smearing as they do on the Sony due to the cover glass.
There may well be a market for that adaptor, but I wouldn't be banking on the Leica lenses behaving themselves with the Nikon sensor stack.
-
Could well be. In the early Sony FF days people were desperately looking for good Leica - Sony matches, but now that Zeiss and VC have started reformulating their glass for the Sony sensor cover thickness it's probably a moot point.
-
We have both cameras and lenses coming when delivery starts and will report on them when they arrive. The new Z cameras look interesting and the mirrorless market is getting to be more fun. I am not at the NYC event this week since I am running a workshop but will have one of the first production units of each camera when they ship. We'll also do an On The Rocks video with the camera. Surprised about the one card slot. Also, really interested on how fast the camera focuses with the adapter. We have one of those coming also.
Now, it's Canon's turn.
-
Being use to the Nikon interface from using my D800 it's an easy decision for me, assuming the image quality holds up. I have tried the Sony but I don't like the user interface. The more choices the better for all of us. Being a Phase user I hope they have a mirrorless system in the works. I'm getting to old to lug all this heavy equipment around :)
-
Not particularly impressed with Nikon's announcements today. They look like they're aimed at weaning existing Nikon shooters off SLR and onto mirrorless, as opposed to attracting outsiders to the new system. Individually, each item looks decent enough (with certain weaknesses in the body specs), but, taken as a whole, they don't provide a compelling reason for those not already shooting Nikon to move to the Z-mount, nor a particularly strong reason for those not heavily invested in F-mount to move to Z-mount rather than moving to Sony, or waiting to see what Canon has to offer.
With the bodies themselves:
- One card slot? What were they thinking? This point alone makes the Z6 and Z7 less than worthy of being considered top-tier systems and unsuitable for a lot of professional use. It doesn't matter if the risk of card failure is one in a million - if that one is you, and you're shooting a must-capture event that can't (or won't) be repeated, you'd better have a backup. But, due to other factors, it probably hurts Nikon less than it otherwise could have. In truth, the Z6 and Z7 could not have been the foundation of a pro-focused system, almost regardless of their specs. More on that later.
- The listed battery life is around half that of the A7r3/A9. Any A7r/A7r2/A7s/A7s2 user will know how annoying it was to have to carry a whole bag of batteries around, even if each one wasn't very big.
- The Z7 is essentially a mirrorless D850, or A7r3 clone. But it comes a year later than the D850 and A7r3, without the A7r3's lens options or the D850's performance with F-mount lenses - it looks to be a case of 'me too' rather than an attractive product in its own right. If you already own lots of F-mount lenses, why not just get a D850? If you don't, what reason is there to get the Z7 rather than the A7r3?
- The Z6 looks to be an updated D750 and seems more interesting than the Z7. At the right price (e.g. less than the A7III, as an introductory price due to the new mount and lack of lens options) it could be very attractive to buyers looking to move into full frame for the first time, locking them into the system with lens purchases as more lenses are released. But I doubt Nikon will market it that way.
- Again, one card slot???
With the system:
- The initial lens releases pretty much tie it to hobbyist use. A 24-70/4 and two relatively-slow primes might be attractive as a travel photography starter kit, and the upcoming 58/0.95 might win over hipsters and the artsy types, but simply won't cut it as a pro kit. If they had released a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 as their first two lenses, with a 16-35/2.8 or 14-24/2.8 coming soon after, they would have had a very solid starter kit to encourage pros to move into the new system. Sure, you can use F-mount lenses with an adapter (with whatever AF and alignment issues that introduces), but that still leaves pros with no incentive to move to Z-mount - those who have F-mount lenses can just use them on a D5 or D850 without an adapter and get better performance, while Sony already has a full ecosystem of bodies and lenses, ready for pro use, for those who don't already have a bag full of F-mount lenses. Ironically, this is why the single card slot probably hurts them less than it could have - the single card slot makes the cameras less viable for a pro setup, but the lack of core lenses makes it less-than-attractive as a pro system anyway, at least until the next generation (which may come sooner rather than later).
- The lens roadmap is a good start, providing some certainty for those looking to move into the new system, but is likely too slow. The 14-24/24-70/70-200 f/2.8 trinity won't be ready until the next generation of Nikon is almost ready for release, and the next generation of Sony is likely to have already been released. There won't be any long telephotos in time for the Tokyo Olympics.
- The closed mount will only make uptake of the system slower, due to fewer lenses being available and possible compatibility issues (a bit like earlier-generation Sigmas on Canon cameras).
Overall, I'm not sure what Nikon has achieved here. They either needed to smash it out of the park for the pros with a top-tier, full-featured body (with two card slots) and a lens lineup ready for pro use (even if it's just two or three core fast zooms) at time of launch, or to try to undercut the A7III with a camera designed for new users to full-frame, locking them into the Nikon framework and Z-mount while building up their lineup for pro use later. They haven't really done either - instead, they seem to have done something in between.
Assuming that people are logical and go for whichever system will benefit them most and give them the most bang for buck, rather than having an unhealthy attraction to brand name and marketing alone, this is how it stands at the moment:
If you already own a lot of high-end F-mount lenses - stick with the D850 or D5. Why would you take a bunch of good lenses that work perfectly well on Nikon SLRs and put them on a system that's more expensive (compared with the D850), where you have to use an adapter, with less battery life, with a single card slot, and where they probably wont' autofocus as well? It's not as if D850s and D5s are going to disappear off the shelf tomorrow. This lot aren't moving to mirrorless with this generation, although they will likely gradually leak across as fewer and fewer F-mount lenses and bodies get released.
If you own one or two high-end F-mount lenses - are you happy with SLR, or do you have a particular reason to go for mirrorless? If SLR is serving you well, why not stick with it for another generation or so, until both bodies and lenses become outdated? If you particularly want to move to mirrorless (for whatever reason), are you so wedded to Nikon that you must move to Z-mount and use your existing lenses with an adapter and reduced performance, or would you be better off selling your current lenses and moving to E-mount and the equivalent lenes there (or waiting another two years for Nikon to release suitable native Z-mount lenses)? In this category, they're all acceptable options.
If you shoot Canon full-frame - you really have no reason to move to Z-mount at the moment. Maybe in a generation's time, as your lenses age out and Z-mount becomes more viable, with more lens options, and it becomes clearer where Nikon and Canon are going with mirrorless, but, for now, sticking with Canon SLR seems like the most sensible choice if you're in no hurry to move, or moving to Sony (with good support for Canon lenses via Metabones adapters, and lots of native lens choices) if you particularly want to move to mirrorless or aren't happy with Canon's body and sensor offerings.
If you don't currently shoot full-frame at all - the Z6, with some compact lenses, might be interesting if the price is right, if you don't need the bigger/faster/longer lenses right away and are prepared to build up a lens collection over time. Otherwise, there's a whole Sony ecosystem out there, with lenses available for any budget and almost any shooting style.
So, at present, it looks much more interesting for existing Nikon users looking for a second, compact body than for anyone not already using the Nikon system. This will likely change over time, as the Z-mount lineup grows, but, right now, it doesn't look like it will challenge E-mount for another generation or so, and will only grow market share by slowly weaning F-mount users away from SLR, rather than pulling people away from E-mount.
It will be interesting to see what Canon does. If they release a similarly-performing full-frame mirrorless body, with dual card slots and 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses at the outset, Z mount will struggle.
-
More info about Z6 and lenses: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0243883882/a-closer-look-at-nikon-s-new-z-6-and-future-z-mount-lenses
The new 50mm 0.95 looks like it will come with a high price tag: https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/the-bokeh-king-noct-58mm-f-095-lens-will-cost-about-6000/
-
... The new 50mm 0.95 looks like it will come with a high price tag: https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/the-bokeh-king-noct-58mm-f-095-lens-will-cost-about-6000/
With non-phone cameras losing popularity contest, they aim for the luxury market. The proverbial dentists and lawyers.
-
@shadowblade - seems like you’re completely wrong calling the 2 primes available at launch slow and midrange. There’s already a review of 35/1.8 and photographer’s jaw dropped (his own words). You can also look at specs and charts yourself.
Releasing 24-70/4 lens as part of the system is a good move as it’s a kit lens and as a part of kit it’s offered with good discount. 2.8 zooms will be as large as current versions so there’s no need to rush.
-
I never had an SD card fail in a camera (though one blew up years ago while hooked up to a laptop) until I got a camera with two SD slots. ;D Even then it was the camera's rather than the card's fault.
From where I sit the new Nikon thing is a big meh. The last thing I'm interested in is another proprietary mount. But let's see how quickly (and well) they turn it into a proper system.
-Dave-
-
The new 50mm 0.95 looks like it will come with a high price tag: https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/the-bokeh-king-noct-58mm-f-095-lens-will-cost-about-6000/
Is it focus-by-wire? And if so, how does one do that?
-
I never had an SD card fail in a camera (though one blew up years ago while hooked up to a laptop) until I got a camera with two SD slots. ;D Even then it was the camera's rather than the card's fault.
From where I sit the new Nikon thing is a big meh. The last thing I'm interested in is another proprietary mount. But let's see how quickly (and well) they turn it into a proper system.
-Dave-
But aren't all lens mounts proprietary? How do you get around that?
-
With non-phone cameras losing popularity contest, they aim for the luxury market. The proverbial dentists and lawyers.
How could such a lens be cheap?
It is likely to beat the Otus while being 2 stops brighter.
The whole drama about the memory slot is such a pity because it casts a huge negative shadow on what is likely to be the best image quality system in existence in the 35mm world.
Let’s not underestimate Nikon on their core strenghts, these lenses will be totally outstanding while remaining compact and light (except for the statement Noct obviously but even that lens may not be much larger than an Otus 55mm f1.4 although it is 2 stops brighter). That may matter a lot for many photographers.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But aren't all lens mounts proprietary? How do you get around that?
Some are moreso than others. I was hoping Nikon would publish their mount specs. "Here's how it works, folks…have at it!" A system where 3rd party lens makers wouldn't have to reverse engineer would interest me. It would also signal an intent to compete hard right outta the gate.
-Dave-
-
There is one potentially major feature of the new Z7 system that interests me. The initial lens lineup for the Z7 consists of three lenses that appear to be configured to be relatively slow by the standards of those who always clamor for FAST lenses (f/4 for the zoom and f/1.8 for the primes) and yet purport to provide the very highest level of optical quality AND a small, light form factor. Sony started out this way when it released the first A7R. There was a 55mm f/1.8, which is a fabulous lens and quite small. There was also a 35mm f/2.8 lens that was excellent and tiny. Then, there was a 24-70 f/4 zoom that was very compact but with just OK optical quality. Since then, Sony has segmented the lens lineup into two basic categories. Big, heavy, fast, expensive lenses that purport to be the top of the line in optical quality. And smaller, lighter, slower lenses that are less good but are cheaper for the price conscious. Reading the Z7 lens roadmap, I think I like what it appears Nikon may be doing. A line of slower but compact lenses (f/1.8 primes and f/4 zooms) that are still of top quality and are not designed to be the cheap options, and then a line of fast primes (f/1.4 and f/.095) and fast f/2.8 zooms that are big, heavy, somewhat more expensive and of excellent optical quality. Will Nikon be the first to recognize that there is a niche of serious photographers at the high end of the market out there who will pay MORE for a slower prime or zoom if it is smaller and lighter AND the quality matches the price?
-
Will Nikon be the first to recognize that there is a niche of serious photographers at the high end of the market out there who will pay MORE for a slower prime or zoom if it is smaller and lighter AND the quality matches the price?
+1
-
Yes, image quality is the core value here and I believe that you are totally correct in your understanding of the direction Nikon is taking.
The DSLR series of f1.8 Nikon lenses is already outstanding and it appears that the S line is even better.
There are probably going to be super compact lenses added later that may not belong to the S series, but for now all the lenses announced do. This says a lot about the focus of Nikon and they can be trusted on this!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I moved on to smaller Fujis several years ago—my D800E spends almost all its time on a shelf—and I certainly can't claim any expertise in marketing. But I don't understand why Nikon didn't bundle an F-mount adapter with the Z-series bodies, and absorb the manufacturing and distribution cost. Or at the very least, offer a one-per-purchaser coupon that could be redeemed for an adapter from a retail outlet at Nikon's expense.
-
Bernard, your penchant for superlatives when it comes to Nikon is approaching Triump’s (for things he likes) :D
-
This is a strange time as a Nikon owner. Is this the beginning of the end of the F mount? I was surprised to see in their roadmap of the future, a 20mm 1.8 prime Z mount. They just recently came out with the F mount version. Other than for long telephoto lenses why would Nikon ever make another F mount lens? Is the D850 the last of the pro DSLR? Then again can they really survive in the mirrorless market?
-
Will Nikon be the first to recognize that there is a niche of serious photographers at the high end of the market out there who will pay MORE for a slower prime or zoom if it is smaller and lighter AND the quality matches the price?
+2
-
This is a strange time as a Nikon owner. Is this the beginning of the end of the F mount? I was surprised to see in their roadmap of the future, a 20mm 1.8 prime Z mount. They just recently came out with the F mount version. Other than for long telephoto lenses why would Nikon ever make another F mount lens? Is the D850 the last of the pro DSLR? Then again can they really survive in the mirrorless market?
My view is that they have a pretty good F mount line up, and will probably continue to update some key lenses, but the focus moving forward is definitely going to be Z.
I am not sure why they wouldn't be able to survive in the mirrorless world. They have just come up with 2 bodies that are overall very close, if not better than the 3rd generation of Sony bodies at competitive pricing levels with a more future proof mount. Not sure what you are worried about?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, your penchant for superlatives when it comes to Nikon is approaching Triump’s (for things he likes) :D
Political comments are supposed to be banned but I doubt Jeremy is reading this thread.
-
Political comments are supposed to be banned but I doubt Jeremy is reading this thread.
Thankfully things that are true aren't always true ;D
-
@shadowblade - seems like you’re completely wrong calling the 2 primes available at launch slow and midrange. There’s already a review of 35/1.8 and photographer’s jaw dropped (his own words). You can also look at specs and charts yourself.
Releasing 24-70/4 lens as part of the system is a good move as it’s a kit lens and as a part of kit it’s offered with good discount. 2.8 zooms will be as large as current versions so there’s no need to rush.
I said slow, not midrange.
Regardless of their optical quality, there is a big role 35mm and 50mm lenses in the f/1.2-1.4 aperture range which a f/1.8 simply can't fill, no matter how sharp it is. Leica's Summicron lenses might be sharper, but there are a lot of applications where you just want the increased background blur of the Summilux. These lenses are Nikon's Summicrons.
In another sense, they're a bit like the Zeiss Batis 135/2.8. A sharp lens and solid optical performer, but just not fast enough for a lot of pro use - not when everyone else offers a 135/2 or 135/1.8. These potential buyers are waiting for the faster lens.
How could such a lens be cheap?
It is likely to beat the Otus while being 2 stops brighter.
No it's not.
The extreme geometries and optical design required for such fast lenses make them expensive and difficult to manufacture, as well as limiting their optical performance compared to less-extreme lenses.
Leica's Noctilux lenses are horrendously expensive. They're also just about the softest lenses in Leica's lineup. They're expensive because they're hard to design, hard to make and hard to sell profitably in large numbers.
I am not sure why they wouldn't be able to survive in the mirrorless world. They have just come up with 2 bodies that are overall very close, if not better than the 3rd generation of Sony bodies at competitive pricing levels with a more future proof mount. Not sure what you are worried about?
One. Card. Slot.
That alone takes it out of 'very close' contention. Many pros, and any others similarly interested in not risking loss of photos, simply won't consider them.
Other than that, the Z7 is pretty much a mirrorless D850, which itself is pretty much an A7r3 with a mirror. So I'd expect their performance to be pretty similar, give or take a few features on each side (eye focus, better weather sealing, pixel shift, etc.).
The position of the Z6 depends on its price. If it's cheaper than the A7III, it would make for a very good introductory full-frame camera, with a 24-70/4 kit lens. If it's priced significantly higher, it will struggle against the A9 and A7r3.
No doubt the single card issue will be fixed at some future point. But the next generation is almost certainly at least two years away, and will be competing against next-generation Sonys. Even now, these are new cameras competing against an almost one-year-old product, a third of the way into its life cycle - you'd expect them to be better.
The mount isn't really more future-proof - just bigger. It's still not big enough for a medium format sensor (technically, you could just fit a 33x44mm sensor behind a 55mm throat, but that leaves very little margin for lens design). And, if you can fit a 400/2.8, 600/4 or Leica Noctilux lens onto a Sony E via an adapter without edge clipping or major vignetting - and you clearly can, since many people have been doing exactly that over the past five years - then you can equally design such lenses native to the E-mount.
-
Live from Nikon event:
- Z mount inner diameter is 55mm, flange distance is 16mm
Bernard, you clearly win on measuring from that photo; can I claim a tie for 55mm falling between my too low estimates and your earlier too high ones?!
A few random thoughts:
- The PCIe-based XQD seems to have won over the SATA-based CFast; the next generation CFexpress is essentially an evolution of XQD, with compatibility possible through firmware upgrades.
- I like Nikon's lens approach. It is clearly impractical to launch a full range of high quality lenses in a new mount and instantly please every category of user, so it seems wise to initially target those who care a bit more about about a reasonably light hand-holdable kit over maximum possible speed — and then have an adaptor and a solid road map with the classic f/2.8 zooms and some fast primes. And with the very high usable ISO speeds these days, I am a fan of the idea of mid-speed f/4 zoom lenses that exploit the higher minimum f-stop to be excellently corrected.
- As I said before, the fact that Canon's late arriving EOS-M system with limited native lens options is the best selling APS-C mirrorless system (in Japan at least) shows the market clout of factors like a brands overall reputation, user base and extensive retail presence, along with lots of good first party SLR lenses already in customers' hands and usable with a first party adapter can count for a lot. So I would not rule out Nikon Z competing very well against Sony E.
P. S. Folks, please update my inaccurate original subject line!
-
These potential buyers are waiting for the faster lens.
I wondering why I find these appealing then... and so did 3 other actual buyers here also. The only person who has commented otherwise so far is you who is clearly not a potential buyer. ;)
No it's not.
The extreme geometries and optical design required for such fast lenses make them expensive and difficult to manufacture, as well as limiting their optical performance compared to less-extreme lenses.
Leica's Noctilux lenses are horrendously expensive. They're also just about the softest lenses in Leica's lineup. They're expensive because they're hard to design, hard to make and hard to sell profitably in large numbers.
As far as I know, your comments are purely theoretical since no MTF charts have been published. I have never caught Nikon lying about the level of performance of their optics. It is the first time they speak with such confidence about a lens, I am 100% sure it is going to be amazing.
The recent 75mm f1.25 is probably the best Leica lens M there is. Technology progresses. The Nikon at 6,000 US$ is going to be seen as a total bargain among these super designs.
Overall, most of your Nikon Z forecast have proven wrong and mine have proven right. The odds seem pretty high that the track record extends to lenses too... 8)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But I don't understand why Nikon didn't bundle an F-mount adapter with the Z-series bodies, and absorb the manufacturing and distribution cost. Or at the very least, offer a one-per-purchaser coupon that could be redeemed for an adapter from a retail outlet at Nikon's expense.
Absorb the costs of bundling an adapter ? You mean build the cost into the sale of every camera to accommodate the maybe 1 in 10 purchasers who want one. That'll never happen.
Now some retailers do know how to compel you to buy that bundle at their discounted price. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1431753-REG/nikon_z6_mirrorless_digital_camera.html)
-
Bernard, you clearly win on measuring from that photo; can I claim a tie for 55mm falling between my too low estimates and your earlier too high ones?!
Yes, let's call it a tie. ;)
A few random thoughts:
- The PCIe-based XQD seems to have won over the SATA-based CFast; the next generation CFexpress is essentially an evolution of XQD, with compatibility possible through firmware upgrades.
- I like Nikon's lens approach. It is clearly impractical to launch a full range of high quality lenses in a new mount and instantly please every category of user, so it seems wise to initially target those who care a bit more about about a reasonably light hand-holdable kit over maximum possible speed — and then have an adaptor and a solid road map with the classic f/2.8 zooms and some fast primes. And with the very high usable ISO speeds these days, I am a fan of the idea of mid-speed f/4 zoom lenses that exploit the higher minimum f-stop to be excellently corrected.
- As I said before, the fact that Canon's late arriving EOS-M system with limited native lens options is the best selling APS-C mirrorless system (in Japan at least) shows the market clout of factors like a brands overall reputation, user base and extensive retail presence, along with lots of good first party SLR lenses already in customers' hands and usable with a first party adapter can count for a lot. So I would not rule out Nikon Z competing very well against Sony E.
P. S. Folks, please update my inaccurate original subject line!
I am overall pretty optimistic also.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... update my inaccurate original subject line!
You can modify your original post - including the subject. :)
-
Absorb the costs of bundling an adapter ? You mean build the cost into the sale of every camera to accommodate the maybe 1 in 10 purchasers who want one. That'll never happen.
In fact they do that to an extend. There is an official Nikon kit bundling the adapter that ends up being 50% discounted.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wondering why I find these appealing then... and so did 3 other actual buyers here also. The only person who has commented otherwise so far is you who is clearly not a potential buyer. ;)
Which is clearly representative of the bulk of customers - the key markets of wedding/event photographers in particular.
