Who cares what the lenses look like? It's what they can do that matters. And, without a change in their motor (i.e. completely new lenses, even if the optical formulae remain the same) there is no way the current Nikon lenses - or Canon lenses without the STM designation, for that matter - can work optimally with a mirrorless AF system.
The people shelling out $6,000-$16,000 care.
The look of Sony's super telephoto lenses is unbefitting for this kind of price tag, as is their current performance (under the helm of Sony), seeing as they're based on decades-old Minolta design/technology.
Not according to their financials, they're not. Their high-end sales alone can't pay for future lens and camera development, and at least one aspect of their high end - the high-resolution end, held up by the D810 - won't be so high-end any more once they come out with a mere 46MP against Sony's 70-80MP and Canon's likrly 60-70MP (with the dynamic range issue having been fixed now).
What are you basing your opinion on? All evidence (meaning in the form of cutting-edge cameras/lenses in the last two years) suggests Nikon does have the means to produce new and better equipment, really at a faster rate than almost anyone else to boot.
What are you basing this on, other than 'you like Nikon'? Even NikonRumors isn't suggesting any of this, with the sole exception of the D820/D850.
I am basing my opinion on the above. There have been a multitude of lenses that popped up by surprise, totally unexpected. The 105 f/1.4E, the 28mm f/1.4E, etc. I believe even the D500 was a surprise. Meanwhile, the D850 is a no-brainer that everyone is expecting.
It took Canon and Sony - much bigger companies than Nikon - six or seven years to get where they currently are with mirrorless, and that's coming from a background in video, which Nikon lacks. What makes you think Nikon is going to get there any time soon, with absolutely no background in it and no sensor manufacturing capability of their own (i.e. they literally couldn't make a sensor with on-sensor AF even if they wanted to)? Apart from the whole 'I like Nikon so they're the best at everything and have no flaws' thing.
The only reason Sony's where it is with mirrorless, is because that was their focus. Nikon has
not been pursuing mirrorless. All of these companies have the means and technology to tear down the other's equipment, look at it, and build something relatively comparable.
You act like it's going to be some great mystery for Nikon to develop such a simple little tool, when the fact is Nikon has been developing and creating far more complex industrial copiers, lithography equipment, and (yes) cameras.
Shadow, wake up and smell the coffee: all companies essentially have the
variations of the same thing. Sony merely turned a cute little trick by removing the mirror, which removes the shutter-sound (not sure that's a good thing, either), and it fires-off a bunch of images silently, which is then followed by a grossly-inconvenient "refractory period" where the unit is useless until it recovers. Nikon does not have this refractory problem.
Sony eye technology sounds James Bond-ish, but I'm not sure that's going to be an advantage ultimately, either, and will be wholly-dependent on a person's ocular reflexes, and many other things which will not create uniform results for all people. (What about when people have glasses/sunglasses on?
) Personally, I think tracking is probably better-off the way it is, right now, especially with Nikon's 3-D-tracking controlled by the finger. Far better way to achieve uniform results.
The real question is, why can't you see all these cameras are essentially the same thing, and that while Sony is making improvements, they are pretty darned far away from being #1 ... apart from the 'I like Sony better than everyone else' thing?
Anyway, I didn't intend for this thread to be a Nikon/Sony debate, but a "future of current mounts" debate ... involving Canon and Nikon.
