Nikon mirrorless FF body nearing - new mount...

[bassman51]

My experience with the 1 Nikon was that the adaptor worked extremely well, although they crippled some of the features.  And that was a mirrorless camera, with outstanding focus capabilities.  For instance, only the central focusing area was supported.  With the new AF-P lenses, I expect the electronic interface will be even better.

[shadowblade]

My experience with the 1 Nikon was that the adaptor worked extremely well, although they crippled some of the features.  And that was a mirrorless camera, with outstanding focus capabilities.  For instance, only the central focusing area was supported.  With the new AF-P lenses, I expect the electronic interface will be even better.

You're talking about a budget 2.7x crop camera, which not only doesn't need to be nearly as precise (the available depth of field being a lot wider), but also isn't held to the same standard as a full-frame action camera would be.

When you say a camera has 'good' AF, what do you actually mean? What is it capable of tracking, and what can it not track? What resolution can it focus accurately to, and at what point does misfocus become apparent? And are you applying the same standard to all cameras, or are you applying different standards, based on the class and age of the camera?

Does the Nikon D3 have a good AF system? What about the Canon 5D4? What about the D750? The D3 had a 'good' AF system for its time. But that of the 5D4 and D750 are, objectively, even better. Yet you probably wouldn't regard the latter two as having particularly 'good' AF systems. Why? Because different standards are being applied - the 5D4 and D750, being much newer cameras, are being held to a much higher standard.

Does the 800D have a good AF system? Does the 6D2? Reviews tend to say that the 800D has a good AF system - and it does, compared to its peers. But that of the 6D2 is objectively better, yet the AF system of that camera is often panned as subpar. Why? Because the 6D2, as a higher-tier camera, is being held to a much higher standard.

'Good AF' for a Canon Rebel camera isn't the same as 'good AF' for a 1Dx- or A9-level camera. 'Good AF' for a budget camera was considered to be the ability to quickly and accurately lock onto someone's face for a portrait, or to competently track a slow-moving person. No-one was asking for a 90% hit rate on a moving, dodging, camouflaged subject with the Nikon J5. No-one expected it to accurately track a running dog or erratically-moving child at short range, even with a native lens - and it can't. But that's essentially what is being asked - and should be asked - of top-tier cameras like the A9. And it can meet that standard - but only with a native lens.

And what passes as 'in-focus' for a 2.7x crop sensor shooting at 100mm f/2.8 is likely to be way out of focus with a full-frame sensor shooting at 270mm f/2.8, with a much narrower depth of field (you're not going to get a 100mm f/1.1 lens for the crop sensor, which would call for a similar degree of precision).

[Two23]

I see no reason why Nikon couldn't produce a digital SP in an APS-C format, and a DSLR-replacing FX mirrorless. If they could make it about the same size as my old FM or FE, that would be great.

Exactly.  The current FX cameras are just too damn bulky and heavy.  Cripes, my Chamonix 4x5 with three lenses actually weighs less than my D800E with three lenses.  I just see no need for me to replace a Nikon FX DSLR with a Nikon FX mirrorless.  I'm actually now using two Nikon systems, depending on my needs.  I use D800E for astro, landscapes, paid work, and a D5300 for travel & hiking.  What I want from Nikon is something to replace the D5300 with something even smaller and even smaller lenses.  As I said, I really have no loyalty at all to the over 100 yr. old 35mm frame dimensions.  It's nothing special.  My favorite frame is 6x6, even.


Kent in SD

[BernardLanguillier]

The 1 series AF was competitive with the DSLRs of its time on both static and moving subjects.

It was the best mirrorless AF at the time.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

The 1 series AF was competitive with the DSLRs of its time on both static and moving subjects.

It was the best mirrorless AF at the time.

Cheers,
Bernard

Best mirrorless doesn't mean much when you're competing against first-generation A7 bodies and budget Olympus M43 cameras. Any new model is going to need to match the A9, 1Dx2 and D5, unless Nikon specifically goes after the high-resolution, low-speed, non-action market with its first efforts  (which would actually be a good way to break into the mirrorless market, since it would reduce the performance burden while capitalising on Nikon's strength in optics).

It was in no way competitive AF-wise with the 5D3, D750, 7D2 and even D7200 it was up against, let alone the D4 and 1Dx. The only reason it appeared to perform as well as it did was because, with a 2.7x crop, pretty much everything was in focus most of the time anyway - it could be out by a long way and you'd never notice.

This sounds like just another case of Nikon users thinking that Nikon is somehow special and won't have to deal with the difficulties that Canon and Sony have both faced (some successfully, some not so successfully) - all with the resources of a much smaller company than the other two.

[BernardLanguillier]

I am impressed by your intimate knowledge of most camera on the market.

I owned a J1, a V3 and the AW1 and my first hand experience (which includes taking the first pictures of my daughter minutes after she was born) tells me that, with the best 1 lenses, the AF was DSLR class.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

I am impressed by your intimate knowledge of most camera on the market.

I owned a J1, a V3 and the AW1 and my first hand experience (which includes taking the first pictures of my daughter minutes after she was born) tells me that, with the best 1 lenses, the AF was DSLR class.

Cheers,
Bernard

Firstly, which SLR? A Canon Rebel, or a D5?