If this thread - or even this forum - were representative, then Canon wouldn't exist as a camera company.
As far as I know, your comments are purely theoretical since no MTF charts have been published. I have never caught Nikon lying about the level of performance of their optics. It is the first time they speak with such confidence about a lens, I am 100% sure it is going to be amazing.
All I've seen from Nikon so far is a big pile of marketing-speak. Nikon, Canon and Sony all say the same things every single time they release a body or lens, whether it's a 400/2.8 or a Canon Rebel. And, every single time, it's worth ignoring, until the technical data and tests come out.
Overall, most of your Nikon Z forecast have proven wrong and mine have proven right. The odds seem pretty high that the track record extends to lenses too... 8)
Show me a list. I have my list in front of me. And make a clear distinction between predictions ('this will happen') and possibilities ('Nikon could do this') and conditionals ('if X is true, then Nikon could do this'). With no ability to see the future, you need a range of possibilities, almost like a flow-chart. I write all three, and you obviously fail to see the difference.
-
This is a strange time as a Nikon owner. Is this the beginning of the end of the F mount? I was surprised to see in their roadmap of the future, a 20mm 1.8 prime Z mount. They just recently came out with the F mount version. Other than for long telephoto lenses why would Nikon ever make another F mount lens? Is the D850 the last of the pro DSLR? Then again can they really survive in the mirrorless market?
I share your concerns. I'm still shooting with a D800 — whilst I was tempted by the D850, I figured that the upgrade from 36 to 45 megapixels wouldn't register in prints. I planned to wait for the next incarnation of the Nikon DSLR, but perhaps there won't be one?
-
In fact they do that to an extend. There is an official Nikon kit bundling the adapter that ends up being 50% discounted.
Selling something at cost or minimal profit is not Nikon absorbing the cost as the poster I was replying to suggested they could do.
And it's natural that they will offer a relatively inexpensive path for the long term user that also supports the used market value of their legacy products.
-
With non-phone cameras losing popularity contest, they aim for the luxury market. The proverbial dentists and lawyers.
Will Nikon be the first to recognize that there is a niche of serious photographers at the high end of the market out there who will pay MORE for a slower prime or zoom if it is smaller and lighter AND the quality matches the price?
+1
+2
This may be the start of Nikon turning into Leica - competing primarily for the niche, wealthy hobbyist market rather than delivering the products demanded for commercial use. A 58/0.95, USD6000, manual focus lens is the tool of a rich, creative hobbyist, not that of a working pro. They may correct this in the future with further lens releases and more suitable bodies (Dual. Card. Slots.), but, right now, there is no reason for any user relying on their cameras for income not to either stick with Nikon SLR for another generation or two (until their current lens lineup is obsolete) or to move to Sony mirrorless instead.
As it stands, if you already shoot Nikon and have F-mount lenses, then D850/D5 are better than the new cameras in most respects. If you don't already shoot Nikon, there's no reason to go for the system with one card slot and three relatively-slow lenses over the system with dual card slots on all their latest bodies and a large collection of available lenses, both first- and third-party, including compact ones if you want them.
Yes, image quality is the core value here and I believe that you are totally correct in your understanding of the direction Nikon is taking.
The DSLR series of f1.8 Nikon lenses is already outstanding and it appears that the S line is even better.
There are probably going to be super compact lenses added later that may not belong to the S series, but for now all the lenses announced do. This says a lot about the focus of Nikon and they can be trusted on this!
Cheers,
Bernard
Apart from a page of Nikon hyperboles and marketing-speak, what evidence do you have of any of this? Image quality is everyone's core goal, not just Nikon's. Zeiss/Canon/Sony/Sigma have all delivered lenses just as good as Nikon's - each one wins in a different category, at a different point in time. You mightn't be able to match Nikon's 70-200/2.8, but you also can't match Sony's 100-400, Sigma's cheap-but-super-sharp primes or Canon's lineup of tilt-shifts.
Nikon can be trusted? No more than anyone else - not after they abandoned their Nikon 1 lineup and DL series cameras.
-
Is there actually a difference between the hi-rez Nikon and a Sony A7R3 wrapped in black rubber with a red stripe?
With drop-in all-digital sensors most of the image quality comes from the sensor. This leaves the signature tone and color mapping for Jpegs and of course the all-important AF algorithms to vary from one Sony customer to another - Sony being of course its own customer.
This is Sony image quality with a Nikon lens mount and Nikon ergonomics. A winning combo for customers, but as far as variability goes, the market has just got smaller again, there is almost no breeding pool left.
Edmund
-
As it stands, if you already shoot Nikon and have F-mount lenses, then D850/D5 are better than the new cameras in most respects.
How about taking into account the opinion of people who actually use these cameras? Or do also know better than us? ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is it enough to make a plausible copy of the camera made by the manufacturer of your sensors?
-
Is there actually a difference between the hi-rez Nikon and a Sony A7R3 wrapped in black rubber with a red stripe?
With drop-in all-digital sensors most of the image quality comes from the sensor. This leaves the signature tone and color mapping for Jpegs and of course the all-important AF algorithms to vary from one Sony customer to another - Sony being of course its own customer.
There are a few noticeable differences:
- the opportunity to lose images thanks to the lack of dual memory slot
- the ability to use F lenses at near native performance level
- a much larger lens mount that seems more future proof (similar to what Canon EOS has been offering over Nikon F)
- different ergonomics (that may end up being a matter of taste)
- different sensors, although Sony probably manufactures the D850/Z7 sensors, it is pretty different in ISO range, noise behavior and color filtration
- IBIS that seems to work for still and video, helped by the larger mount
- different AF algos indeed with a major impact on still and video shooting
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is it enough to make a plausible copy of the camera made by the manufacturer of your sensors?
The manufacturer of a sensor is not that important really. There are many fabs out there.
Now, this raises the question. How can mirrorless cameras differ from each others?
Have all the SLRs been copies of the original Nikon F?
How do we expect the upcoming Canon mirrorless to differ from these 2?
Either they are identical from a distance (like all cars are the same), or you decide to look at the details and then they start to look pretty different (and people pay 10 times the price for an Audi compared to a Tata... although all the basic functions are identical).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are a few noticeable differences:
- the opportunity to lose images thanks to the lack of dual memory slot
- the ability to use F lenses at near native performance level
- a much larger lens mount that seems more future proof (similar to what Canon EOS has been offering over Nikon F)
- different ergonomics (that may end up being a matter of taste)
- different sensors, although Sony probably manufactures the D850/Z7 sensors, it is pretty different in ISO range, noise behavior and color filtration
- IBIS that seems to work for still and video, helped by the larger mount
- different AF algos indeed with a major impact on still and video shooting
Cheers,
Bernard
Add to that lossless compression of unadulterated raw files.
-
How about taking into account the opinion of people who actually use these cameras? Or do also know better than us? ;D
How about giving a list of points showing exactly why moving to Z-mount would be better than just staying with D850/D5 for now, or moving to E-mount instead, instead of basically saying, 'just trust me'?
Almost every task the Z6/Z7 can accomplish, one out of the D850, D5, A7III, A7r3 or A9 seem to do better.
-
Almost every task the Z6/Z7 can accomplish, one out of the D850, D5, A7III, A7r3 or A9 seem to do better.
Very true statement for a change, but I don't walk around with these 5 bodies. And I believe that you have here the answer to your own question.
One factor you may want to consider really is that once you have demonstrated your inability to acknowledge your past mistakes, there is very little incentive in continuing to discuss with you.
But ok... one last time, the advantages of the Z7 over the D850: ;D
- all the advantages of mirrorless cameras that you have been hammering on us when promoting the a7rIII over the D850 in Nikon threads:
- smaller, lighter
- IBIS
- wider focus area
- more accurate AF using lenses wide open
- the advantages of EVFs (preview of actual shooting conditions, better at low light levels,...)
- much better video and live view AF
some specific Z7 advantages resulting from Nikon's implementation:
- access to unique lenses not possible until now and to lenses of overall higher image quality
- better video specs
- direct access to user settings
- multi-role top LCD
- better touch screen usage
- better and more usable silent shooting
- slightly faster shooting sequences
The non inconvenients compared to what I would experience with a Sony a7rIII
- remain weather sealed
- maintains great compatibilty with F lenses
- has similar ergonomics
- still best in class auto-ISO capability
- still true 14bits lossless raw
And now, the disatvantages compared to my D850:
- lack of double memory slot
- one less direct UI dial
- worse battery life (probably not as bad as the standard figures tell, but still)
- possibly a slight reduction of AF speed for F mount lenses
- worse buffer
- the fun factor of shooting with an OVF
Now, it would have been incredibly refreshing to have you listing these instead or me, but I guess that was expecting too much.
As far as I am concerned, I will probably try the Z7, shoot with it for a few months in parallel to the D850 and decide if I keep it or not (and if I sell the D850 or not). This is really the only way to get to know a camera and I don't like to talk about things I don't know well... Shooting meaning take actual photographs btw. I don't know whether it is something you still do, I haven't seen you post any images for a long time.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1793/43107002525_b15f0ecc5b_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are a few noticeable differences:
- the opportunity to lose images thanks to the lack of dual memory slot
- the ability to use F lenses at near native performance level
- a much larger lens mount that seems more future proof (similar to what Canon EOS has been offering over Nikon F)
- different ergonomics (that may end up being a matter of taste)
- different sensors, although Sony probably manufactures the D850/Z7 sensors, it is pretty different in ISO range, noise behavior and color filtration
- IBIS that seems to work for still and video, helped by the larger mount
- different AF algos indeed with a major impact on still and video shooting
Cheers,
Bernard
Sony A7rIII is essentially a one card system with a built-in spare SD card holder :-) ... it is so unusable.
Focus bracketing, multiple exposures are for some people very important features, found only on Nikon.
On the other hand, I think people obsess too much about cameras and sensors and neglect the lenses (availability and quality). New Z mount looks promising.
-
Almost every task the Z6/Z7 can accomplish, one out of the D850, D5, A7III, A7r3 or A9 seem to do better.
That only seems relevant if owning all five of those cameras — and carrying several of them in some situations — is a preferable alternative. [Management consultant hat on] Market viability often relates to Pareto-optimality: roughly, having a better balance of pros over cons compared to each single alternative for the priority weightings of a sufficient number of potential customers.
-
How about giving a list of points showing exactly why moving to Z-mount would be better than just staying with D850/D5 for now, or moving to E-mount instead, instead of basically saying, 'just trust me'?
Almost every task the Z6/Z7 can accomplish, one out of the D850, D5, A7III, A7r3 or A9 seem to do better.
Nikon have done what the Japanese do perfectly - miniaturised the existing product with no loss in performance. So if you want a smaller D850 body, just buy a Z7. If you have a D850, and like it, keep it. I don't think there will be any perceptible image quality difference for another year or so, at which point Nikon will put the existing F mount lens range on life support, and you will need to move to Z to get the latest and greatest lenses, and standard zooms for the next generation of 60MP cameras.
Edmund
-
This may be the start of Nikon turning into Leica - competing primarily for the niche, wealthy hobbyist market rather than delivering the products demanded for commercial use. A 58/0.95, USD6000, manual focus lens is the tool of a rich, creative hobbyist, not that of a working pro. They may correct this in the future with further lens releases and more suitable bodies (Dual. Card. Slots.), but, right now, there is no reason for any user relying on their cameras for income not to either stick with Nikon SLR for another generation or two (until their current lens lineup is obsolete) or to move to Sony mirrorless instead.
Nikon turning into Leica? That's hyperbole. Nikon doesn't make cameras that are affectations. As for where the market is for high end camera systems these days, I would love to know how many A7RIIIs are sold to so-called pros using them in the pro market versus prosumers or more serious hobbyists. Same with the Nikon D850. Or the Canon 5DIV. The big market is with the prosumer and serious hobbyists, not the so-called pros. The latter don't spend money based upon the availability of disposable income. They are smart and approach the decision on buying new equipment in a hard headed way and only buy what they actually NEED, not what they want. It's just a matter of time until the infatuation with the bokeh nonsense from fast lenses peters out and camera companies start to recognize that the whole market for everything is moving toward smaller and lighter. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about skis, cameras or backpacks. I personally stop down to f/11 or f/16 almost always to achieve adequate depth of field. Why do I want to carry around an f/1.4 lens that is three times the size and weight? It's insane. Moreover, the latest cameras have amazing high ISO performance. It's 2018. We aren't shooting Kodachrome at ASA 25 anymore. The real world advantages of an f/1.4 lens over an f/1.8 lens are so irrelevant once you get over the infatuation with blurred backgrounds. If Nikon were to offer an 35mm f/1.8 lens with drop dead optical performance that was the same price as an f/1.4 lens that couldn't match the optical performance of the f/1.8 lens and the f/1.4 lens was twice the size and weight of the f/1.8 lens, I believe the f/1.8 lens would vastly outsell the f/1.4 lens.
I actually own a Sony A7RII. to me, it's an electronic toy designed and engineered by an electronics company. I haven't handled a Z7 yet, but my expectation is that the experience of using it will be far more satisfying.
-
Nikon turning into Leica? That's hyperbole. Nikon doesn't make cameras that are affectations. As for where the market is for high end camera systems these days, I would love to know how many A7RIIIs are sold to so-called pros using them in the pro market versus prosumers or more serious hobbyists. Same with the Nikon D850. Or the Canon 5DIV. The big market is with the prosumer and serious hobbyists, not the so-called pros. The latter don't spend money based upon the availability of disposable income. They are smart and approach the decision on buying new equipment in a hard headed way and only buy what they actually NEED, not what they want. It's just a matter of time until the infatuation with the bokeh nonsense from fast lenses peters out and camera companies start to recognize that the whole market for everything is moving toward smaller and lighter. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about skis, cameras or backpacks. I personally stop down to f/11 or f/16 almost always to achieve adequate depth of field. Why do I want to carry around an f/1.4 lens that is three times the size and weight? It's insane. Moreover, the latest cameras have amazing high ISO performance. It's 2018. We aren't shooting Kodachrome at ASA 25 anymore. The real world advantages of an f/1.4 lens over an f/1.8 lens are so irrelevant once you get over the infatuation with blurred backgrounds. If Nikon were to offer an 35mm f/1.8 lens with drop dead optical performance that was the same price as an f/1.4 lens that couldn't match the optical performance of the f/1.8 lens and the f/1.4 lens was twice the size and weight of the f/1.8 lens, I believe the f/1.8 lens would vastly outsell the f/1.4 lens.
I actually own a Sony A7RII. to me, it's an electronic toy designed and engineered by an electronics company. I haven't handled a Z7 yet, but my expectation is that the experience of using it will be far more satisfying.
+1
-
The biggest non-phone camera market is and will continue to be wedding and event photographers and every time I read another post with the specs for the Z it's more apparent to me that's Nikon's thinking here.
IBIS and usable auto focus while shooting video is primarily targeting a stills/video multitasking wedding shooter. Real video shooters don't rely on IBIS and rarely (never) auto focus. Panasonic understands that with the 3 current Lumix bodies.
The initial lenses also suit this type of shooter.
IMHO
-
The biggest non-phone camera market is and will continue to be wedding and event photographers and every time I read another post with the specs for the Z it's more apparent to me that's Nikon's thinking here.
IBIS and usable auto focus while shooting video is primarily targeting a stills/video multitasking wedding shooter. Real video shooters don't rely on IBIS and rarely (never) auto focus. Panasonic understands that with the 3 current Lumix bodies.
The initial lenses also suit this type of shooter.
Indeed, you are most probably right.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon turning into Leica? That's hyperbole. Nikon doesn't make cameras that are affectations. As for where the market is for high end camera systems these days, I would love to know how many A7RIIIs are sold to so-called pros using them in the pro market versus prosumers or more serious hobbyists. Same with the Nikon D850. Or the Canon 5DIV. The big market is with the prosumer and serious hobbyists, not the so-called pros. The latter don't spend money based upon the availability of disposable income. They are smart and approach the decision on buying new equipment in a hard headed way and only buy what they actually NEED, not what they want. It's just a matter of time until the infatuation with the bokeh nonsense from fast lenses peters out and camera companies start to recognize that the whole market for everything is moving toward smaller and lighter. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about skis, cameras or backpacks. I personally stop down to f/11 or f/16 almost always to achieve adequate depth of field. Why do I want to carry around an f/1.4 lens that is three times the size and weight? It's insane. Moreover, the latest cameras have amazing high ISO performance. It's 2018. We aren't shooting Kodachrome at ASA 25 anymore. The real world advantages of an f/1.4 lens over an f/1.8 lens are so irrelevant once you get over the infatuation with blurred backgrounds. If Nikon were to offer an 35mm f/1.8 lens with drop dead optical performance that was the same price as an f/1.4 lens that couldn't match the optical performance of the f/1.8 lens and the f/1.4 lens was twice the size and weight of the f/1.8 lens, I believe the f/1.8 lens would vastly outsell the f/1.4 lens.
I actually own a Sony A7RII. to me, it's an electronic toy designed and engineered by an electronics company. I haven't handled a Z7 yet, but my expectation is that the experience of using it will be far more satisfying.
Your are making a lot of assumptions:
Not every one is a landscape shooter stoping down to f16.
Some people actually like the effect of shallow depth of field, and I don't see this evaporating any time soon.
Not every one wants to sacrifice any quality by boosting ISO. There is still a difference between ISO100 and even 800, let alone even higher ratings.
A good system gives choices; Speed vs size and portability. Cost vs maximum performance. Convenience of zooms vs benefits of fixed. Specialty lenses.
And thank god for prosumer users to help fund diversity of products.
-
I just discovered a disturbing spec in the official Nikon TechSpec (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-cameras/z-7.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs) sheet for the Z7: Battery life for movie recording is listed as 10-15 minutes. Can that be right? If it is, it's the most disturbing spec I've heard so far. Certainly it's one thing to look for some clarity on in the coming days.
-
I just discovered a disturbing spec in the official Nikon TechSpec (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-cameras/z-7.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs) sheet for the Z7: Battery life for movie recording is listed as 10-15 minutes. Can that be right? If it is, it's the most disturbing spec I've heard so far. Certainly it's one thing to look for some clarity on in the coming days.
That is indeed a bit ridiculous.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not every one is a landscape shooter stoping down to f16.
Some people actually like the effect of shallow depth of field, and I don't see this evaporating any time soon.
Not every one wants to sacrifice any quality by boosting ISO. There is still a difference between ISO100 and even 800, let alone even higher ratings.
A good system gives choices; Speed vs size and portability. Cost vs maximum performance. Convenience of zooms vs benefits of fixed. Specialty lenses.
That is very true.
Now, the practical difference in look and ISO related image quality between f1.4 and f1.8 isn't that large, especially if f1.8 is excellent as claimed by Nikon.
Besides, we will soon have many other options, starting with existing F mount glass, but also adapted lenses with the soon to show up adapters.
Finally, Nikon had published a roadmap with at least a 58mm f0.95 manual focus (that some seem to see as a luxury item, I see it more as engineers having fun) and 50mm f1.2 autofocus and we can expect more.
I don't think anyone is saying that the Z system is making do without large aperture lenses, it is on the other hand, going to be best in class on that front.
The point is more that it makes a lot of sense to offer very high quality primes opening a bit less than are compact and still suitable for a wide variety of situations. The point being that most brands spec these as cheapish lenses with lesser image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is it focus-by-wire? And if so, how does one do that?
They say it is going to be a manual focus lens, so no focus by wire.
-
Political comments are supposed to be banned but I doubt Jeremy is reading this thread.
I am reading the thread; and I do not regard that as a political comment.
Jeremy
-
The manufacturer of a sensor is not that important really. There are many fabs out there.
Ohh, yes it is... and very important. A fab it is not just a simply assembly line, a very important success of a chip and its performance depends on the processes how to build transistors and photodiodes in the fab.
As you can read here: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/07/17/pixels-for-geeks-a-peek-inside-nikons-super-secret-sensor-design-lab <-- Nikon already says that they are using photodiodes designed by Sony (well... they don't say Sony, but lets say that from several years now all their sensors are done in Sony SemiConductors). They do a lot of design around the Sony photodiodes, but it is based on their technology.
If, let's say, Nikon decides to go to OmniVision or Samsung, the other bigger sensor manufacturers right now, they will need first to buy all the Samsung or OmniVision sensor design libraries, then start to understand the physical properties of their photodiodes, and go through several test and tries to get their costumized version of the sensors.
The BSI photodiode design that the D850 is using and gives that nice performance, is thanks to the Sony base photodiode design (I'm not saying that Sony designed BSI architecture... I'm saying they are probably building one of the best implementations of it, that it is used in the 45 megapixeles sensor design of Nikon or in the Apple iPhone camera sensor).
-
Ohh, yes it is... and very important. A fab it is not just a simply assembly line, a very important success of a chip and its performance depends on the processes how to build transistors and photodiodes in the fab.
OK fine, but nobody knows what kind of agreement there is between Sony and Nikon and how they crossed shared IP.
So I don't find this that relevant in terms of determining the potential of the Z6/Z7 of future iterations of the Z.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The whole drama about the memory slot is such a pity because it casts a huge negative shadow on what is likely to be the best image quality system in existence in the 35mm world.
hyperbole gone wild
I don't think anyone is saying that the Z system is making do without large aperture lenses, it is on the other hand, going to be best in class on that front.
“going to be” - how do you know ? Up until the D850 , the last time Nikon produced anything that could reasonably be described as 'best in class' , was the D3 back in 2007.
Other than that, the Z7 is pretty much a mirrorless D850, which itself is pretty much an A7r3 with a mirror. So I'd expect their performance to be pretty similar, give or take a few features on each side (eye focus, better weather sealing, pixel shift, etc.).
Probably the most accurate assessment so far.
It's a notably low-risk introduction, makes full use of existing Nikon components (whilst taking a hefty design leaf out of the Leica SL), and incorporates nothing new except IBIS. No Eye AF on launch – really ?
The only quasi certain upside that I can see is that due to the close existing relationship between Cosina/Zeiss and Nikon, it shouldn't bee too long until Batis lenses sport a redesigned rear z-mount. Should be the same for Sigma 'Art' series glass too, even though existing Art series should mount on the Nikon Z adapter.
-
That only seems relevant if owning all five of those cameras — and carrying several of them in some situations — is a preferable alternative. [Management consultant hat on] Market viability often relates to Pareto-optimality: roughly, having a better balance of pros over cons compared to each single alternative for the priority weightings of a sufficient number of potential customers.
You don't need to own all five cameras - just the right one for your particular situation.
Own a lot of F-mount lenses? What's the incentive for moving to Z-mount now, as opposed to sticking with D850/D5, allowing your lenses to age out/break/get stolen instead of buying more, and choosing a new system in 5-10 years time based on the situation then?
Shoot Canon? If you're happy with the base-ISO DR (and you presumably are, since you're still using it) what's wrong with sticking with Canon SLR and seeing what Canon releases on the mirrorless front in a few months time? Or, if you want better IQ but have a large collection of Canon lenses, why not the A7r3 with the performance-proven Metabones adapters? What does the Z7 offer you that each of these other options doesn't?
Don't shoot full frame and want to move into it? Why the Z6/Z7, with minimal initial lens selection and only a promise of future performance and future lenses, instead of the much more mature E-mount system with known - and good performance?
At the moment, there seems little logical reason to get the Z-mount, except as a compact secondary body for current F-mount users for when they don't want to carry a large body around, or for shooting video. This will almost certainly change with time, as Nikon releases more Z-mount lenses and reduces support for F-mount. But, until that happens, it just doesn't look particularly attractive as a primary system.
-
They say it is going to be a manual focus lens, so no focus by wire.
Focus by wire does not mean autofocus. It means there is no mechanical link between the focusing ring and the optics being moved. I don't know if the Nikon Z-mount will be focus by wire
-
“going to be” - how do you know ? Up until the D850 , the last time Nikon produced anything that could reasonably be described as 'best in class' , was the D3 back in 2007.
Euh... you seem to have forgotten the D3x, D800, D810, D5 as well as many of their recent lenses (19mm T/S, 70-200 f2.8 E FL,...)?
But my point is that nobody else is planning to offer f0.95 super high end statement lenses usable on a high res body as far as I know. I'd love to be pointed to an alternative.
As far as the Z having the potential to offer the best image quality, it seems to be a pretty reasonable assumption based on the facts at hand, starting by the mount, but I totally agree that we need to wait for the actual measurements. The results you can get from the Fuji GFX and Hasselblad H1D indicate what can be achieved with a correctly sized mirrorless mount and those lenses are pretty impressive, especially the 21mm F4 from Hasselblad. I am just extrapolating this to 35mm taking into account the recent performance of Nikon in terms of lens design.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Own a lot of F-mount lenses? What's the incentive for moving to Z-mount now, as opposed to sticking with D850/D5, allowing your lenses to age out/break/get stolen instead of buying more, and choosing a new system in 5-10 years time based on the situation then?
I have provided you with a list of 15~20 reasons a few posts above. Many of which you have been using for months to convince us about the superiority of the a7rIII. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At last Nikon seems to make a decent 50 mm lens; costing three times more.
Too bad i first have to buy a new body to use it.
I am glad to see Nikon makes new lightweight quality lenses
-
At last Nikon seems to make a decent 50 mm lens; costing three times more.
I guess it depends on what decent means... the way Nikon describes the 50mm, it seems to be an Otus competitor. As far as I know, it is the first time Nikon explicitly mention highly controlled longitudinal color aberations (and we know this is the most challenging aspect to correct in lens design). It that were indeed the case, we could look at it as costing 3 times more... or as costing 4 times less. ;)
Anyway, I understand that Nikon claims seem to be perceived as marketing crap so we'll just have to wait for actual tests.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Euh... you seem to have forgotten the D3x, D800, D810, D5 as well as many of their recent lenses (19mm T/S, 70-200 f2.8 E FL,...)?
Nope, haven't forgotten them - I even owned the first two (and the D3).
There's a difference between describing something as being good, excellent etc and arbitrarily assigning the miniker 'best-in-class'. The D3 was ground breaking. The rest less so and as far as lenses go, read Roger Cicala (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/taking-apart-the-new-nikon-105mm-f1-4e-ed-af-s/) on the much loved 105 f/1.4, to name but one.
We recently tested the Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED AF-S lens and were mightily impressed. [...] I try to identify where my head is whenever I write about anything, so you’ll understand when I go all fan-boy or all snarky. Like everyone else, my expectations going in have a lot to do with my impressions coming out. In this case, I told Aaron before we started that given how awesome this lens was optically that I expected Nikon’s optomechanics were going to modernize, too. Unlike previous Nikon lenses, I thought this lens would have nice, modular construction, no soldered wires running hither and yon, not so much Kapton tape holding stuff down, and maybe even some curved circuit boards. You know, like a lens from the 21st century, not like one from the 1980’s. Aaron didn’t think so.
Well, I was a little bit right but mostly wrong.
-
Anyway, I understand that Nikon claims seem to be perceived as marketing crap so we'll just have to wait for actual tests.
Not always, but often - as you'll read in the LensRentals post I've linked to above .
-
Nope, haven't forgotten them - I even owned the first two (and the D3).
There's a difference between describing something as being good, excellent etc and arbitrarily assigning the miniker 'best-in-class'. The D3 was ground breaking. The rest less so and as far as lenses go, read Roger Cicala (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/taking-apart-the-new-nikon-105mm-f1-4e-ed-af-s/) on the much loved 105 f/1.4, to name but one.
I guess we are just talking semantics here. To me, "best in class" simply means the best product in a given segment. It is no synonymous to ground breaking. It is possible to be best in class without being ground breaking.
Btw, I don't think we can still call the 105mm f1.4 best in class any longer. It remains brilliant, but has probably been over taken by the much heavier Sigma 105mm f1.4.
Not always, but often - as you'll read in the LensRentals post I've linked to above .
I am not sure this is a good example, because as far as I know, Nikon has never claimed that they had adopted a new lens construction approach to build the 105mm f1.4, did they? All they said is that they have put in place a new "best in class" optical bench to help speed up an improve lens design. A tester at Lens Rental had just made some assumptions that ended up not being correct.
I totally agree that Nikon has progress to make in terms of modularization, and we don't know if they have for Z bodies/lenses, but I don't see how their failure to do so with the 105mm f1.4 is a valid confirmation that their marketing claims cannot be trusted.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I actually own a Sony A7RII. to me, it's an electronic toy designed and engineered by an electronics company. I haven't handled a Z7 yet, but my expectation is that the experience of using it will be far more satisfying.
You missed out the bit about Sony making Playstations and DVD players.
-
... but I don't see how their failure to do so with the 105mm f1.4 is a valid confirmation that their marketing claims cannot be trusted.
It's further down the blog post ...
This view also exposes Nikon’s ongoing creative marketing. Many of you probably think the designation of SWM on this lens, which stands for Silent Wave Motor, means you get an expensive ring ultrasonic motor. Not so much. That’s the focusing motor there with the green band around it. Fanboys are going to scream that I’m splitting hairs trashing Nikon’s marketing about SWM, since this is technically an ultrasonic motor (although other manufacturers have the decency to call them micro-ultrasonic to differentiate them from ring-ultrasonic). Let’s look at a screen grab from the Nikon page for the 105mm f/1.4E ED AF-S lens:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-105mm-f%252f1.4e-ed.html
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-105mm-f%252f1.4e-ed.html
Note Nikon’s text says “–rather than a gear system–to focus the lens”. If you look at the motor, what do you see? Correct. A gear system to focus the lens. The lens still focuses just fine and while it’s not silent, it is very quiet. But please don’t tell me it’s “better than a lens with a gear system” when it has a gear system, OK? Y’all must think nobody’s ever going to open up your lenses and see you’re blowing smoke up our internet.
IIRC, Nikon moderated/changed their publicity shortly afterwards.
-
You missed out the bit about Sony making Playstations and DVD players.
That's right. Someone makes an informed but negative comment about a Sony camera and it needs to be dismissed as the ravings of an anti-Sony troll. Well done.
-
I have provided you with a list of 15~20 reasons a few posts above. Many of which you have been using for months to convince us about the superiority of the a7rIII. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Obviously, all those advantages are contingent on using the proper native lenses for the mount. That goes for both Sony and Nikon. If you're going to kill your AF by using adapted lenses, you may as well stick with SLR, keeping the native AF performance when you need it and using Live View with manual focus to get the mirrorless advantages when you need them.
Also, one of the most useful features of mirrorless is eye focus. Nikon doesn't have it anyway, so you're not losing out by sticking with SLR.
-
Obviously, all those advantages are contingent on using the proper native lenses for the mount. That goes for both Sony and Nikon. If you're going to kill your AF by using adapted lenses, you may as well stick with SLR, keeping the native AF performance when you need it and using Live View with manual focus to get the mirrorless advantages when you need them.
Also, one of the most useful features of mirrorless is eye focus. Nikon doesn't have it anyway, so you're not losing out by sticking with SLR.
Do you even know who you are trying to convince of what my friend?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1886/43330859705_423f5c9744_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Someone makes an informed but negative comment about a Sony camera ...
By any reasonable measure that's a contradiction in terms.
It can be one or the other but, by definition, it can't be both.
-
Edit: /jesting less anyone takes this seriously ..
-
OK fine, but nobody knows what kind of agreement there is between Sony and Nikon and how they crossed shared IP.
So I don't find this that relevant in terms of determining the potential of the Z6/Z7 of future iterations of the Z.
Cheers,
Bernard
In that we agree Bernard :)
-
Own a lot of F-mount lenses? What's the incentive for moving to Z-mount now, as opposed to sticking with D850/D5, allowing your lenses to age out/break/get stolen instead of buying more, and choosing a new system in 5-10 years time based on the situation then?
I can think of some:
- Video... if you want to do video, Z system looks like an interesting option to use your F lenses (while switching to Z lenses if you really are looking for autofocus).
- You really want to go mirrorless... This is the best path for Nikon users right now.
-
By any reasonable measure that's a contradiction in terms.
It can be one or the other but, by definition, it can't be both.
Love it! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The goalposts seem to be shifting here. We've been told that mirrorless is where it's at, and absolutely essential for making halfway decent images and that Nikon and Canon are hopelessly left behind and Nikon users are flocking to Sony. Overnight that unassailable lead in technology has disappeared, Nikon users have no incentive to switch to Sony, but we are told that in any case there's no interest in swapping your Nikon DSLR for mirrorless.
So what was all the fuss about anyway?
-
I think if you are looking for a new system as I was then mirrorless is a good option but if you think you need to move in order to improve your photography then you must be either desperate, new to photography or incurablely optimistic. I like mirrorless but doubt that it makes me a better photographer
I think I’m doing my best work ever at the moment but there are reasons for that other than mirrorless technology.
-
I think if you are looking for a new system as I was then mirrorless is a good option but if you think you need to move in order to improve your photography then you must be either desperate, new to photography or incurablely optimistic. I like mirrorless but doubt that it makes me a better photographer
In fact this isn’t about mirrorless. The purchase of any new piece of equipment, from a sandbag to a MFDB can be questionned similarly.
And the answer will differ from person to person, from month to month,...
I believe that some pieces of equipment help improve the technical excellence of photographs, other can help creativity in various ways (slowing down or going faster, challenging new variables,...), others help with productivity, others help with the way we are perceived and that can build confidence for personnallities in need of external validation,...
How a switch from a DSLR to a mirrorless camera fits into this picture is a complex question worth an essay I could see myself writing.
I think I’m doing my best work ever at the moment but there are reasons for that other than mirrorless technology.
I certainly hope that most photographers can state the same while being honnest.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can think of some:
- Video... if you want to do video, Z system looks like an interesting option to use your F lenses (while switching to Z lenses if you really are looking for autofocus).
- You really want to go mirrorless... This is the best path for Nikon users right now.
This is of much interest to me. And the performance reports for video AF, combined with the ability to output 10-bit 4:2:2 uncompressed LOG video could make it the best full-frame video camera available under $20,000. Make a dumb PL mount and you have a massive number of MF lenses added to the Nikkor AF and MF choices. BUT... and it’s a massive but, the video battery life is worrying.
We use small cameras like these for their size and weight and ability to work in situations where larger cameras are difficult. Gimbals, car interiors, hike-in locations, etc. If the battery life is what Nikon’s specs say it is, 10-15 minutes of movie recording, it renders the cameras unusable without external power. And that is a very big strike against them for any serious video use. It defeats the very reasons we would choose it.
-
Maybe. It sucks even more to be a lousy photographer with any of those camera systems.
Ain't that the truth!
I believe that high-grade hookers earn even more than dentists, and they usually retire well before hitting 51.
;-)
-
BUT... and it’s a massive but, the video battery life is worrying.
We use small cameras like these for their size and weight and ability to work in situations where larger cameras are difficult. Gimbals, car interiors, hike-in locations, etc. If the battery life is what Nikon’s specs say it is, 10-15 minutes of movie recording, it renders the cameras unusable without external power. And that is a very big strike against them for any serious video use. It defeats the very reasons we would choose it.
From memory and strictly IIRC, this was also an issue with the earlier A7r(s) - the Sony's could be powered by an external power pack, but even then they were limited to 30 minutes recording time for reasons to do w/ dissipating heat. I'd check w/ the boys over in 'Motion' , they should be able to give you first hand feedback.
I'd hope that these Nikons could also be powered via the USB port. Anyone know for sure ?
-
I guess we are just talking semantics here.
snip
I totally agree that Nikon has progress to make in terms of modularization . . . snip.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think it’s al conjecture until the first users put the camera through it’s paces regardless of published specs, because there are specs that outperform, some the opposite..
I also think a lot o people will buy this camera for the Nikon name, since Nikon is considered a camera company first for foremost.
In the last few years I’ve seen more millenials using a Nikon or Canon dslr in Santa Monica and London than ever before. It’s a step up from their phones and obviously there are still a lot of phone photos happening, but the point is the step up.
Personally I’d love to see a camera mirror or ovf (or both) that had modularity, using the bottom right angle grip to come in two flavors. One for video, one for stills. The video one could have extra cooling, xlr inputs, higher bit rate, extra processing for higher fps, etc.
The still grip could have more battery power and also higher bit rate both could be used to enhance the tracking autofocus.
But I guess that won’t happen because the reason it seems for mirrorless is to create a smaller form factor.
I believe another reason for mirrorless is to entice the next generation. Two weeks ago our family got together and my young nieces and nephew always want to play with whatever camera I bring so I took an old 70d with a 16-55 2.8 zoom.
These are polite, very careful kids and at first they all tried to look through the ovf to take a snap, but it wasn’t natural to them, so I turned on the lcd and showed them how to focus and shoot with it. Now that was natural because they were trained to photograph with a smart phone. After firing a few stills, they wanted to shoot movies, so off they went running around filming each other, using the lcd because that’s what they know.
So I think this is what the mirrorless makers see, millions of aspiring photographers/film makers that are trained with a big lcd and a button.
I hope the Nikon is a winner, though their first three lens selections puzzle me. Personally I’d have come out with three native zooms. 16-55, 24-70 and 70 to 200 and that will cover about everything.
IMO
BC
-
By any reasonable measure that's a contradiction in terms.
It can be one or the other but, by definition, it can't be both.
-
Edit: /jesting less anyone takes this seriously ..
:D
-
Hi BC,
Thanks for chiming in!
The way I see it, the new Nikons offer an alternative to the D-line. Until the Nikons were released, Sony and Leica were the only vendors of full frame mirrorless. With Nikon Z series they have some competition and competition is always a good thing.
The way I see it, the Z-series offers a complement to the D750 and the D850. I don't think Nikon cares about selling a Z7 or a D850, although they probably make more money on the Z7.
I would expect that Canon also has mirrorless full frame around the corner.
I am not so sure that full frame is important. My take is that you used to be quite happy with Panasonic GH, also for stills,
Best regards
Erik
I think it’s al conjecture until the first users put the camera through it’s paces regardless of published specs, because there are specs that outperform, some the opposite..
I also think a lot o people will buy this camera for the Nikon name, since Nikon is considered a camera company first for foremost.
In the last few years I’ve seen more millenials using a Nikon or Canon dslr in Santa Monica and London than ever before. It’s a step up from their phones and obviously there are still a lot of phone photos happening, but the point is the step up.
Personally I’d love to see a camera mirror or ovf (or both) that had modularity, using the bottom right angle grip to come in two flavors. One for video, one for stills. The video one could have extra cooling, xlr inputs, higher bit rate, extra processing for higher fps, etc.
The still grip could have more battery power and also higher bit rate both could be used to enhance the tracking autofocus.
But I guess that won’t happen because the reason it seems for mirrorless is to create a smaller form factor.
I believe another reason for mirrorless is to entice the next generation. Two weeks ago our family got together and my young nieces and nephew always want to play with whatever camera I bring so I took an old 70d with a 16-55 2.8 zoom.
These are polite, very careful kids and at first they all tried to look through the ovf to take a snap, but it wasn’t natural to them, so I turned on the lcd and showed them how to focus and shoot with it. Now that was natural because they were trained to photograph with a smart phone. After firing a few stills, they wanted to shoot movies, so off they went running around filming each other, using the lcd because that’s what they know.
So I think this is what the mirrorless makers see, millions of aspiring photographers/film makers that are trained with a big lcd and a button.
I hope the Nikon is a winner, though their first three lens selections puzzle me. Personally I’d have come out with three native zooms. 16-55, 24-70 and 70 to 200 and that will cover about everything.
IMO
BC
-
Do you even know who you are trying to convince of what my friend?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1886/43330859705_423f5c9744_h.jpg)
That was clearly not taken using either face detection or eye focus, so I fail to see your point.
SLRs don't have eye detection. Neither do the Z6/Z7, though, so there's no advantage to be gained in that respect by moving. And, if you're going to still be using all your old F-mount lenses, because Z-mount equivalents aren't available yet, you're giving up performance while not getting much back in return.
If there were native versions of the lenses you needed, it would be a different story - you'd gain all the benefits of mirrorless without giving anything up. But that's not going to happen for the Z mount for at least a few years.
I can think of some:
- Video... if you want to do video, Z system looks like an interesting option to use your F lenses (while switching to Z lenses if you really are looking for autofocus).
Have you seen the battery life on this thing? It's rated for half the number of shots as the A7r3 for stills (in reality, the A7r3 gets you thousands per charge, not the stated 600-700) and reportedly only manages video for 15 minutes.
The output format looks good, but, unless you want to keep it plugged into a charger the whole time, the battery life might be a killer. Also, there's nothing stopping you from using F-mount lenses on an E-mount body for video. And the A7s3 is just around the corner (supposedly October).
- You really want to go mirrorless... This is the best path for Nikon users right now.
Then you really need to ask yourself why.
In general, you move to a different format in order to do something you can't do, or can't do as well, with your current equipment. With the Z6/Z7 and current lens lineup, that's not a lot - the D850 and D5 can do almost everything just as well or better than the Z6/Z7, particularly if you're going to stick with F-mount lenses and use them via an adapter. If you're not going to keep the F-mount lenses and plan to start afresh (which is perfectly reasonable if you only own one or two easily-resellable lenses anyway), then you're just as free to choose Sony and (likely soon) Canon as you are to choose Nikon - in which case, why are you going with the system with unproven bodies and only three lenses to choose from (with a few more dribbling out over the next few years) instead of a proven system with a large collection of lenses to choose from, including fast supertelephotos coming online from this year?
The point is, is there any reason for the F-mount user to shift to Nikon mirrorless right now, as opposed to moving to Sony/Canon, or sticking with SLR and making a move to mirrorless (in whatever format) in a few years time, as F-mount dies down and your lenses shift towards obsolescence? Probably not, from a purely performance point of view. If you just want to change to mirrorless for the sake of going mirrorless... well, that's not really all that logical.
The goalposts seem to be shifting here. We've been told that mirrorless is where it's at, and absolutely essential for making halfway decent images and that Nikon and Canon are hopelessly left behind and Nikon users are flocking to Sony. Overnight that unassailable lead in technology has disappeared, Nikon users have no incentive to switch to Sony, but we are told that in any case there's no interest in swapping your Nikon DSLR for mirrorless.
So what was all the fuss about anyway?
Mirrorless is where it's at for new systems. As in, if you didn't own any full-frame camera gear, you probably wouldn't want to go out and by a whole collection of EF- or F-mount lenses and bodies, since both systems are likely to gradually wind down over the next 5-10 years or so. This is because SLRs are near the pinnacle of their development, and new technologies that will meaningfully improve the shooting capabilities of cameras almost all require image data that only the through-the-sensor mirrorless approach can provide. At this point, if you were buying a new system, with no pre-existing collection of lenses, it would make most sense to go for Sony, since they have a semi-mature system with a wide range of lenses, in a format that isn't likely to lose support and updates over the next decade.
If you already have a collection of full-frame SLR lenses, it's different. Presumably, you want to keep on using those lenses for as long as you can, until they break down or are so thoroughly overtaken by technology that you have to replace them anyway. SLRs may be at their peak and mirrorless cameras may have much more potential, but, for the moment, their performance is around equal. But adapted lenses almost never perform as well AF-wise as lenses used on their native mount. So, by bringing your SLR lenses over to a mirrorless format and using an adapter, you aren't gaining much, and losing a good chunk of AF performance. Better to keep on using SLRs for as long as possible, keeping the full performance of your lenses but not accumulating any more of them, until either your lenses are no longer even second-rate by the standards of the day, or the gulf in performance between mirrorless and SLR systems grows so wide that you wouldn't want to miss out on the performance - at which point you would ditch the SLR system entirely and start afresh with whichever mirrorless system most suits your needs at that point in time.
There are obviously a few exceptions to this, such as when the mirrorless system offers one specifically sought-after feature that the SLR system lacks, and the user doesn't care about AF. This was the case with the migration of Canon-using landscape/studio/non-action photographers to Sony when they launched the A7r, when Canon was unable to keep up in either resolution or low-ISO dynamic range. But this is not the case with the Z6/Z7 - Nikon SLRs use much the same sensors, with much the same performance (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Nikon%20D850_14,Nikon%20Z%207_14(p)).
The main reason for going mirrorless is future-proofing, not current performance. F-mount, and likely EF-mount (unless Canon decides to use EF mount on mirrorless and simply designs all future lenses with motors and control systems with mirrorless focusing in mind) will likely be relics in 10 years time. E-mount probably won't be.
-
I have deleted several posts from this thread which seemed to me (and to those who reported them to me) to be both gratuitously offensive and irrelevant. The posters know who they are and must consider themselves warned.
Jeremy
-
I have deleted several posts from this thread which seemed to me (and to those who reported them to me) to be both gratuitously offensive and irrelevant. The posters know who they are and must consider themselves warned.
Jeremy
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nikon is delivering a mirrorless clone of the A7R3, which is a known quantity, a good camera with lots of features and a decent price point that is not substantially more advanced than anything else. Nikon fans now have a mirrorless option but nothing else has changed - why are people so polarised?
Edmund
-
You don't need to own all five cameras - just the right one for your particular situation.
So your claim is that for the full range of a photographer’s needs, a single one of those alternatives is as good as it better than a Z7 or Z6 for everything? I am skeptical. One case is the many people who prefer the Nikon lens options as a whole, adapted plus Z-mount, expect Nikon in the mid-term to bring that lens system advantage to Z-mount, and want some of the advantages of the new EVF system. Advantages like precise manual focussing and video performance and handling while using the eye-level VF. Plenty of first time buyers in this format will be satisfied in the short term with one or two Z mount lenses and trust Nikon to deliver more options by the time they are ready to buy.
-
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nikon is delivering a mirrorless clone of the A7R3, which is a known quantity, a good camera with lots of features and a decent price point that is not substantially more advanced than anything else. Nikon fans now have a mirrorless option but nothing else has changed - why are people so polarised?
Edmund
Very good point.
-
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nikon is delivering a mirrorless clone of the A7R3, which is a known quantity, a good camera with lots of features and a decent price point that is not substantially more advanced than anything else. Nikon fans now have a mirrorless option but nothing else has changed - why are people so polarised?
Good question. I imagine they just enjoy arguing.
Jeremy
-
My contention still stands that the less meaningful the differences between brands become in real-world use, the more heated the exchanges between "competing" brand acolytes tend to be. The need for tribe-based conflict is a weird, and often self-defeating, aspect of human nature.
;)
-Dave-
-
Will the Sony bough bend but not break under the weight of the Nikon stone (pic #1) or will it splinter & crack (pic #2)? ;D
(Photos taken with a Nikkor 10.5cm f/2.5 lens, rangefinder version, mounted on a Sony A7iii camera via Techart Pro AF adapter.)
-Dave-
-
My contention still stands that the less meaningful the differences between brands become in real-world use, the more heated the exchanges between "competing" brand acolytes tend to be. The need for tribe-based conflict is a weird, and often self-defeating, aspect of human nature.
-Dave-
I liked it first time around and it's certainly worth repeating.
;)
-
I find it funny that one of the most offensive possible comment to a photographer is "oh, you must have a really good camera", but then when you read threads like this, it looks that unless you have such and such feature, or use this particular brand / model, you will not be able to take good images
-
... you will not be able to take good images
Certainly not without a second memory card ;)
-
My contention still stands that the less meaningful the differences between brands become in real-world use, the more heated the exchanges between "competing" brand acolytes tend to be. The need for tribe-based conflict is a weird, and often self-defeating, aspect of human nature.
-Dave-
Reminds me of an old saying about academia: "The reason that arguments between faculty members at universities are so heated is because they matter so little."
-
Reminds me of an old saying about academia: "The reason that arguments between faculty members at universities are so heated is because they matter so little."
You are a very annoying man, Dave: I was just about to make a similar post. "The reason disputes in academia are so vicious is that the stakes are so small." But I'll forgive you.
Jeremy
-
Certainly not without a second memory card ;)
I always enjoyed using a camera without film on vacation
Edmund
-
For those interested in information about the Z7/Z6, there are some interesting links at Nikon rumors, for instance this one:
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/23/nikon-z-mirrorless-system-additional-coverage-z-brochure-first-z7-sensor-measurements.
Other pieces of info:
- the Z7 and Z6 are produced in Sendai like the D5, and are 75% automated vs 50% on the D5,
- I saw MTF charts for the 50mm f1.8 S (can’t find the link now) and they seem outstanding,
- large retailers in Japan are still committing delivery on availability date for the Z7/FTZ/24-70 and 35mm f1.8 S
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those interested in information about the Z7/Z6, there are some interesting links at Nikon rumors, for instance this one:
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/23/nikon-z-mirrorless-system-additional-coverage-z-brochure-first-z7-sensor-measurements.
Other pieces of info:
- the Z7 and Z6 are produced in Sendai like the D5, and are 75% automated vs 50% on the D5,
- I saw MTF charts for the 50mm f1.8 S (can’t find the link now) and they seem outstanding,
- large retailers in Japan are still committing delivery on availability date for the Z7/FTZ/24-70 and 35mm f1.8 S
Cheers,
Bernard
So it's an 850 sensor in performance. Which probably means it's an 850 sensor except for some of the peripheral circuitry and focus aids.
And Sony still seem to be selling themselves a marginally better sensor than they sell to customers. No surprise there either.
Edmund
-
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nikon is delivering a mirrorless clone of the A7R3, which is a known quantity, a good camera with lots of features and a decent price point that is not substantially more advanced than anything else. Nikon fans now have a mirrorless option but nothing else has changed
Edmund,
Out of curiosity, do you think that technical progress is still possible in photography? Is there a possibility that new and better cameras/lenses could still be released, or have we seen it all with the Sony G Master on the a7rIII?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Out of curiosity, do you think that technical progress is still possible in photography? Is there a possibility that new and better cameras/lenses could still be released, or have we seen it all with the Sony G Master on the a7rIII?
Cheers,
Bernard
I assume you're being tongue in cheek here, and will add an observation. In addition to collecting/using historical camera gear, I also collect historical photos (1850-1940), and antique photography journals/annuals. I remember reading an editorial in one from the 1920s that progress with lenses had gone as far as it could go. And at that time they were probably right. Lenses were then limited to five or six elements at most due to light loss & internal reflections. Within ten years, Zeiss figured out that coated lenses dramatically reduced the light loss and entirely new lens designs came about with much more complexity. But, that would all have to wait until after WW2 was over.
Which camera do I prefer--the Nikon DSLR or a Sony mirroless? Well, tomorrow I'm going out to photo a steam threshing bee. I'm taking two cameras. One is a gorgeous Century Camera Co. Model 44 (c.1905) shooting 4x5 dry plates, and a spiffy Kodak Special No.2 (c.1914) with Optimo shutter & TT&H anastigmat lens shooting ISO 50 b&w roll film. I'm hoping to get some very unique photos! :)
Kent in SD
-
A bit tongue in cheek, but reading some comments here it seems to be a given that, regardless of the lack of any test data, the Z system and its lenses could not possibly deliver images that are technically any better than what we have today.
To me, assuming that there is no brand like/dislike coming at play, this is akin to saying that one believes that progress has ended.
That 5 years of additional thinking time from one of the leading optics company has zero chance of delivering improvements. I find such a flat entropic view of the world depressing... everything is the same anyway...
It seems pretty obvious to me that the #1 design priority of Sony for the FE mount has been camera and lens compactness. This is why they have come up with a mount that is common for APS-C and FF bodies. They been able to design very good lenses (the best ones not compact any more btw) with these constraints and they claim they are 100mp ready.
Then comes Nikon who designs 5 years later a new system around a new mount with the clearly stated #1 priority to design the best possible lenses and a mount aligned with this objective.
I don’t understand why we should doubt the ability of Sony and Nikon to achieve their respective objectives?
The photographers who priviledge compactness should go Sony and those priviledging image quality should go Nikon.
And yes, this is obviously an over simplication, but those trying to have a fair conversation will have understood the idea.
What’s so shocking here? There is no all mighty universal system out there.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A bit tongue in cheek, but reading some comments here it seems to be a given that, regardless of the lack of any test data, the Z system and its lenses could not possibly deliver images that are technically any better than what we have today.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Nikon%20D850_14,Nikon%20Z%207_14(p) (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Nikon%20D850_14,Nikon%20Z%207_14(p))
Looks to be a near-identical sensor to the D850. So the sensor, at least, is not likely to deliver better images.
That 5 years of additional thinking time from one of the leading optics company has zero chance of delivering improvements. I find such a flat entropic view of the world depressing... everything is the same anyway...
They're not being compared to equipment from five years ago. They're being compared with equipment today, because that's what they're competing against. Nikon don't have five years additional development time over these, and less experience making mirrorless cameras. So, yes, they'd obviously be better than equipment from five years ago. But not better than Canon/Sony/Sigma equipment from today.
-
I am speaking about mount and lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Edmund,
Out of curiosity, do you think that technical progress is still possible in photography? Is there a possibility that new and better cameras/lenses could still be released, or have we seen it all with the Sony G Master on the a7rIII?
Cheers,
Bernard
Absolutely. Progress will happen. But the ones who are pushing hardest at the moment are the phone guys and Google with computational photography, and Sony with their cellphone customers financing basic sensor research. Nikon doesn't have a huge research capital to build on when it comes to the camera bodies, although they do have considerably optical engineering and user-side experience, and goodwill.
The new Nikon has a new mount, and is an electronic finder camera and a has a movable sensor , and I think at this point Nikon was VERY WISE not to take any more risks and incur technological debt by incorporating more innovation, and hopefully releasing a stable next-gen platform that bring it to the technological point where Sony was with the A7RII.
You keep baiting me to say this is a bad product; but it isn't. It's a necessary technological stepping stone for a company-wide transition to mirrorless. Sony had less of a problem here because they are the original developers of much of this tech, some in a video context like the electronic viewfinders, and had time to experiment as they have other businesses.
Edmund
-
From people who have actually used and tested it (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nikon-z7-z6-quirks-has-blackout-z7-does-5-5fps-no-lens-mount-sharing-to-third-parties/)
- Z7 only manages 9fps with a battery grip. Without the grip, it slows to 5.5fps. The Z6 is slowed by a similar amount.
- Z7 only has a 2.5 second buffer when shooting 12-bit compressed RAW (obviously less when shooting 14 bit, and more when shooting JPEG). No mention as to whether this is when shooting with or without a grip.
- Slow buffer clearance - compared with the original-series A7/A7r (not that the A7r3/A9 are particularly fast either, unless you're using a single UHS-II card - Sony needs to fix this in the next generation and use UHS-II for both slots)
- Half the rated battery life compared with the A7r3. But we knew this one already.
- No exposure compensation dial. Far less needed on mirrorless, since you have a real-time through-the-lens exposure simulation, but it might take some getting used to. Certainly, I've never touched the dial on the Sony, but I never use Tv or Av modes either - mirrorless makes manual exposure very easy.
If true, some of these are huge deal-breakers. 9fps is fine for action. 5.5fps puts in a completely different, slower class. The small buffer and slow clearance would also make it largely a non-action camera.
-
Bernard,
BTW, I do think some fast advances could be made in computational photography if the best work in this field hadn't been done in remote sensing, reconnaissance and targeting, and has thus been classified for a long time. But then seeing who I am talking to ...
Edmund
-
I am speaking about mount and lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's not obvious at all that the right designs for electronic-viewing lenses are the same as for the old optical-viewing lenses.
So I expect a lens design revolution to hit quite quickly when the current designs are amortized, but I think as with everything camera-related the phone guys will leapfrog the camera companies.
Edmund
-
BTW, I do think some fast advances could be made in computational photography if the best work in this field hadn't been done in remote sensing, reconnaissance and targeting, and has thus been classified for a long time. But then seeing who I am talking to ...
I fully agree. I have been stating many times that smartphones will soon kill low end DSLR and computational photography will play a big role.
In fact I am not involved in such developments. The company I work for is not defense related. 😉
Cheers,
Bernard
-
From people who have actually used and tested it (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nikon-z7-z6-quirks-has-blackout-z7-does-5-5fps-no-lens-mount-sharing-to-third-parties/)
- Z7 only manages 9fps with a battery grip. Without the grip, it slows to 5.5fps. The Z6 is slowed by a similar amount.
No, this is not true at all:
- 9fps in 12 bits compressed raw with exposure locked
- 8 fps in 14 bits compressed raw with exposure locked
- 5.5 fps in 14 bits compressed raw
- Z7 only has a 2.5 second buffer when shooting 12-bit compressed RAW (obviously less when shooting 14 bit, and more when shooting JPEG). No mention as to whether this is when shooting with or without a grip.
Correct
- Slow buffer clearance - compared with the original-series A7/A7r (not that the A7r3/A9 are particularly fast either, unless you're using a single UHS-II card - Sony needs to fix this in the next generation and use UHS-II for both slots)
Would be surprising considering how fast XQD is, but could be. Don't forget these are beta cameras.
- No exposure compensation dial. Far less needed on mirrorless, since you have a real-time through-the-lens exposure simulation, but it might take some getting used to. Certainly, I've never touched the dial on the Sony, but I never use Tv or Av modes either - mirrorless makes manual exposure very easy.
These is an exposure compensation dial just right of the shutter... not sure how you could possibly miss it and it is certain that any tester would have known this. So your introduction that this information is coming from actual testers cannot possibly be true. Some would call it "fake news".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I fully agree. I have been stating many times that smartphones will soon kill low end DSLR and computational photography will play a big role.
In fact I am not involved in such developments. 😉
Cheers,
Bernard
Nikon's real problem when creating its lens roadmap is that their cameras are a footnote to the billion or so phones being sold every year. The key to the way lens design co-evolves with computational photography will be in the custom silicon, and the custom silicon will be spun off whatever the cellphone guys need.
And then of course there is the little problem that their cameras are not socially connected. Do I pull out my iPhone and post the image of the kids on the rollercoaster immediately to the family insta acct, or do I say that I will do it when I get home from vacation? The japanese industry has historically underestimated the importance of software - this is what allowed the iPhone and cousins to genocide the very advanced japanese mobile phone industry, in the same way the Internet effortlessly strangled France's flourishing Minitel system.
Edmund
-
Agreed, but the same applies for all SLR, mirrorless or not.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Agreed, but the same applies for all SLR, mirrorless or not.
Cheers,
Bernard
Actually, no. If an SLR is optical then the lens needs to be "see through", most lens aberrations need to be corrected optically, by convention, so the lens optics are mostly system-agnostic.
This is what allows these huge lens ranges to flourish over a long period, it is an ecosystem of interchangeable parts.
Electronic imaging allows lenses you cannot "look through" to be be employed in a digital still camera (I forget the acronym), but these lenses are then captive to the type of electronics you employ to recover the image ...
I liked the age of optics, but I think it will disappear like the age of film, well within my lifetime.
Edmund
-
Actually, no. If an SLR is optical then the lens needs to be "see through", most lens aberrations need to be corrected optically, by convention, so the lens optics are mostly system-agnostic.
This is what allows these huge lens ranges to flourish over a long period, it is an ecosystem of interchangeable parts.
Electronic imaging allows lenses you cannot "look through" to be be employed; but these are then captive to the type of electronics you employ to recover the image ...
How are Nikon and Sony different from that standpoint?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No, this is not true at all:
- 9fps in 12 bits compressed raw with exposure locked
- 8 fps in 14 bits compressed raw with exposure locked
- 5.5 fps in 14 bits compressed raw
Actual tested speeds, or just according to the spec sheet? As we have seen from Sony mirrorless cameras (as well as Canon/Nikon SLRs), what's on the spec sheet can be quite different from actual use and often represents a best-case scenario, with idiosyncrasies discovered only upon release and further testing.
Obviously, the testers would have had preproduction cameras, which likely don't function as well as the release model will.
Correct
Would be surprising considering how fast XQD is, but could be. Don't forget these are beta cameras.
Slow buffer clearance is usually more of an issue than small buffers. I can work in 1-2 second bursts, if I don't have to wait 15 seconds or so between them.
It may not be due to XQD, but other bottlenecks in the data handling pipeline.
These is an exposure compensation dial just right of the shutter... not sure how you could possibly miss it and it is certain that any tester would have known this.
It looks like a big control wheel with no markings to me. Has it actually been stated to be an exposure compensation dial?
So your introduction that this information is coming from actual testers cannot possibly be true. Some would call it "fake news".
Not my quote. I merely reposted it from another site, which actually linked the pages where testers reported each of these issues. I have no reason to doubt the honesty or motivations of the testers, regardless of the accuracy of their results.
-
How are Nikon and Sony different from that standpoint?
Cheers,
Bernard
Exactly as with the whole mirrorless tech: Sony are close to the camera phone engineers and to the silicon. They can see 2 or 3 years further into the future.
I mean the economic future: They know what chips will fall fully designed into their camera designer's hands in 2 years. All of this tech design stuff is I believe a little like romance:: Your success rate is different if you know ahead of time whether she plans to go on the date, or she's just thinking about it :)
Edmund
-
You are a very annoying man, Dave: I was just about to make a similar post. "The reason disputes in academia are so vicious is that the stakes are so small." But I'll forgive you.
Jeremy
Jeremy, I like your phrasing better, so there’s that.
-
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7-first-impressions-review
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://m.dpreview.com/articles/1904416326/nikon-z-7-sample-videos
Looks like Nikon is starting to be competitive on the video front.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Exactly as with the whole mirrorless tech: Sony are close to the camera phone engineers and to the silicon. They can see 2 or 3 years further into the future.
I mean the economic future: They know what chips will fall fully designed into their camera designer's hands in 2 years. All of this tech design stuff is I believe a little like romance:: Your success rate is different if you know ahead of time whether she plans to go on the date, or she's just thinking about it :)
Maybe some day...
For now computational photography is concentrating on merging images shot from different tiny lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I find this to be an exiting time and transition.
I have come to appreciate the advantages of mirrorless with the Olympus system I use for overseas travel, I love real time histograms for instance and waste far less time reviewing exposure after the fact. And IBIS is such a big advantage across the board of lens use, and stunning with those lenses that also have optical stabilization. The small form factor will keep me using the Olympus for travel as we all know that the format size is the biggest influence on system size as opposed to simply going mirrorless.
But when back home or traveling in North America for my landscapes I continue to love using my Canon as well.
Thus I look forward to what Canon will offer. My wish list is for better sensors, IBIS, and eye detection focus among other things. (Eye detection is semi wizard in the Olympus and would be greatly appreciated with wide open portrait focal lengths).
But, as you know with Canon, they may score well with many of their lenses but they have a habit of disappointed too when it comes to some aspects of their bodies. Innovation with bodies has not been their history for some time now. They are solid and reliable but always seem a step behind.
But I digress; the exciting thing is that we are entering an era of semi body agnostic. If Canon disappoints I may very well try at least a Sony body, or perhaps a Nikon if reasonable adapters show up. For landscape work, adapters are likely to perform well enough, but there are obviously mixed reviews when it come to AF performance.
But if I like what I see with a competing body, it would trigger a transition to native lenses away from Canon, at least for those that benefit the most from AF performance. (I would not give up my Canon TS lenses and a few others). Mirrorless bodies are opening up the option to transition at a measured pace rather than dumping everything at once.
Maybe I will even join Bernard to the dark side of the force, (Nikon).
Changing systems must be carefully evaluated as it is obviously a significant expenditure over time, despite those here that feel a DDS degree is a license to be extravagant. They forget, I still have a wife to answer too. And with my luck, just as I complete a transition, Canon will come out with the most amazing body that crushes every one else.
One thing I have not seen a comment on yet; will the Nikon IBIS work in conjunction with optical stabilized F series lenses via their adaptor?
Regards
-
Slow buffer clearance is usually more of an issue than small buffers. I can work in 1-2 second bursts, if I don't have to wait 15 seconds or so between them.
It may not be due to XQD, but other bottlenecks in the data handling pipeline.
I watched a panel discussion hosted by B&H this evening. The Sports Illustrated photographers on it described buffer clearing fast enough that buffer size was never a problem. So reports of slow clearing may have been from earlier beta cameras.
It looks like a big control wheel with no markings to me. Has it actually been stated to be an exposure compensation dial?
It’s been stated to be a multi-use dial. Interestingly, the ‘control ring’ on the lenses can be programmed to be exposure compensation as well if you don’t want to use manual focus.
Also—on battery life: the same SI photog mentioned above claimed he shot all day—2000 frames—without exhausting one battery. That’s 6x better than the CIPA spec of 330. And on that note, the Nikon spec sheet has been updated to a rated 85 minutes of movie recording.
He also claimed that SnapBridge worked very well for remote controlling the cameras.
Finally, he said that after testing them, he has four on order—two each of the z7 and z6. All in all, a very encouraging review.
-
Yes, IBIS is said to work in conjunction with lens VR, they combine the forte of both.
On exposure compensation, there are 2 ways:
- dedicated button right of shutter that is clearly visible on images of the camera shot from the top
- by enabling a setting in the menu the rotation of the rear wheel enables direct compensation without pushing anywhere
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, IBIS is said to work in conjunction with lens VR, they combine the forte of both.
On exposure compensation, there are 2 ways:
- dedicated button right of shutter that is clearly visible on images of the camera shot from the top
- by enabling a setting in the menu the rotation of the rear wheel enables direct compensation without pushing anywhere
Cheers,
Bernard
According to the B&H panel, one can also program the lens ring to control exposure compensation instead of focus I’d you like.
-
Indeed, I had forgotten that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://m.dpreview.com/articles/1904416326/nikon-z-7-sample-videos
Looks like Nikon is starting to be competitive on the video front.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'd reserve judgement on that until Canon makes a full-frame announcement (?September ?October) and Sony announces the A7s3 (probably within the next two months). Canon's dual pixel AF is second to none for video AF (held back more by lenses not optimised for mirrorless/video AF than anything else), while the A7s series has pretty much been optimised for video and low light performance.
These two cameras - not the current A9/A7III/A7r3 and the two-year-old A7s2 - will be the peer competitors to the Z6/Z7 for video. (Panasonic's video-oriented crop cameras certainly rate a mention, but aren't really in the same category, due to their lack of a full-frame sensor). Nikon's new video log format certainly looks good - it should offer a lot of latitude in post-processing - but how that stacks up against the new, video-focused peer competitors remains to be seen. Certainly, if the A7s3 is bumped up to 24MP and offers 4k/60fps full-sensor output, or even 6k at 24/25/30fps, it would be a major rival, and would be seen as a significant milestone towards the goal of 8k video for the Tokyo Olympics in two years' time.
-
But, as you know with Canon, they may score well with many of their lenses but they have a habit of disappointed too when it comes to some aspects of their bodies. Innovation with bodies has not been their history for some time now. They are solid and reliable but always seem a step behind.
They haven't been putting much effort into SLR in the last 8-10 years.
Where they have made a lot of advances is video-related technologies - dual pixel AF and other through-the-sensor AF technologies, data processing, EVFs, etc. These haven't really helped their SLRs, since they're mostly not applicable to SLRs. But they're very applicable to mirrorless cameras - and that's where they'll show up.
Essentially, Canon hasn't done much with their SLR bodies because they've spent the past decade developing mirrorless. Everyone called it 'video' at the time, but what is a mirrorless still camera other than a video camera with higher resolution and slower frame rate?
Of course, having these capabilities isn't the same as actually deploying them into a good camera. But Canon should know, as well as anyone else, that they have to knock it out of the park with their full-frame release.
Changing systems must be carefully evaluated as it is obviously a significant expenditure over time, despite those here that feel a DDS degree is a license to be extravagant. They forget, I still have a wife to answer too. And with my luck, just as I complete a transition, Canon will come out with the most amazing body that crushes every one else.
You're going to have to change systems no matter what. Whether it's Canon EF to Canon mirrorless or Canon EF to Sony/Nikon, you'll still end up changing all your lenses, unless you want to put up with substandard AF. SLRs are peaking and will start to disappear as mirrorless technologies take over and exceed the limitations of the the SLR design. It's like the transition from TLRs to SLRs, or from manual focus to autofocus - everyone's going to need to buy new lenses. Essentially, this opens up the whole playing field - Canon's and Nikon's incumbent positions in the camera marketplace don't mean much when everyone needs to replace their lens collection anyway, so people don't have a huge pre-existing collection of viable lenses holding them back and restricting their choice of system. This is not likely to occur again for decades, until the next major design shift.
But what you have a choice in is when you make that change. At present, mirrorless doesn't have a huge performance advantage over SLRs - they are on par, with mirrorless better for somethings and the top-end SLRs a bit better for others (partly owing to lens availability). For the moment, SLRs are a perfectly viable system. The question then becomes whether you move to a mirrorless platform now, selling all your SLR gear while they still have value and replacing them with mirrorless equivalents (at some net cost), or whether you keep on using your SLR lenses for as long as possible, getting another 5-10 years of use out of them until they become obsolescent (and possibly unsellable) and moving to mirrorless then.
-
Ah... and adding a mirrorless body with a few native lenses to an existing DSLR line up would not be a smart move?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ah... and adding a mirrorless body with a few native lenses to an existing DSLR line up would not be a smart move?
Particularly for the non-dentists for whom replacing a system en masse is not financially viable.
-
Particularly for the non-dentists for whom replacing a system en masse is not financially viable.
Very true, now even if I were able to replace 10 systems cash without much of a second thought I would still add a mirrorless and lenses to address some usage patterns where they are superior.
That’s one of the patterns made possible by the FTZ adapter.
I mean that was before Shadowblade taught me it isn’t a good idea. Now I am really hesitant... :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ah... and adding a mirrorless body with a few native lenses to an existing DSLR line up would not be a smart move?
Cheers,
Bernard
Unless you specifically want it for shooting video (which Nikon SLRs don't do well), what does it get you that a second, backup SLR body doesn't.
You don't save money - the new cameras are as expensive as the SLRs they replace.
A second SLR retains the full autofocus capability of your lenses, whereas a Z6/Z7 doesn't. With two SLRs, you can mount one lens on each - say, 24-70 on one and 70-200 on the other - and are able to use them interchangeably, with each one working just as well as the other. You can't do that with mirrorless.
And, if you're dead-set on going mirrorless and gradually building up your mirrorless lens collection, while using the SLR as your primary body, you're free to use any mirrorless system - Sony, Canon or Nikon - since your new lenses won't fit on your SLR lenses anyway, and you'll be able to adapt your old F-mount lenses onto any mirrorless system, at a cost in AF performance. And the E-mount system is a much more proven quantity, with much greater first- and third-party lens and accessory support, than the Z-mount.
Early adopters can do well - eventually. We have seen that with the evolution of E-mount over the past five years. But it takes time, and early adoption is often not the best solution when more mature systems (in this case, Nikon SLR and Sony E-mount) are available already. In five years' time, Z-mount may well be a capable and well-supported system. But that's not a particularly good reason to go out and buy a new system you won't get much benefit out of in the meantime - by the time Z-mount is more mature and supported, the Z6/Z7 will be obsolete anyway, so you would likely have to buy new bodies.
Particularly for the non-dentists for whom replacing a system en masse is not financially viable.
You're going to have to do it, whether you like it or not, if you want to keep taking photos. Your only choice is when you're going to replace them.
In 10 years' time, updates to SLR bodies and lenses will be few and far between, and Canon and Nikon will stop servicing legacy bodies and lenses. They'll still work, up until the point where they physically/electronically break down, but, if anything happens to them, you're on your own.
Sell them now and you can probably get a good price for your gear - switching is cheaper than buying a new system from scratch. Sell them in 5-10 years and you'll get several extra years' use out of your gear, skipping a few generations (which may well save you money), but you won't get much back for your SLR gear at that stage. Either option is viable, and one may be preferable to the other, depending on how you shoot and what gear you have, but not switching isn't a choice.
-
Very true, now even if I were able to replace 10 systems cash without much of a second thought I would still add a mirrorless and lenses to address some usage patterns where they are superior.
That’s one of the patterns made possible by the FTZ adapter.
I mean that was before Shadowblade taught me it isn’t a good idea. Now I am really hesitant... :D
Cheers,
Bernard
Under what circumstances are F-mount lenses on a Z-mount camera superior to either F-mount lenses on an F-mount camera, or using E-mount lenses on an E-mount camera?
F-mount lenses work just fine on Nikon SLRs, and, unlike the case with Canon five years ago, Nikon bodies don't have a deficiency that would force someone to take their F-mount lenses and put them on something else.
For applications where you specifically want a mirrorless camera, E-mount lenses on an E-mount camera work much better than adapted lenses.
You won't get many Z-mount lenses on a Z-mount camera, at least not for a few years - they just don't exist yet.
-
Are you aware that HCB built the most remarkable portfolio of the history of photography with a 35mm lens?
As far as your questions go, I have already answered them several times. I am not confident about my ability to convey the message better this time around.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ah... and adding a mirrorless body with a few native lenses to an existing DSLR line up would not be a smart move?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well that would allow you to slowly migrate across without losing functionality. I was fortunate when I moved to Sony that all the lenses I needed for my type of commercial work and personal work were already available so once I figured the system was comfortable for me I dumped all the Canon gear. Actually a much less traumatic scenario would have been the one you propose here but Canon didn’t have anything mirrorless on offer and I wasn’t keen on any of there DSLR offerings at the time.
If I was in Nikon I would without doubt buy one of these two new camera with the 24 to 70 and see how it goes. Obviously I would buy the adapter. It’s a perfect solution. Can’t see any good reason to not do this.
-
Are you aware that HCB built the most remarkable portfolio of the history of photography with a 35mm lens?
That's about as relevant as knowing Tiger Woods used X brand of golf clubs.
You're probably shooting different things, in a different style, to what he shot. You need gear to suit your photography, not someone else's.
-
As far as your questions go, I have already answered them several times. I am not confident about my ability to convey the message better this time around.
Cheers,
Bernard
As in, 'failed to answer them at all'.
You have never addressed why getting the Z6/Z7 this year, in 2018 would serve you better than simply getting another Nikon SLR, or moving to E-mount instead. There aren't too many situations where one of those other two options wouldn't give you more capabilities than the Z6/Z7 option.
-
That's about as relevant as knowing Tiger Woods used X brand of golf clubs.
You're probably shooting different things, in a different style, to what he shot. You need gear to suit your photography, not someone else's.
It really isn’t easy to type on an iPhone when laughing uncontrollably. That’s at least one thing I have learned from this sureal conversation.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Guys give it a rest, we're all tired of you two arguing the same points over and over. I don't mind banter but this is just noise.
I'm fairly neutral on the Z cameras at the moment. A big part of my opinion will be formed when I hold one as for me haptics are a huge priority. Ergonomics look decent although I have huge hands so I'm always sceptical of small cameras.
I love the colour coming out of the 45MP Nikon sensor but sharpness beyond "good enough" is lost on me - rendering is more important. I wish the primes were half the length and simply "very good". I absolutely know i'm in the minority here.
I'm also unsure whether I could get used to 10 hour shooting days using an EVF as I seem to get a slight headache eventually or at the very least eye fatigue. Does this effect anyone else or have any scientific reasoning? Perhaps its just my mind being resistant to change.
The Northrup pre-production review states it doesn't feel as good as the SLRs, but splits the difference between a D5 and the Sonys. They also didn't think the EVF was much better than the other flagships out there and I find even the A9 EVF mediocre compared to the D850 viewfinder. Not my favourite reviewing duo but probably the most honest hands on out there at the moment.
I love the idea of knowing exactly what I'm getting with an EVF - I find it immensely useful when creating still life compositions and making decisions on colours and geometry. I also have to admit most of my images are viewed on a screen and I get a better idea of how it'll be viewed looking through a backlit EVF.
I don't really mind the single slot although I do think it's a mistake and for wedding shooters DOA.
I shoot slowly and don't need sports AF, it's probably good enough for me. I do love the 3D tracking on my D850 - perhaps the press just struggled to find the right settings since everything is renamed.
Lens wise - I wish Nikon weren't wasting so much R&D on the Noct, although I'm sure the technologies will be seen across the lineup eventually and will pay for themselves. I feel like 3 more crucial lenses this year would have been a better use of time and funds. I'm in no way a professional marketer though - perhaps the fanfare is worth the investment.
I want the 14-30/4 badly and if it was available in F mount I'd own it. Compact, takes normal filters and I use wide zooms in portrait + high res bodies to approximate shift lenses with heavy cropping.
-
Well that would allow you to slowly migrate across without losing functionality. I was fortunate when I moved to Sony that all the lenses I needed for my type of commercial work and personal work were already available so once I figured the system was comfortable for me I dumped all the Canon gear. Actually a much less traumatic scenario would have been the one you propose here but Canon didn’t have anything mirrorless on offer and I wasn’t keen on any of there DSLR offerings at the time.
It still involves replacing all your gear - just that you're doing it gradually, rather than all at the same time. At the end of it, you'll still have a pile of mirrorless lenses and almost no F-mount lenses.
If I was in Nikon I would without doubt buy one of these two new camera with the 24 to 70 and see how it goes. Obviously I would buy the adapter. It’s a perfect solution. Can’t see any good reason to not do this.
If it were a 24-70/2.8 and the body had dual card slots, I'd say the same. But it only has one card slot and is an f/4 lens.
What Nikon should have done with Z6/Z7 is aimed it squarely at the event/wedding photography crowd. The Z6 would be the star of the show - 24MP, good low-light performance, face detection (since Nikon lacks eye focus), dual card slots, a setting for full electronic shutter without sacrificing bit depth or other image quality and the best AF system they can stuff into a mirrorless body at this stage. Release it with a 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.4 (or even 105/1.4), with announcements of a 14-24/2.8 or 16-35/2.8, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 on the way imminently (instead of the super-niche, manual-focus 58/0.95). And release a flash system at the same time. State that there will be no SLR successor to the D610 and D750 and announce to the world, 'Event and wedding photographers - this is your camera'. The Z7 would also exist, but in a secondary role, aimed more at studio and well-heeled landscape/travel photographers who would previously have used the D850 with a few fast zooms. An entry-level camera (?Z5) would probably come next. There may not be a Z-mount D5 or A9 equivalent just yet, but that matters little at this stage, since the lens collection wouldn't be there to support such a camera for a few years anyway.
Instead, what we have is a decent body, on the whole quite similar to the A7r3, but with a glaring weakness (Single. Card. Slot.) and a few lenses which don't do justice to the system and don't seem to be aimed at any subset of photographers in particular.
-
Alex,
I know... an old dislike for incorrect information and wicked logic... I am working on it... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You have never addressed why getting the Z6/Z7 this year, in 2018 would serve you better than simply getting another Nikon SLR, or moving to E-mount instead. There aren't too many situations where one of those other two options wouldn't give you more capabilities than the Z6/Z7 option.
Speaking for myself it would be to get the much-touted benefits of an EVF, and keep the ergonomics of the Nikon.
-
Speaking for myself it would be to get the much-touted benefits of an EVF, and keep the ergonomics of the Nikon.
Pretty much. I've come to terms with the Sonys being too small for me. Not the end of the world but it does mean I'm very interested in the new options. It will be interesting to see Canons take on whats important.
-
I don’t care about dual card slots. Not everyone does. Not everyone shoots weddings. Perhaps naive but I have never had a card fail since I moved off CF and even those CFs that failed were DOA.
As for 2.8 lenses I have a several primes that will give me wide apertures but guess what, I don’t use wide apertures. Personally I dislike the shallow depth of field thing. People are so binary these days with depth of field. It must all in focus or have extreme shallow depth of field.
Lot of people have a lots of theories about what pros need. I think Nikon have a better idea than the folks on this forum. As do Canon. Canon still sell a lot of cameras to a lot of pros despite the forums being pretty sure that Canon is hopeless and makes nothing of any use. Either Canon and Nikon and the pros are all idiots or some of the assumptions made on forums are just plain wrong.
-
I dont care about dual slots either. I actually don't mind the lens selection, I just wish the 35mm was a 28mm and they were a bit smaller. I really like most of the weight to be in the body - the balance of a D850 and 35/1.8G is pretty much perfect for me.
-
A heavy read ...
https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-RRZZFeeMiveET0gVQ--AxJI7g-xcLVNVcp7mdwZQz5w==/Misc/Z7_Z6_Brochure.pdf
-
Much of this thread has concentrated on the specs of the Z7 and Z6, but can I look at it from a different angle. All camera manufacturers need to sell to survive. To whom will Nikon sell the Z7 and Z6? I have been a Canon person for many years originally, I guess, by accident. My first SLR after a Practika was a Canon. I have no idea now why it was not a Nikon. About 30 years later I went digital and got a Canon 10D as I could keep my EF lenses. I have ended up with a 5D3. Eventually the lure of a smaller, lighter system with more information in the viewfinder lead me to try a Fuji X-E1 with the 18-55 lens. It did not break the bank. The X–E1 eventually lead to a X-T1 and now an X-T2. I am delighted and take more images and have more fun with a camera and lenses that I am happy to take around with me in a much smaller bag that the 5D3. Mirrorless is for me.
Would I buy a Z7 or Z6? Very unlikely. Why? Too much cost for too little return now I am into mirrorless as many people I meet are.
Who will buy the Z7 and Z6? I guess that Nikon hopes to stem the number of people leaving for the likes of Sony, Fuji, and m4/3, by getting them to stay with Nikon when going mirrorless which seems an unstoppable development. But what about converts? Is the price too high given that such people will have to invest in glass as well unless adapters are made available. (I do not like the thought of an adapter as it means extra weight and size. I do not even like using a grip with extra batteries and prefer to just carry spare batteries in a little Think Tank battery holder.) Will those who have another system be tempted to spend a considerable sum of money to change to Nikon? As this is Nikon’s first serious foray into mirrorless, they cannot sell to Nikon upgraders from a less good mirrorless body, so that market sector does not exist to them.
All of this will also apply to Canon unless they introduce a camera with real competitive advantage. I do not know if the market will see the Z7 and Z6 as having sufficient competitive advantage. I hope for Nikon’s sake that people do.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
I don’t care about dual card slots. Not everyone does. Not everyone shoots weddings. Perhaps naive but I have never had a card fail since I moved off CF and even those CFs that failed were DOA.
That's not the point. It wouldn't be aimed at you. The point is to introduce something that appeals heavily to one, significant market segment and can be a dominant product there, rather than something which does a bit for everyone without really providing a compelling reason for any one segment to migrate. Once you have a strong base there, then you can expand.
That's essentially what Sony did - they pretty much had the Canon-shooting amateur landscape segment by default, since Canon essentially ceded the space to them. And it's what Canon and Nikon will have to do too. You don't sell a product by making something that's mildly interesting to a whole lot of people - you need something that's really compelling to a particular segment to win converts.
-
Who will buy the Z7 and Z6? I guess that Nikon hopes to stem the number of people leaving for the likes of Sony, Fuji, and m4/3, by getting them to stay with Nikon when going mirrorless which seems an unstoppable development. But what about converts? Is the price too high given that such people will have to invest in glass as well unless adapters are made available. (I do not like the thought of an adapter as it means extra weight and size. I do not even like using a grip with extra batteries and prefer to just carry spare batteries in a little Think Tank battery holder.) Will those who have another system be tempted to spend a considerable sum of money to change to Nikon? As this is Nikon’s first serious foray into mirrorless, they cannot sell to Nikon upgraders from a less good mirrorless body, so that market sector does not exist to them.
I assume that, if Canon takes too long to create a FF mirrorless camera and somebody like Metabones creates a Z system adapter for EF lenses to Z mount, maybe Canon users start to migrate to Nikon instead of Sony if they want to try mirrorless. If that scenario was happening like two years ago, I maybe ended using Nikon mirrorless system instead of the Sony I'm using now. But as you say, now that I'm converting to Sony system, still using some EF lenses on my kit... I don't have the economics means to change to a new system now or in a few years... I'm not a dentists after all...
-
Shadow do you have any evidence that the amateur landscape shooters are where Sony took market share from Canon or that they took market share from canon at all? Do you really think that with IBiS and great high ISO performance and with increasingly good AF and such things as eye focus that Sony set out to and accomplished the task of taking market share from canon in the landscape segment? Also where does your theory of needing fast glass fit in with landscape photography?
Anyway this is about Nikon. I have no idea what their plan is and nor do you. I think but dont know that they are planning a migration path for existing Nikon users. This offering does that imho. Sony needed to break into the market. Nikon need to retain existing Nikon clients. That is working I believe and my evidence for that is Bernard and several friends with Nikon’s who are keen to give mirrorless a try. Two of them have 850s and the mirrorless gives them a more compact option that can be used with existing lenses should they wish to do so.
-
point to consider (Thom noted it) - Nikon again trying to protect D850 by cutting some features from Z7 to keep D850 better still ... so why 'd you go with a vendor who still does not go in dSLM with full force always keeping mirrorless cameras in 2nd spot ? vs Sony who is totally committed ?
-
I understand and agree, but this isn’t about protecting the D850, it is about protecting the Z8/Z9.
I have a huge amount of respect for Thom, but he has been completely wrong in his forecast of Nikon’s mirrorless moves till date.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I feel like the Z7 will be the flagship high MP body for a couple of years, do they expect studio photographers to live without high end features that they offer on their cheaper D850. I should not have to spend ~$4500+ to get these these things.
A Z9? high speed body for the Olympics is probably a given but commercial and editorial guys have no interest in that body.
-
Are you aware that HCB built the most remarkable portfolio of the history of photography with a 35mm lens?
it was actually a 50mm. and just quickly off the top of my head i’ll trow out 3 “portfolios” which have had far more importance to the history of photgraphy than hcb: atget, evans and frank.
sorry that’s totally off topic...
-
I feel like the Z7 will be the flagship high MP body for a couple of years, do they expect studio photographers to live without high end features that they offer on their cheaper D850. I should not have to spend ~$4500+ to get these these things.
A Z9? high speed body for the Olympics is probably a given but commercial and editorial guys have no interest in that body.
I don’t when they will be released, but I think we will get:
- z8 which is a a9mk II competitor high speed camera
- z9 which is a a9r competitor with 60+ megapixel
I would bet summer 2019 announcement.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t when they will be released, but I think we will get:
- z8 which is a a9mk II competitor high speed camera
- z9 which is a a9r competitor with 60+ megapixel
I would bet summer 2019 announcement.
Cheers,
Bernard
If $3400 is the price of the prosumer models I might get priced out by Nikon. No hard feelings but it would be a shame. It costs what it costs I guess.
-
If $3400 is the price of the prosumer models I might get priced out by Nikon. No hard feelings things cost what they cost.
Well, this shouldn't come as a surprise, the a9 isn't cheap either.
Now, I have been the first about reporting and complaining about the lack of double memory slot on the Z6/Z7, I fully share the feeling that Nikon has made a huge product planning mistake by omitting this feature. And I would totally understand anybody thinking that this is a regrettable choice that may be life threatening for Nikon.
The only hope would be that they have a solution with their upcoming battery grip that I would find acceptable. But I sincerely doubt it.
My only point here isn't to find excuses for Nikon, but to provide what I think is the right explanation for their decisions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
it was actually a 50mm. and just quickly off the top of my head i’ll trow out 3 “portfolios” which have had far more importance to the history of photgraphy than hcb: atget, evans and frank.
sorry that’s totally off topic...
My bad, you are correct, but this doesn't change the story. ;)
Beyond that, yes, the importance of the relative portfolios can be discussed and I do agree that at least Atget and Frank are serious candidates. I am less of a fan of Evans, but who cares about what I like.
As I know you have fully understood, the point is that the right camera with a 50mm or 35mm lens can change history.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now, I have been the first about reporting and complaining about the lack of double memory slot on the Z6/Z7, I fully share the feeling that Nikon has made a huge product planning mistake by omitting this feature. And I would totally understand anybody thinking that this is a regrettable choice that may be life threatening for Nikon
Not every purchaser is as wise as you. I assumed that the 2 card slots on the 800 were so the user could choose between SD and CF. It didn't occur until later that I could use one as a backup. And even then I mostly didn't.
-
Well, this shouldn't come as a surprise, the a9 isn't cheap either.
The A9 isn't cheap but most people don't need A9 features, they're niche. Sony position the A7R3 as their pro studio camera (currently). It has great AF + eye AF, dual slot, great battery life. I also don't like it for a myriad of reasons but if Sony can provide these features for $3k then I'd like Nikon to for $3400
Nikon flagship studio DSLR is $3200 and probably costs more to produce.
-
I think the dual card issue is really not all that important. As was noted if a card is bad, it is 99% of the time DOA and doesn't fail while shooting. Event photographers got along just fine with single card DSLRs since the cameras were invented (I'm unsure at what point dual card cameras came on the market; maybe the last five years??). Event photographers also don't need lots of megapixels as most of the output will not be printed but kept in digital form. Two women who used to work for me in the pharma industry are now highly respected event photographers and they have told me there is seldom any request for more than a couple of images being printed.
IMO, the big advantage of mirrorless is in size and weight assuming image quality is not compromised by camera/lens design. For those of us who are getting up in age and enjoy international travel this advance is great. I upgraded to a D810 just as the model was nearing the end of the cycle as there was a great discount from B&H. Because of the investment in Nikon lenses over the years, it was difficult to rationalize switching to a non-Nikon mirrorless system (some of the older Nikon lenses purchased in the 1970-1980 time period continue work well on DSLR bodies once the tab is shaved off and one gets use to manual focusing which for landscape photography is just fine). Were the Z cameras available a couple of years ago I would have purchased one but now it is a more difficult choice (it would be different if photography was a business and I could amortize it on my tax filing).
We will see how this plays out following the launch of the Z cameras and see what the sales actually are. That is the bottom line for Nikon.
-
Alan,
It is true that the P1 XF, supposedly the highest end camera in existence shooting super highend gigs all the time only has a single memory slot... but it is shot thetered a lot.
I agree that the odds an XQD cards goes wrong during a shoot is very low. But I would probably worry about that possibility.
I had to go through that using my H6D-100c for a year or so until they added back up capability in firmware, I experienced no issue, I ended up forgetting about it... most of the time. But I still far prefer to have 2 slots.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can't imagine either of the mirrorless options to be a main camera for event/wedding in the foreseeable future, but certainly as a backup/silent second unit, which renders the duocard issue more or less irrelevant.
They are good offerings for "amateurs" wanting a single camera, or pro's wanting to dabble with mirrorless as a second body (backup/silent/video).
All of the arguments against these offerings are based on the presumption (as stated) that the consumer makes an entirely logic decision void of emotion with complete information about past, present, and future, and we all know they never, ever do.
-
At the end it is extremely simple, the key question is whether the ability (or not) of the Z7/Z6 to help create better images overweights its disadvantages, the only obvious one to me as of now is the lack of double memory slots.
The answer will differ for each of us.
The more I read about the camera, the more I feel that it might for me, but that's just my context.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
Your reasoning pretty well matches mine...
Best regards
Erik
Alan,
It is true that the P1 XF, supposedly the highest end camera in existence shooting super highend gigs all the time only has a single memory slot... but it is shot thetered a lot.
I agree that the odds an XQD cards goes wrong during a shoot is very low. But I would probably worry about that possibility.
I had to go through that using my H6D-100c for a year or so until they added back up capability in firmware, I experienced no issue, I ended up forgetting about it... most of the time. But I still far prefer to have 2 slots.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t when they will be released, but I think we will get:
- z8 which is a a9mk II competitor high speed camera
- z9 which is a a9r competitor with 60+ megapixel
I would bet summer 2019 announcement.
Cheers,
Bernard
I will be quite surprised if after a year Nikon releases another set of cameras. If I was a Z user I will prefer them to concentrate in that aggressive lens roadmap...
-
Did Nikon say anything about aps-c mirrorless? Either bodies or lenses?
-
At the end it is extremely simple, the key question is whether the ability (or not) of the Z7/Z6 to help create better images overweights its disadvantages, the only obvious one to me as of now is the lack of double memory slots.
The answer will differ for each of us.
The more I read about the camera, the more I feel that it might for me, but that's just my context.
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't see that big difference between Sony and Nikon offerings... each one has their strong and weak points vs the other... and if I was you Bernad, I would go for the Z system... after all, you must have a good collection of F lenses.
-
Did Nikon say anything about aps-c mirrorless? Either bodies or lenses?
As far as I saw in the different news webpages, I will say no... but I just watched the ones with people with real cameras and no the ones with people just going over the spec sheet, so maybe I missed something.
-
All of the arguments against these offerings are based on the presumption (as stated) that the consumer makes an entirely logic decision void of emotion with complete information about past, present, and future, and we all know they never, ever do.
This.
There's spec sheets and road maps and there's being in a camera store and holding something in your hand.
-
A more modern version of HCB's 50mm lens is the fact (reference forgotten; sorry) that a great majority of all photographs are in the FOV range from about 24mm to 70mm (35mm equiv.) — and this was data compiled in the late film era, so not skewed by phone-photography. So I expect that a lot of potential 36x34mm format mirrorless cameras buyers will be comfortable doing most or all of their Z photography with one or two of the initial native lenses, and maybe handling the occasional more extreme cases with adaptor-mounted F-mount lenses and/or trusting the roadmap to fill their lens wish-lists.
Though personally I would have liked a "middle-weight" telephoto zoom now or coming soon, like 70-200/4 or 70-300/5.6; but maybe my tastes for the "narrow view" (telephoto and macro) without excessive bulk are better served by a middle-sized format like MFT or APS-C.
-
Perhaps Nikon would have made a smarter decision if they'd introduced a digital take on their rangefinder S3.
Why? Well, think Leica. It makes reflex-style bodies and all that, but the flagship, the thing over which people drool, myself inculded, is the current M-style of body. Nikon could have turned a digi rangefinder into a direct competitor in the luxury market. And don't knock that aspect: it makes money, and money is the bottom line, even for most photographers - if only in ability to spend it or to make it.
Perhaps next year, once they have the mirrorless system perfected.
Either way, I wish 'em luck!
Rob
-
I will be quite surprised if after a year Nikon releases another set of cameras. If I was a Z user I will prefer them to concentrate in that aggressive lens roadmap...
That, and iteratively refining the Z cameras' firmware. Nikon would be well-advised to take a cue from Fuji in that regard. So would every other manufacturer, for that matter. Mirrorless camera bodies, especially, are essentially machine-control software systems—and thus susceptible to selective improvement over time. As well, of course, as the drivers of the lens sales that produce both profits and customer lock-in.
-
From people who have actually used and tested it (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nikon-z7-z6-quirks-has-blackout-z7-does-5-5fps-no-lens-mount-sharing-to-third-parties/)
- Z7 only manages 9fps with a battery grip. Without the grip, it slows to 5.5fps. The Z6 is slowed by a similar amount.
- Z7 only has a 2.5 second buffer when shooting 12-bit compressed RAW (obviously less when shooting 14 bit, and more when shooting JPEG). No mention as to whether this is when shooting with or without a grip.
- Slow buffer clearance - compared with the original-series A7/A7r (not that the A7r3/A9 are particularly fast either, unless you're using a single UHS-II card - Sony needs to fix this in the next generation and use UHS-II for both slots)
- Half the rated battery life compared with the A7r3. But we knew this one already.
- No exposure compensation dial. Far less needed on mirrorless, since you have a real-time through-the-lens exposure simulation, but it might take some getting used to. Certainly, I've never touched the dial on the Sony, but I never use Tv or Av modes either - mirrorless makes manual exposure very easy.
If true, some of these are huge deal-breakers. 9fps is fine for action. 5.5fps puts in a completely different, slower class. The small buffer and slow clearance would also make it largely a non-action camera.
Sorry but the source (as linked - sonyalpharumors) is wrong and some of those claims have been pointed as false in the comments section.
-
I'm bemused, though not surprised, that the lack of "it just works" network connectivity in all these camera systems gets so little attention in threads like this. After all, we're film-era folks who've (mostly) embraced new photo tech…so stuff we consider ancillary doesn't factor much into our gear preferences. But to younger folks seamless wifi isn't ancillary, it's central and flat-out expected. Not even the disruptive upstart, Sony, seems to have a freakin' clue about the demographic brick wall they'll soon splat into if they don't get with it.
-Dave-
-
Who knows, Nikon may have gotten Snapbridge to work after 3 or 4 iterations? :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't see that big difference between Sony and Nikon offerings... each one has their strong and weak points vs the other... and if I was you Bernad, I would go for the Z system... after all, you must have a good collection of F lenses.
Yes, I do.
But I am open to all options, including selling the whole set of F lenses and going Sony or Canon (not at the moment obviously).
But yes, the easiest route would be adding a Z7 and checking how well it is doing for my typical shooting.
I have a huge amount of admiration for the Sony a7/a9 and for Sony as a company and innovation force. But I have to admit that the Z mount appears to have better optical potential and that’s what appealing to me. I also believe that many who have not used recent glass from Nikon don’t realize the progress they have made and what it means for Z lenses.
I just wish Nikon had made that choice easier by proposing a 2 slot body from the onset.
But it will probably not be a deal breaker in the end.
I can see myself using it in 3 ways:
- for easily reshootable occasions or non critical ones -> I just hope my XQD card works
- for more critical opportunities-> implement a regular card back up strategy using my surface pro
- for can’t fail at any price -> continue to use my D850/D5
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t when they will be released, but I think we will get:
- z8 which is a a9mk II competitor high speed camera
- z9 which is a a9r competitor with 60+ megapixel
I have a similar vision but not much sense of when: going by names, prices at release, and features, it seems that the Z6 and Z7 are intended to cover most of the range covered by the D610, D750 and D850, while not touching the D5, so my guess:
- A D5 counterpart in time for the 2020 Olympics — if Nikon can get the AF good enough, and
- A higher resolution "Z8" when a next generation higher resolution sensor is available — along with the same sensor in a D850 successor, if there is still demand for such a thing!. No rush on that, I think, and I have no idea when it would come.
Aside: Talk of a single "flagship" camera is simplistic, along with the "pro" vs "amateur" distinction; Nikon has two "top" SLRs in different categories (as does Canon).
-
Yes, indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A couple of points that I'm not sure have been mentioned yet... The z7 could be pretty special for my application (I'm a landscape photographer who often hikes in a long way - I hiked 450 miles on the Pacific Crest Trail photographing last year.
1.) This is claimed to have D850 level weather sealing... No Sony is anywhere near that (Olympus is there or beyond - the E-M1 mk II may even be D5 level, and some of the newer Fujis are close to a D850). We'll have to see if that's real, but if it is, it's got a VERY interesting combination (to landscape photographers) of a big-MP sensor and weather sealing.
Why not use a D850? This thing and the 24-70 f4 are half the weight of a D850 with the 24-70 f2.8 (yes, the SLR lens is faster, but they don't have a lighter alternative with very high image quality - again, we'll have to see if the 24-70 f4 has the claimed IQ). If the claims on both (lens - I'm sure the sensor's terrific) IQ and weather sealing are true, the z7 is unique as a hikeable landscape camera.
2.) Unlike any other mirrorless camera, the z6 and z7 take tilt-shift lenses without an unsupported third-party adapter. Yes, it's three pieces, but it's a camera by Nikon, attached to an adapter made for the camera by Nikon, attached to a lens by Nikon... That seems a lot less fishy than Sony camera to Metabones (who the heck is Metabones) adapter to Canon lens. Sure, Sony or Fuji could release a first-party tilt-shift lens, but nobody has yet, and I haven't seen one on anybody's public roadmap.
3.) I don't love the single card slot, but XQD cards are supposed to be a lot more reliable than SD... What if they've got the chances of a card failure down to 1 in 200,000 images? The shutter fails once in 200,000 images. If you can't take a 1 in 200,000 chance of failure (and there are some jobs where you can't), use two cameras, because there are plenty of mechanical parts in any camera with failure rates in that range. SD cards are closer to 1 failure in 20,000 images, so dual slots are needed. How's the error checking on XQD? Will it immediately report a card error?
4.) What's up with that battery life? I'm inclined to think it's a testing quirk or a flaw with the pre-production models. The few people who've played with one suggest it's a testing quirk - they're seeing much better life. If it's not, the camera is about twice as power hungry as it's competitors - Fujis get about 300-350 shots out of the little NP-W126 batteries (with about half the power of an EN-EL15), and Sonys get in the high 200s from their little battery (like the Fuji one), and I've heard close to 600 from the EN-EL15 size battery.
Assuming the battery life works out and the sealing and IQ are as promised, this could be a pretty ideal hiking camera - no heavier than hiking with a Fuji, but twice the pixels, ISO 64, an extra stop or two of DR. My long hike lenses would be the 24-70 and 14-30 f4 pair. When closer to the car, it has the versatility of T/S lenses (and just about anything else - if nobody's put a F mount on it, nobody's made the lens...).
Dan
-
Dan,
Indeed. I think the following would also be nice for landscape:
- IBIS for daytime handheld shooting
- Lighter tripod compatibility
- WB preview in EVF which can help get a useful reference for later raw based tuning
- association with 300mm PF for great distant landscape photography
- smaller body will give less obstructed access to T/S lens controls
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...
4.) What's up with that battery life? I'm inclined to think it's a testing quirk or a flaw with the pre-production models. The few people who've played with one suggest it's a testing quirk - they're seeing much better life. If it's not, the camera is about twice as power hungry as it's competitors - Fujis get about 300-350 shots out of the little NP-W126 batteries (with about half the power of an EN-EL15), and Sonys get in the high 200s from their little battery (like the Fuji one), and I've heard close to 600 from the EN-EL15 size battery.
...
Dan
The battery life “issue” seems to be a tempest in a teapot. Or more accurately, a result of the unfortunate use of CIPA as a battery life standard.
Real-world reports by people who have had hands on the cameras for days, not minutes, report 1500-2000 shots, and an entire day of shooting without exhausting a single battery. Additionally, the movie recording time on Nikon’s spec sheet has been corrected to read 85 minutes rather than the 10-15 minutes it originally listed.
I don’t understand why the CIPA numbers are so unreliable, but it does appear that they are.
-
My guess is that real world usage probably falls in between, I am betting on 600~800 shot per battery charge, which is totally fine.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Shadow do you have any evidence that the amateur landscape shooters are where Sony took market share from Canon or that they took market share from canon at all? Do you really think that with IBiS and great high ISO performance and with increasingly good AF and such things as eye focus that Sony set out to and accomplished the task of taking market share from canon in the landscape segment? Also where does your theory of needing fast glass fit in with landscape photography?
I don't think anyone has actual figures. But the tone on various forums - DPReview, POTN, here and elsewhere - changed significantly between 2012-2014, as did the makeup of full-frame cameras I've seen in the hands of shooters on landscape photography tours and at prominent landscape shooting locations all over the world (I'm using full-frame as a marker to indicate more serious photographers, since many not-so-serious photographers and tourists have a low-end Canon or Nikon crop or an Olympus M43 body).
Prior to 2012, almost everyone used the 5D2 - it was everywhere, and probably still remains the most commercially successful full-frame digital camera released. But a number of comparisons soon emerged between the 5D2 and the early Exmor sensors used in the A900 and D3x, showing much better shadow detail recovery in the Exmor sensors and a disturbing tartan pattern noise in the 5D2's shadows. This did not translate into success for the A900 or D3x - the A900 had a far poorer lens lineup (among other issues), while the D3x was double the weight and triple the price and was generally far more limited when not shooting landscapes or studio shots at base ISO. There was low-level grumbling, but this was generally far outweighed about the grumbling about the AF and other handling features vs the D700 - most talk was about a potential '3D', with the 5D2 sensor and compact body but 1D-type AF (this was later realised in the 5D3). When Nikon released the D800/D800e in 2012 and Canon was unable to maintain the lead in either resolution or overall image quality, the grumbling intensified, but most people still stayed with the 5D2 (without upgrading to the 5D3), since they'd be unable to use their Canon lenses on the D800. This changed with the A7r, helped by Sony's inclusion of a free Metabones adapter with every A7-series body sold. At that time, there were a huge number of 5D2 and 5D3 bodies on sale in the buy & sell boards of every forum (including here). And A7rs started showing up everywhere landscape photographers congregated (Gorak Shep, Namche Bazaar, Patagonia's W-circuit, Erta Ale, among various places I first noticed the trend) - almost universally attached to red-ringed Canon L-series lenses. And the tone on forums changed, too - on landscape sub-forums, Canon appeared to be generally out of favour, with Nikon and Sony being the two main choices, and remains so to this day.
Sony may not have intended to specifically pry landscape shooters away from Canon (although the inclusion of a Metabones adapter with the first two generations of A7-series cameras clearly intended an intention to pry photographers away from other systems - and, with the AF performance of adapted lenses, and AF performance of early-generation A7-series bodies in general, it was never going to be the action photographers they would pry away). But, intended or not, that's what they ended up doing. And it helped them a lot - without the influx of Canon shooters, uptake of E-mount would probably have been much slower, restricted largely to beginners and those looking for a 'compact solution' at first, and the evolution of the mount since then (assuming it wasn't stillborn entirely) would probably have taken a completely different track, focusing on compact, portable lenses rather than the fast, pro-grade f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes we're now getting. It's probably not coincidental that two of the biggest camera stores around here sold almost twice as many A7r bodies as A7 bodies, despite the A7r being more expensive and more specialised. These days, whenever I go to shooting spots popular with landscape photographers (New Zealand most recently, Pakistan and Japan coming up), I see an almost-even mix of Canon, Nikon and Sony among full-frame shooters. Many of the Sonys are now attached to native E-mount lenses, but there are still a large number attached to Canon lenses. Very few of them are attached to Nikon lenses, though, likely due to suitable adapters for Nikon lenses being late to arrive, but also because Nikon shooters have had no particular reason to switch, since Nikon bodies already provided everything they needed.
Anyway this is about Nikon. I have no idea what their plan is and nor do you. I think but dont know that they are planning a migration path for existing Nikon users. This offering does that imho. Sony needed to break into the market. Nikon need to retain existing Nikon clients. That is working I believe and my evidence for that is Bernard and several friends with Nikon’s who are keen to give mirrorless a try. Two of them have 850s and the mirrorless gives them a more compact option that can be used with existing lenses should they wish to do so.
Obviously Nikon needs to try to retain market share. But intention is not the same as results, and perception is not the same as reality. And it's far too early to say that 'it's working'. There have been negative reviews (of preproduction models) already, mostly centering around AF (apparently similar to A7r2-level), and opinions among Nikon users I know have been mixed to underwhelmed, with most saying 'I'll stick with my SLR' rather than switching to mirrorless. In a way, Nikon is a victim of its own success - the new camera needed to outdo the D850 (probably the best all-round SLR out there, and by no small margin) but mostly fails to do this. If they had never released the D850, or if it had been a lemon, there would probably be more people interested in switching (assuming they didn't switch to Sony first).
The question is not whether Nikon is trying to provide a migration path - they clearly are, so it's not even a question. The more relevant questions are whether a large proportion of current Nikon shooters will follow this migration path, and whether it is even the best migration path to mirrorless for current F-mount users. After all, porting your existing lenses to mirrorless and using an adapter is only one of several possible paths to mirrorless. There is also the option of selling your entire lens lineup now, for a good amount of money, and buying an all-new, all-mirrorless system (in which case Sony would have the clear advantage), or sticking it out with SLR until your lenses become obsolete and are due for replacement anyway (in which case the advantage would be with whichever mirrorless system is dominant in 5-10 years' time). Nikon will clearly try to sell it as a migration path, and the marketing will reflect this. But whether it is the best path remains to be seen, and likely depends on how many F-mount lenses (and which ones) you already have.
-
I think the dual card issue is really not all that important. As was noted if a card is bad, it is 99% of the time DOA and doesn't fail while shooting. Event photographers got along just fine with single card DSLRs since the cameras were invented (I'm unsure at what point dual card cameras came on the market; maybe the last five years??). Event photographers also don't need lots of megapixels as most of the output will not be printed but kept in digital form. Two women who used to work for me in the pharma industry are now highly respected event photographers and they have told me there is seldom any request for more than a couple of images being printed.
It kills it for professional use. Event and wedding photographers and photojournalists - everything from backyard parties to large corporate or political events - constitute a large part of the pro market and cannot risk losing key shots or coming back with nothing, no matter how small the chance, even if it's one-in-a-million
The pro market may be much smaller than the amateur/consumer market, but it has marketing influence that belies its actual size. A lot of sales are driven by 'what the pros use', which not only drive sales of that particular piece of gear, but also drives downmarket sales of lesser gear of the same brand. Witness Canon's marketing success through its highly-visible big white lenses and pro bodies at sporting events.
IMO, the big advantage of mirrorless is in size and weight assuming image quality is not compromised by camera/lens design. For those of us who are getting up in age and enjoy international travel this advance is great. I upgraded to a D810 just as the model was nearing the end of the cycle as there was a great discount from B&H. Because of the investment in Nikon lenses over the years, it was difficult to rationalize switching to a non-Nikon mirrorless system (some of the older Nikon lenses purchased in the 1970-1980 time period continue work well on DSLR bodies once the tab is shaved off and one gets use to manual focusing which for landscape photography is just fine). Were the Z cameras available a couple of years ago I would have purchased one but now it is a more difficult choice (it would be different if photography was a business and I could amortize it on my tax filing).
The way Sony has moved since the launch of the A7 suggests that this is clearly not the case - at least not with full-frame bodies. If it were all size and weight, they'd be releasing pancake lens after pancake lens, focusing on slower zooms and primes with good optical quality rather than f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes which are just as big as their SLR equivalents.
Those primarily concerned with size and weight have already moved to Olympus M43, which caters to that niche (and does it very well).
-
I don’t when they will be released, but I think we will get:
- z8 which is a a9mk II competitor high speed camera
- z9 which is a a9r competitor with 60+ megapixel
I would bet summer 2019 announcement.
Cheers,
Bernard
I suspect they'll move the other direction first - a Z5, designed as an entry-level full-frame mirrorless body, possibly (?probably) undercutting the A7III in both features and price, packaged with a 24-70/4 or 24/105/4 to entice new buyers into the Nikon system. The A7III is 'cheap' only by the standards of Sony full-frame cameras and lenses - there's plenty of room to undercut it with a product aimed at casual shooters, who are only ever going to have one or two lenses, but who want better image quality (or better low-light performance) than a crop body can provide.
There's no point releasing a high-speed action body when you don't have the native lenses to go with it. This won't happen for a few years - probably not until after the Tokyo Olympics (there's no point having a sports camera for the Olympics when you don't have the fast superteles to go with it).
As for the 60+ MP body, that probably won't happen for a few years, for the same reason. If they released it in 2019, it would be several years before enough high-end lenses were available to do it justice, by which time the body would be obsolete and due for replacement by a new generation (?Z9II). You don't buy a top-end body to use it with a rigged-together system of third-party lenses and adapters (F-mount being third-party on a Z-mount camera). And the Sony equivalent could just as easily be the A7r4 (in 2020) as the A9r.
-
Yes to all of Bernard's points...
I love the IBIS on my X-H1 (the ability to shoot 1/15 critically sharp without a tripod is wonderful). An "X-H1" closely approaching 50 MP (which seems to be the Z7, at least from the early reports) would be extraordinary (although my guess is that the huge pixel count will mean at least slightly higher shutter speeds - the D8xx series are notorious for requiring surprisingly high shutter speeds, and that's not all shutter shock and mirror damping).
I own only a Series 0 Gitzo tripod, and I don't even carry that on long hikes - 3 lbs extra is just impossible over hundreds of miles. I do carry it on 5-10 mile hikes and short overnights. A big DSLR would mean a Series 2 or 3 tripod, which really wouldn't go overnight at all.
I haven't used WB preview heavily, but I use exposure preview ALL the time - what would an image look like silhouetted by 3 stops of underexposure?
True about the PF...
And the adapter itself actually helps with T/S lenses - it moves the knobs out farther from the body without serving as an extension tube that kills infinity focus.
And glad to hear D Fuller's battery life report...
That means it's about as power hungry (at least shooting video) as an X-H1, and also comparable to the A7rIII. An X-H1 goes about 45-55 minutes on a battery with a bit more than half the power, while the A7rIII is between an hour and a half and two hours on a battery a little bigger than the Nikon one. This will be a 600 shot camera in demanding outdoor use (as is the A7rIII) - well more than that at an event where the shots per hour are greater and the camera is on less between images.
-
I have never walker more than 65 miles in one go over 45 hours, but I did indeed only carry my D810 + 24-70 f2.8 VR for the first 20 miles and did indeed not even consider packing a tripod. ;) VR/IBIS is indeed expanding the envelope of usage tremendously.
But, when light is needed but a tripod an option, I have had good results with the D850 and H6D-100c with the RSS 1 series kept non extended, especially in e-shutter mode.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
2.) Unlike any other mirrorless camera, the z6 and z7 take tilt-shift lenses without an unsupported third-party adapter. Yes, it's three pieces, but it's a camera by Nikon, attached to an adapter made for the camera by Nikon, attached to a lens by Nikon... That seems a lot less fishy than Sony camera to Metabones (who the heck is Metabones) adapter to Canon lens. Sure, Sony or Fuji could release a first-party tilt-shift lens, but nobody has yet, and I haven't seen one on anybody's public roadmap.
I have been using my old Canon 24mm TS-E II lens with the metabones Mark IV T adapter, the one that it is flocked, and it worked quite reliable. Even if I sold the TS-E lens because I was using it in very few ocasiones, the combination worked very well.
I hardly doubt Sony or Fuji will release a Tilt-Shift lenses, but if those are critical for your job, maybe you should wait to see what Canon releases, they have after all the best series of Tilt-Shift lenses in the market right now.
-
I suspect they'll move the other direction first - a Z5, designed as an entry-level full-frame mirrorless body, possibly (?probably) undercutting the A7III in both features and price, packaged with a 24-70/4 or 24/105/4 to entice new buyers into the Nikon system. The A7III is 'cheap' only by the standards of Sony full-frame cameras and lenses - there's plenty of room to undercut it with a product aimed at casual shooters, who are only ever going to have one or two lenses, but who want better image quality (or better low-light performance) than a crop body can provide.
I hardly doubt Nikon will release something lower than the Z6. That will be the entry level camera. With the pass of years it will get lower in price point. Like the A7 II is now the entry level camera for Sony...
-
I hardly doubt Nikon will release something lower than the Z6. That will be the entry level camera. With the pass of years it will get lower in price point. Like the A7 II is now the entry level camera for Sony...
Depends on the launch price of the Z6. I doubt Nikon can make it as cheap as the A7III - there's a large gap at the bottom end that needs filling.
-
Depends on the launch price of the Z6. I doubt Nikon can make it as cheap as the A7III - there's a large gap at the bottom end that needs filling.
Price for Z6 was already officially released, you can preorder it. It has more or less the same price as the A7 III - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1431706-REG/nikon_1595_z6_mirrorless_digital_camera.html
Then there are kits with 24-70 and adapter for F lenses.
-
One thing that has not been mentioned is sensor cleaning. I assume cleaning a mirrorless sensor is much easier than a DSLR. Occasionally one does have to do a 'wet' clean of the sensor.
-
Perhaps Nikon would have made a smarter decision if they'd introduced a digital take on their rangefinder S3...
I'm sure we all know they never will and in this case quite rightly so, but wouldn't it be refreshing in this homogenised, risk-free, camera market world, if someone, anyone, offered something, well...refreshing.
-
I'm sure we all know they never will and in this case quite rightly so, but wouldn't it be refreshing in this homogenised, risk-free, camera market world, if someone, anyone, offered something, well...refreshing.
Sometimes camera companies make a product the managers like rather than the one marketing tells them to make - look at the Nikon DF. There is definitely a tolerance for crazy designs, and some of them even catch on.
Also, Nikon may like Sony and Panasonic/Leica dip their toes into the very high end luxury compact market. Japanese consumers love super-miniaturised high performance consumer electronics.
Edmund
-
http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-z7-review
Yes, he is a Nikon ambassador, but some of the points, in particular the level of quality of the 35mm seems beyond interpretation.
The 100% crop in the corner at f1.8 is Otus like for those who had the chance to work with these.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sometimes camera companies make a product the managers like rather than the one marketing tells them to make - look at the Nikon DF. There is definitely a tolerance for crazy designs, and some of them even catch on.
Also, Nikon may like Sony and Panasonic/Leica dip their toes into the very high end luxury compact market. Japanese consumers love super-miniaturised high performance consumer electronics.
Edmund
And wasn't that a disaster.
;-)
-
One thing that has not been mentioned is sensor cleaning. I assume cleaning a mirrorless sensor is much easier than a DSLR. Occasionally one does have to do a 'wet' clean of the sensor.
Having cleaned the sensor of my old Canons and my new Sony A7r II, the complication is the same:
- Canon 5D Mark II. Activate the sensor cleaning mode, by leaving the mirror up, clean the sensor (yes, being more depth, it is easier to touch with the stick one of the walls of the sensor chamber).
- Sony A7r II. Go to the menus, activate sensor cleaning, so it vibrates to remove dust, and then, without turning off the camera, clean it. Since in this way the IBIS is locked and you don't damage it by applying to much force...
I read somewhere that the Nikon Zs also have some point where you lock the sensor IBIS for cleaning.
In other point, not having a mirror in front of it and being the sensor on all the time, it attracts more dust, but, at the same time, since it does not have a mirror, I always have in my bag a blower, each two days or so I just blow the sensor... after nearly one year, it has been quite clean... only moments needed for wet cleaning it is when some stuck dust spot... small ones that you see at f16 or higher... (same with my A7 II that I have for nearly two years... but not very used lately...)
-
2.) Unlike any other mirrorless camera, the z6 and z7 take tilt-shift lenses without an unsupported third-party adapter. Yes, it's three pieces, but it's a camera by Nikon, attached to an adapter made for the camera by Nikon, attached to a lens by Nikon... That seems a lot less fishy than Sony camera to Metabones (who the heck is Metabones) adapter to Canon lens. Sure, Sony or Fuji could release a first-party tilt-shift lens, but nobody has yet, and I haven't seen one on anybody's public roadmap.
3.) I don't love the single card slot, but XQD cards are supposed to be a lot more reliable than SD... What if they've got the chances of a card failure down to 1 in 200,000 images? The shutter fails once in 200,000 images.
2. I don't find particularly valuable having all my system on the same brand as long as it works. Specially for MF lenses, mirrorless cameras can be considered universal bodies where almost any previous lens can be adapted. Thanks to Metabones I can use a Canon 24mm tilt shift lens which is better than Nikon's, on a Sony body which is better than Canon's. Moreover I can use a 12mm Laowa lens with Canon mount on a Sony body with the shiftable 1,4x converter to get a high performance 17mm TS lens just for the price of the converter.
3.
I understand your point on reliability and I agree with it, it's a matter of statistical MTBF and redundancy, but your comparison with shutter is very bad: when your shutter gets broken you loose your last shot, while a card failure can mean losing all the previously done shots. I think this is the reason for the complaints.
If XQD cards are much more reliable they make less useful having two slots. Spare wheels on cars are being replaced by emergency wheels (just suitable for some 100Km at low speed) and anti puncture kits because MTBF are nearing 10 years of car usage, nearly a whole car's lifetime.
Regards
-
And wasn't that a disaster.
;-)
I'm not sure if it was or was not, but from my perspective, they screwed if up and, as bad, made it look cheap, even if it was anything but.
The main lure of film cameras was in their design and ergonomics. The pentaprism with interchangeable, split-image screen was the best thing to happen to reflex bodies. How they could have ignored the core value of the F and F2 to such an extent is remarkable. I guess it's the penalty of trying to be all things to all customers.
You're probably right regarding a rangefinder Nikon, but it would have been an interesting development.
Rob
-
2. I don't find particularly valuable having all my system on the same brand as long as it works. Specially for MF lenses, mirrorless cameras can be considered universal bodies where almost any previous lens can be adapted. Thanks to Metabones ..
This ^^^, again and again!
Add Novoflex into the mix and I doubt there's a mount that can't be usefully converted.
-
This ^^^, again and again!
Add Novoflex into the mix and I doubt there's a mount that can't be usefully converted.
Now if someone would just make the adapter to convert Bernard's Zeiss Otus to his iPhone X , Bernard would own the perfect camera!
Edmund
-
Whenever there is huge buildup to the release of a major new camera, with the internet fora in a tizzy with anticipation, what inevitably happens when the camera is actually released is that the internet fora again light up with negativity about some feature that is missing or some spec. This becomes THE DEALBREAKER for all those who were never really going to buy the camera in the first place. They just couldn’t bear the idea that there would be a new camera out there that made them feel inadequate about what they already owned. So, they need THE DEALBREAKER. In the case of the Z7, we now have it. ONE CARD SLOT.
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ7.
-
Now if someone would just make the adapter to convert Bernard's Zeiss Otus to his iPhone X , Bernard would own the perfect camera!
Edmund,
A teenage newbie turns to his best friend, and asks for advice in choosing his first camera. “Best go to the guys in the know” says the ‘bf’ and points him to LuLa and this thread.
Newb reads the thread.
Newb thanks his ‘bf’ for the best advice he could have ever given him.
Newb buys the iPhoneX.
On a more serious note, Bernard doesn’t need an adapter for his Otus.
Just hold the Otus in one hand, the iPhone in the other , blow Siri a kiss and she does the rest.
M
-
One of my fav lenses on the Sonys is a late 1930s uncoated Zeiss 35/4.5 Orthometar. It's small, can autofocus via Techart adapter (and at a much closer minimum distance than when used on a Contax RF) and delivers a look unlike any modern lens. Since it uses an early retrofocus design it also plays well, unlike most wider rangefinder lenses, with the Sony's sensor stack.
Wonder how thick the Z's stack is…
-Dave-
-
Whenever there is huge buildup to the release of a major new camera, with the internet fora in a tizzy with anticipation, what inevitably happens when the camera is actually released is that the internet fora again light up with negativity about some feature that is missing or some spec. This becomes THE DEALBREAKER for all those who were never really going to buy the camera in the first place. They just couldn’t bear the idea that there would be a new camera out there that made them feel inadequate about what they already owned. So, they need THE DEALBREAKER. In the case of the Z7, we now have it. ONE CARD SLOT.
That’s an interesting analysis.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9336220495/the-nikon-z-is-a-big-step-for-nikon-but-they-need-to-keep-being-brave
Pretty much echoes how I feel.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Edmund,
A teenage newbie turns to his best friend, and asks for advice in choosing his first camera. “Best go to the guys in the know” says the ‘bf’ and points him to LuLa and this thread.
Newb reads the thread.
Newb thanks his ‘bf’ for the best advice he could have ever given him.
Newb buys the iPhoneX.
On a more serious note, Bernard doesn’t need an adapter for his Otus.
Just hold the Otus in one hand, the iPhone in the other , blow Siri a kiss and she does the rest.
M
I think you're better at being serious than joking :)
Don't you agree that a hollowed out X1D would make a perfect ergonomic camera-trigger case for the iPhone?
I think that body is actually a sidepproduct of those wonderful handles which Hassy used to make.
https://petapixel.com/2013/08/04/a-review-of-the-hasselblad-stellar/
Edmund
-
... when the camera is actually released is that the internet fora again light up with negativity about some feature that is missing or some spec. This becomes THE DEALBREAKER ..
Indeed; one of my favorite “Z” comments at DPReview was
“no hot shoe cover, no deal”
-
https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9336220495/the-nikon-z-is-a-big-step-for-nikon-but-they-need-to-keep-being-brave
Pretty me echoes how I feel.
Cheers,
Bernard
Could you please elaborate? How exactly is this initial offering even remotely brave?
-
... negativity about some feature that is missing or some spec. This becomes THE DEALBREAKER for all those who were never really going to buy the camera in the first place...
Otherwise known as tire-kickers.
-
I think you're better at being serious than joking :)
I think you're right. :)
-
Whenever there is huge buildup to the release of a major new camera, with the internet fora in a tizzy with anticipation, what inevitably happens when the camera is actually released is that the internet fora again light up with negativity about some feature that is missing or some spec. This becomes THE DEALBREAKER for all those who were never really going to buy the camera in the first place. They just couldn’t bear the idea that there would be a new camera out there that made them feel inadequate about what they already owned. So, they need THE DEALBREAKER. In the case of the Z7, we now have it. ONE CARD SLOT.
Well it was Nikon's hype machine that got the frenzy going with terms like revolutionary camera...and then release nothing revolutionary at all.
-
Well it was Nikon's hype machine that got the frenzy going with terms like revolutionary camera...and then release nothing revolutionary at all.
It really depends on what the expectation is.
As far as I am concerned, my main expectation was better image quality in a compact form factor and a platform (a mount) that won't be limiting 5 years down the road. And it looks like we may be getting that. That what truly matters (to me at least).
For the rest it seems like a highly usable, perfectly sized, well implemented mirrorless camera with good AF, excellent video (possibly overall best in class among FF DSLRs based on initial reports),... in other words not much that should come in the way of achieving the image quality potential of the platform. As a photographer, that's what matters to me.
As a geek, I would have preferred a levitation-capable-glow-in-the dark-plugged-into-my-mind-no-need-to-press-the-shutter camera of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Could you please elaborate? How exactly is this initial offering even remotely brave?
Yes, certainly:
- new mount after 60 years on the previous one - imagine the amount of accountability of the chief engineer who signed off on that design
- target directly the highest end of mirrorless (from a technology standpoint - let's put aside some features missing such as double card) - go back to the start of this thread and read the comments I got when I mentioned the possibility 4 months ago that Nikon may attempt that...
- simultaneous release of many new technological blocks (for Nikon that is, FF mirrorless AF, IBIS, 10 bits video, EVF,...)
- simultaneous release of 2 cameras
- sharing of a lens roadmap - from a Nikon company culture, this is unheard of - I know, sounds like a small thing, but if you have ever experienced the way companies evolve, the challenge it is to change these things - especially in Japan based on my 20 years experience working with Japanese companies
- definition of a new S line of lenses that they call "best in class", here again, this is a breakthrough for a company that has never marketed their product in the past
If you have any experience of product development and the corporate world, you'll understand why this is brave, and I have to praise DPreview for understanding this.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I like this thread - I'm thinking of this wonderful glut of used Nikon D850 bodies that's due to hit the used market.
Edmund
-
I like this thread - I'm thinking of this wonderful glut of used Nikon D850 bodies that's due to hit the used market.
We'll see. I may end up keeping the Z7 and D5 and sell the D850. It will depend on how the Z7 performs in real world. ;)
I have a one week sailing trip coming up in November that should be a perfect chance to test the Z7 in a demanding environment for IBIS, battery life, weather sealing,... last year I used the D850 + 24-70 f2.8 VR + 70-200 f2.8. I would probably take the Z7 + 24-70 f4 S + 35mm f1.8 S + 70-200 f2.8 E FL this year. About the same size overall, but a brigher/higher quallity lens for low light shooting.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4455/37214842030_0a3808d4e6_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well it was Nikon's hype machine that got the frenzy going with terms like revolutionary camera...and then release nothing revolutionary at all.
I agree that Nikon Z is a good and only slightly risky evolutionary step rather than anything revolutionary, but then again maybe I have a weird idea of what is and is not revolutionary. Amongst the more worthily revolutionary things that lie behind the Z system, and the companies who first bought them to cameras:
- digital SLRs (Kodak, and arguably Nikon for going beyond "Franken-cameras")
- sensor-based stabilization (Konica-Minolta)
- active pixel CMOS sensors (Canon)
- Live view (Olympus and partner Panasonic, initially in Four Thirds DSLRs)
- mirrorless system cameras (Panasonic and Olympus with Micro Four Thirds)
- an EVF in live view cameras (Panasonic)
- column-parallel ADC on CMOS sensors (Sony)
- on-sensor PDAF, mostly closing the gap with SLRs on AF performance (correction: Nikon, not Sony?)
- five axis IBIS, clearly establishing IBIS as superior to lens-based IS (Olympus)
and maybe
- abandoning essentially all backward compatibility for the sake of a new modernized lens mount and system (several times: Canon EOS, Olympus Four Thirds, Fujifilm X system, etc.)
What strikes me as most clearly mere evolution, not revolution, is doing something that has been done for some years by several camera makers, but in a different format. And yet some seem to think of Sony's moving mirrorless to 36x24mm as revolutionary, rather than its more legitimate innovation(s) listed above.
-
- on-sensor PDAF, mostly closing the gap with SLRs on AF performance (Sony, I think)
I believe that was Nikon with the 1 series, wasn't it (sept 2011)? Sensor was manufactured by Aptina if I recall correctly.
You could add:
- optical image stabilization (Nikon in a compact camera)
- SLR video - Canon 5D MkII (although the nikon D90 was in fact announced a few days before)
- Usable video AF - Canon with their dual pixel
- eye AF - Sony
- lens motor AF - Canon USM
- near perfect optics - Zeiss with the Otus
But yes, agreed, the a7 mostly packaged existing technologies in a compact form factor and then Sony did iterative improvements from then on. I personally think that this is still innovation from a product standpoint, but yes, indeed not a revolution from a technology standpoint.
Now, an evolutionary product may result in near revolutionary improvements for some categories of users.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Tony Northrup jsut trashed the af in the Z7 and it's frames per second slower without a battery grip n ot quite sony killer yet.
-
Tony Northrup jsut trashed the af in the Z7 and it's frames per second slower without a battery grip n ot quite sony killer yet.
Yes, I saw that. I asked them whether they reviewed their findings with Nikon engineers on the AF/IBIS topic, but they have not answered till date.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, certainly:
- new mount after 60 years on the previous one - imagine the amount of accountability of the chief engineer who signed off on that design
We all understood it required a new mount. They have the experience to make a relevant mount, they get to draw on a blank slate. Nobody says it needs to remain relevant for another 60 years. That wasn't brave, and the final result was hopefully a team effort.
- target directly the highest end of mirrorless (from a technology standpoint - let's put aside some features missing such as double card) - go back to the start of this thread and read the comments I got when I mentioned the possibility 4 months ago that Nikon may attempt that...
Well, maybe you were brave mentioning it, but i think most people (not necessarily participating in this thread) were expecting 850 image quality in a slightly less capable package. And guess what we got? Some were (and some still seem to be) expecting a more capable package because, i don't know, mirrorlessmagicdust, but those people don't seem to realize the tour-the-force that the 850 really is.
- simultaneous release of many new technological blocks (for Nikon that is, FF mirrorless AF, IBIS, 10 bits video, EVF,...)
Yes, but very much proven technologies, again necessary directions like the lensmount. Nothing brave happened here.
- simultaneous release of 2 cameras
This strategy has been followed ever since the speed vs mpx conundrum. In fact the brave (but stupid) thing to do is trying to combine all disciplines in a single camera. It's clear that we now may even get a split into 3 specialties, if Sony is anything to go by.
- sharing of a lens roadmap - from a Nikon company culture, this is unheard of - I know, sounds like a small thing, but if you have ever experienced the way companies evolve, the challenge it is to change these things - especially in Japan based on my 20 years experience working with Japanese companies
- definition of a new S line of lenses that they call "best in class", here again, this is a breakthrough for a company that has never marketed their product in the past
So, if a Japanese company is finally coming to terms with the western ideal of marketing practices it is now called brave?
If you have any experience of product development and the corporate world, you'll understand why this is brave, and I have to praise DPreview for understanding this.
Dpr staff are databasegatekeepers, technophiles that are neither cameramanufacturer nor photographer. They might want to stick to having an opinion about what they actually understand as opposed to being as arrogant as telling an established, long time cameramanufacturer how they perceive their mirrorless strategy.
The only correct observation in that article was the opening up of the mount to third parties, that would be brave, but we already discussed this here and how it may actually be the case already, just under contract which allows Nikon to more-or-less control the quality of third party offerings.
In my opinion calling this effort brave is utter nonsense. They are distinctly "me too" offerings which is fine, but very, very safe indeed.
-
Yes, I saw that. I asked them whether they reviewed their findings with Nikon engineers on the AF/IBIS topic, but they have not answered till date.
Cheers,
Bernard
Although I like them... they make nice videos... I tend not to trust them in reviews. I always have the feeling they go to much in exaggeration of problems to get views... I suspect their problems are the same pointed out by DPReview... nothing more... nothing less...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
In my opinion calling this effort brave is utter nonsense. They are distinctly "me too" offerings which is fine, but very, very safe indeed.
What would have been a brave effort from Nikon according to you?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As I have said I think it’s a very good start. Not sure about revolutionary. Weather proofing is my favorite feature over the Sony. I guess it will push Sony along a bit which is what I was hoping for.
I hope Canon do at least as good a job. I hope Canon put dual card slots into their camera. Not because it’s a big deal for me but so we dont have to go over all that again. :)
-
What would have been a brave effort from Nikon according to you?
Cheers,
Bernard
Businesswise: circular ownership
Technologywise: modularisation
I personally believe the integration of video is not our finest hour in digital photography, but if that's where the industry is going in the foreseeable future, you might also try to radically redesign the ergonomics for that considering ergonomics is one of the fortés of Nikon. New separately joined rotating handgrip that allows comfortable low or high holding, detachable viewfinder (even if just wired) that attaches to glasses, that type of thing.
Mind you, considering the specialisation in separate bodies currently happening seems to indicate to me that we will return to a situation where stills and videos are separate devices.
And that perhaps brings us to a relevant generalisation: there's precious little need for an slr style body under a lot of circumstances.
-
Businesswise: circular ownership
Please forgive my ignorance, could you please elaborate on this?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Please forgive my ignorance, could you please elaborate on this?
Cheers,
Bernard
Perhaps we could think of it as a subscription type model (oh horror, i can't believe i just said that) where the goodies remain the property (read: responsibility) of the manufacturer so that the raw materials will be recycled at end-of-lifetime.
-
Perhaps we could think of it as a subscription type model (oh horror, i can't believe i just said that) where the goodies remain the property (read: responsibility) of the manufacturer so that the raw materials will be recycled at end-of-lifetime.
I see. I personally either re-sell or send for re-cycling all the electronic equipment I use, but I understand the point.
I am not sure that camera buyers are ready for this kind of business model, but this is for sure innovative.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We'll see. I may end up keeping the Z7 and D5 and sell the D850. It will depend on how the Z7 performs in real world. ;)
If I may ask Bernard, until yesterday I read you claiming all time the D850 to be the best FF option in the market, even over the A7R III. Pretty much in Thom Hogan's commenting line (i.e. without much rationale to support his choice). Now you are becoming a Z7 early adopter, even suggesting you could end up replacing your D850 by a camera few people have even put their hands on.
Is this passion? you expect the Z7 filling some important gap you found on the D850 but never talked about?.
I feel really curious.
Regards
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
If I may ask Bernard, until yesterday I read you claiming all time the D850 to be the best FF option in the market, even over the A7R III. Pretty much in Thom Hogan's commenting line (i.e. without much rationale to support his choice). Now you are becoming a Z7 early adopter, even suggesting you could end up replacing your D850 by a camera few people have even put their hands on.
Is this passion? you expect the Z7 filling some important gap you found on the D850 but never talked about?.
No, the D850 remains an amazing camera, no issues at all with it. I believe it is overall a more complete camera than the Z7 but probably not by much. The only moment I don't use it is when I need more speed or even more AF-C accuracy or when I expect very low light situations, and then the D5 comes into play.
I have written many times that I find the D850 to be the best DSLR, I don't think I wrote that much about it vs the a7rIII that I think is an excellent body. But as an owner of F mount lenses, the D850 is indeed currently the best FF option for me since I believe we will agree that the performance of the D850 and a7rIII are close. In the limited time I had with the Sony, I had the feeling that it was not yet at D850 level in terms of subject tracking, but pretty close.
But I have been considering for a long time to try out a top mirrorless body with the a7rIII being my top candidate till date. There are times when a more compact option would be convenient and I have been intrigued by the benefits of the EVF, even if I still far prefer the OVF experience from what I have seen with the Sony. We'll have to see whether the Z7 changes that. I would also like to dip my toes in some video shooting (at a very amateur family level) and the video AF of the D850 is not usable.
On top of this, what attracts me most with the Z7, or I should say the Z mount, is the promise of very good lenses while keeping the benefit of my existing lenses line-up. I have been impressed by what I have seen from the H1D/GFX lenses, and I believe that the Nikon S glass has the potential to deliver the same value on 35mm mirrorless. I believe that I have been pretty consistent in my quest for good glass that has taken me towards Otus and Rodenstock options at the cost of convenience and... price. ;) I have seen good results from some Sony alpha lenses and some are outstanding with zero reservation (the 85mm GM comes to mind), but I was less impressed by the more compact options. The 55mm f1.8 is very good but I can't say I found the rendering exciting. But I could probably live with those. But the prospect of having to change over my many F mount glass is a bit daunting, a Nikon solution would be easier for several reasons, as long as the performance is close. And with the Z, I believe that we will get better lenses. Test results will tell of course.
I have not said that I would replace my D850 by a Z7, I wrote that I would take a decision after several months of usage. It could go either way. The financial risk will be pretty limited considering that both cameras will still be in high demand by the time I take a decision.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have written many times that I find the D850 to be the best DSLR, I don't think I wrote that much about it vs the a7rIII that I think is an excellent body. But as an owner of F mount lenses, the D850 is indeed currently the best FF option for me since I believe we will agree that the performance of the D850 and a7rIII are close. In the limited time I had with the Sony, I had the feeling that it was not yet at D850 level in terms of subject tracking, but pretty close.
That's reasonable. If you allow me an advice when judging the EVF, wait till you have used it for some time, getting used to all of its benefits (realtime exposure and WB, zoom for MF, checking your shots without having to look at the LCD,...), and then go back to the OVF. I actually realized the advantages of the EVF once I needed to use my DSLR again, and then I knew I'd never go back to DSLR.
Regards
-
No, the D850 remains an amazing camera, no issues at all with it. The only moment I don't use it is when I need more speed or even more AF-C accuracy [...] In the limited time I had with the Sony, I had the feeling that it was not yet at D850 level in terms of subject tracking, but pretty close.
Regarding superlative AF, excerpts below from a commentary by Kenneth Jarecke
https://medium.com/@kennethjarecke/shutterbugs-pixel-peepers-and-others-who-annoy-me-9924593a8ac4
https://medium.com/@kennethjarecke
When it comes to looking at pictures, the first thing that matters is the picture. Is it any good? Does it trigger a receptor in one’s brain that triggers something else? That’s what good pictures do [...] I don’t care what camera system you use. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji… I just don’t care. Never have, never will. Knock yourself out, I mean literally, for real.
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*zEISHhrJT-f-_3-mMfldjg.jpeg)
“Taken with a Sony Alpha a7R III on July 4, 2018. Images like this from a Montana rodeo would be much more difficult to shoot using DSLR cameras.”
I used this eye focus feature to lock onto and track the horse when it was about fifty yards away, at which point the beast was still below the horizon line, meaning no separation from the background, and a long throw with a wide angle (35mm) lens. That’s a crazy level of sophistication for a camera to successfully pull off, but it did.
And if that wasn't enough,
Talking about gear is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts. Sure, there’s a time and a place for it, but my dear photography friends, that time is not “always” and the place is not “everywhere on the entire internet”.
-
Sounds impressive!
Hard to tell how other cameras would perform without an in situ comparison, but it does sound impressive.
Now, the ability to track consists in many different aspects, including the ability to follow complex rear/front and sidewide motion, the ability to do so at different levels of illumination,...
Kind of ironic that you use his brand agnostic article to promote the performance of one brand over an another don't you think? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's reasonable. If you allow me an advice when judging the EVF, wait till you have used it for some time, getting used to all of its benefits (realtime exposure and WB, zoom for MF, checking your shots without having to look at the LCD,...), and then go back to the OVF. I actually realized the advantages of the EVF once I needed to use my DSLR again, and then I knew I'd never go back to DSLR.
Thanks for the tip Guillermo, much appreciated!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Kind of ironic that you use his brand agnostic article to promote the performance of one brand over an another don't you think? ;)
No, I don't.
It wasn't an article promoting one brand over another.
It was an article illustrating the usefulness of an MILC over a DSLR in those particular circumstances
If you'd read the full blog post, you'd have understood that - and that's coming from a man whose covered both Olympics and Gulf war(s) - so, IMO, he's got the street cred to go with the post.
Also, I'm not promoting any brand - but I do use mirrorless, in preference to DSLR's, for my purposes.
Bernard,
I don't know what you're getting so futzed about. You should be amongst the happiest people on the planet. Even I'm elated for you! Get the Z7 plus adapter - you've got an abundance of exceptional lenses to try it out on (for a relative minimal outlay) and you'll soon be in hog heaven ... As they say 'live in the present' and don't worry about who is going to produce the 'the best image quality system in existence in the 35mm world' which , for sure, will still be many years away.
Best,
M
-
No, I don't.
It wasn't an article promoting one brand over another.
It was an article illustrating the usefulness of an MILC over a DSLR in those particular circumstances
If you'd read the full blog post, you'd have understood that - and that's coming from a man whose covered both Olympics and Gulf war(s) - so, IMO, he's got the street cred to go with the post.
Also, I'm not promoting any brand - but I do use mirrorless, in preference to DSLR's, for my purposes.
Bernard,
I don't know what you're getting so futzed about. You should be amongst the happiest person on the planet. Get the Z7 plus adapter - you've got an abundance of exceptional lenses to try it out on (for a relative minimal outlay) and you'll soon be in hog heaven ... As they say 'live in the present' and don't worry about who is going to produce the 'the best image quality system in existence in the 35mm world' which , for sure, will still be many, many years away.
I am perfectly happy, I was just messing with you a bit. I understand that the blog post wasn't about one brand, your usage of the blog post appeared to be, but I guess I got that wrong. ;) For the record, I answered a question from Guillermo about the a7rIII, it was absolutely not my intention to discuss non Nikon cameras here.
This being said, this isn't the object of this thread, and won't prevent me from sleeping, but which system offers the best image quality is a perfectly legitimate question. And I don't think that the answer "they are all the same" is likely to be the right one.
If your point is that the photographer is more important than the camera, I fully agree.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It really depends on what the expectation is.
As far as I am concerned, my main expectation was better image quality in a compact form factor and a platform (a mount) that won't be limiting 5 years down the road. And it looks like we may be getting that. That what truly matters (to me at least).
For the rest it seems like a highly usable, perfectly sized, well implemented mirrorless camera with good AF, excellent video (possibly overall best in class among FF DSLRs based on initial reports),... in other words not much that should come in the way of achieving the image quality potential of the platform. As a photographer, that's what matters to me.
As a geek, I would have preferred a levitation-capable-glow-in-the dark-plugged-into-my-mind-no-need-to-press-the-shutter camera of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sure that's fine for you Bernard...but what is so revolutionary about what you mentioned. As far as image quality goes...do you really think you can tell the difference in prints between images shot with a anion, Canon or Sony...or is this "revolutionary hype" as well?
-
Sure that's fine for you Bernard...but what is so revolutionary about what you mentioned. As far as image quality goes...do you really think you can tell the difference in prints between images shot with a anion, Canon or Sony...or is this "revolutionary hype" as well?
I don’t think I have used the term revolutionary to speak about the Z7.
I think that progress can still be made in optical image quality and that the Z system is going to move the bar forward.
People spend lots of money to get MF image quality, there are applications where that makes a difference in a world when prints that aren’t 40x60 inch feel tiny.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Clearly Bernard feels that a lighter camera would disappear into the background and allow him to use his photographic skills more "transparently".
Even $2 humble graphite pencils are very different to use, and finding the right one can make a huge difference.
Let's see what happens when he gets his new Nikon MILC or whatever you call its mirrorless ilk.
btw, those are nice images you chose to post.
Edmund
No, I don't.
It wasn't an article promoting one brand over another.
It was an article illustrating the usefulness of an MILC over a DSLR in those particular circumstances
If you'd read the full blog post, you'd have understood that - and that's coming from a man whose covered both Olympics and Gulf war(s) - so, IMO, he's got the street cred to go with the post.
Also, I'm not promoting any brand - but I do use mirrorless, in preference to DSLR's, for my purposes.
Bernard,
I don't know what you're getting so futzed about. You should be amongst the happiest people on the planet. Even I'm elated for you! Get the Z7 plus adapter - you've got an abundance of exceptional lenses to try it out on (for a relative minimal outlay) and you'll soon be in hog heaven ... As they say 'live in the present' and don't worry about who is going to produce the 'the best image quality system in existence in the 35mm world' which , for sure, will still be many years away.
Best,
M
-
I guess it's all part of the process, but it is amazing how forty pages later we can still slice and dice and rehash the topic of a new piece of equipment.
Perhaps it is due to these releases being seen as paradigm shift. Perhaps there is angst as to which way to go with further equipment choices. Perhaps we are never satisfied at what we have already and fear being left behind.
Regardless of underlying cause, it is fascinating to read through all of the back and forth banter. Some is very useful and well thought out while some less so.
When Canon finally has a release, one metric to judge it's success is by whether it obtains forty plus pages on a forum.
-
... When Canon finally has a release, one metric to judge it's success is by whether it obtains forty plus pages on a forum.
No way, Canon doesn't have Bernard in its corner ;)
-
No way, Canon doesn't have Bernard in its corner ;)
My thoughts exactly.
-
Thanks, Edmund.
I'm assuming you're referring to the Instag ones ?
and not the shots of my cameo at a Montana Rodeo ... ( just jesting, boys, just jesting .. 'twas not I)
Best,
M
Clearly Bernard feels that a lighter camera would disappear into the background and allow him to use his photographic skills more "transparently".
Even $2 humble graphite pencils are very different to use, and finding the right one can make a huge difference.
Let's see what happens when he gets his new Nikon MILC or whatever you call its mirrorless ilk.
btw, those are nice images you chose to post.
Edmund
-
No way, Canon doesn't have Bernard in its corner ;)
The questions is more how much Shadowblade will dislike the new Canon isn’t it? ;)
This thread has been a lot more about people writing about what the new Nikon isn’t rather than about what the camera is and can do. You guys last 5-6 posts are a good example of that btw (all pencils/cameras are the same,...).
I personnally think that the Z mount is as big a thing in photographic gear as can be. And the only remaining event of similar impact will indeed be Canon’s mirrorless FF intro. Now, it is totally fine to not care about camera equipment but then why bother commenting here?
Chees,
Bernard
-
An interesting article from Thom about the marketing failures at Nikon in relation with the Z launch:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/reader-questions-about-the.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
An another one about the Z lenses:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-z-lenses.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So far, I haven't heard of Canon going in the direction of a high-resolution body - the rumors I've seen are more in the Z6/A7III range - a fast body with good resolution, but not a resolution monster.
While Sony has the advantage of the most extensive line of native lenses (not counting Fuji, who uses a different sensor size, but the excellent lenses are designed for the sensor size), Nikon has a first-party adapter that supports a very wide range of lenses. The previous poster who said 6mm to 800mm actually understated the point. I don't know of anything wider than 6mm with a 220 degree field of view, but 800mm is just getting started :)
How about this?
https://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/07/insane-zoom-nikkor-1200-1700mm
About the longest non-mirror telephoto ever made for photography...
If a mirror lens is acceptable, how's this F-mount option (basically an 8" astronomical telescope with a built-in F-mount)
https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/01/03/rare-reflex-nikkor-2000mm-f-11-largest-nikon-lens-ever-made/
This isn't first party, and is probably cheating because the F-mount is buried inside one of the spectrographs, which may not still be in use, but this technically has an F-mount on it (and would be hard to beat). The primary camera never had a standard lens mount and went from large-format glass plate to large-format film to custom CCD... No word on how that F-mount in the spectrograph would work with a Z-mount adapter...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_Telescope. :) :) :) :)