Secondly, with a 2.7x crop, it's not going to miss focus, since everything's in focus anyway, and the lens elements are small and light. Just like how phone cameras also rarely miss. Even Olympus M43 cameras, with their 2x crop, rarely miss. Focusing large lenses on a full-frame sensor is a whole lot more difficult.

Thirdly, newborn babies are hardly challenging subjects autofocus-wise.

[scooby70]

Zeiss Otus is outstanding, Rodenstock HR is outstanding,...

I would agree that the G Master 85mm f1.4 is close to outstanding.

Cheers,
Bernard

The 55mm f1.8 is... oh what's the word... outstanding

[scooby70]

The 55mm f1.8 is... oh what's the word... outstanding

I think that sometimes people forget that it's a bit harder to move all that FF heavy glass about quickly and accurately.

Off on a bit of a tangent...

What I'd like to see is relatively well made nice handling manual lenses of good enough quality which could mount directly onto my A7 or some other FF mirrorless camera without an adapter. Just new made versions of the Minolta Rokkors, Zuiko's and FD's etc. The old ones are a joy to use but of course need an adapter which adds to the bulk.

[davidgp]

Probably both ways.

2mm is too thin to realistically make an AF-supporting adapter. It's smaller than the 2.5mm difference between Canon EF and Nikon F mounts, and manufacturers struggled even with that. So E-mount bodies may not be able to use Z-mount lenses, but Z-mount bodies probably won't be able to use E-mount lenses either.

Yes, for Sony lenses to Z system, but I expect third party manufacturers, once reverse engineer the protocol, can adapt their third party Sony lenses to Nikon. Probably with the exception of Zeiss Batis line, they were always reticent to reverse engineer EF or F protocols to start now with the Z ones...

This is also good for Sony, more manufacturers will start doing more third party lenses compatible with both systems (well... I think only Tamron doing the Batis lenses for Zeiss was the only missing doing FE lenses...)



Enviado desde mi iPad utilizando Tapatalk

[BernardLanguillier]

The 55mm f1.8 is... oh what's the word... outstanding

Yes, that’s the second lens I had in mind.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

Two points that I take from this thread so far and that I think are being ignored: larger format size is creatively important if for no other reason than the more shallow DOF with open, fast optics, which as has been pointed out some, myself included, prefer. The other point that sort of amuses me, is in connection with zooms: desire for fast, good ones, if that's not still a paradox, means that instead of being able to go out to shoot with one body and a single prime that suits one's mood that day, one is condemned to carry both the bulk and weight of a zoom; bulk, as in length, is possibly even less friendly to holding and accurate framing that pure weight. Of course, I am not thinking about those who have tripods in place of instincts.

Rob

[hogloff]

Two points that I take from this thread so far and that I think are being ignored: larger format size is creatively important if for no other reason than the more shallow DOF with open, fast optics, which as has been pointed out some, myself included, prefer. The other point that sort of amuses me, is in connection with zooms: desire for fast, good ones, if that's not still a paradox, means that instead of being able to go out to shoot with one body and a single prime that suits one's mood that day, one is condemned to carry both the bulk and weight of a zoom; bulk, as in length, is possibly even less friendly to holding and accurate framing that pure weight. Of course, I am not thinking about those who have tripods in place of instincts.

Rob

Depends what you shoot and the environment you are in. Shooting a play from a stationary position, I will use a zoom so I can follow the action as it moves around the stage. Walking the streets I shoot with a prime as I can foot zoom.

To categorize zooms as big and bulky and useless is very short sighted.

[Rob C]

Depends what you shoot and the environment you are in. Shooting a play from a stationary position, I will use a zoom so I can follow the action as it moves around the stage. Walking the streets I shoot with a prime as I can foot zoom.
To categorize zooms as big and bulky and useless is very short sighted.

I'm having difficulty finding the place where I branded zooms "....and useless" so perhaps you can help me here.

Of course it depends on what you shoot, but then if a pro, on a pro assignment, such things don't often matter. I tended to take all that I could carry on some assignments, including a variety of formats. 

From my wording, I'd have hoped anyone reading about "that suits one's mood that day" would have understood that I was addressing the casual shooter's situation, where it's about some sort of perverted pleasure called photography, rather than bringing home the bacon.

Such is Internet life.

:-)

Rob

[BernardLanguillier]

Firstly, which SLR? A Canon Rebel, or a D5?

Secondly, with a 2.7x crop, it's not going to miss focus, since everything's in focus anyway, and the lens elements are small and light. Just like how phone cameras also rarely miss. Even Olympus M43 cameras, with their 2x crop, rarely miss. Focusing large lenses on a full-frame sensor is a whole lot more difficult.

Thirdly, newborn babies are hardly challenging subjects autofocus-wise.

Fairly close to the D800 which was only behind the D4 and 1DX at the time.

The 32mm f1.2 used as a portrat lens offered very limited DoF, as anyone who has actually shot with a 35mm f1.4 at close range should be able to figure out.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

Firstly, the evidence behind the rumor—such as it is—does not explicitly involve a 36x24mm "FF" body; just a lens mount that could accommodate such, to allow lens sharing between different sensor formats if and when several are offered. The first bodies could well be in the far better selling 24x16mm "DX" format. IIRC, Sony took that path with E mount.

Also, it does seem at least plausible that adaptor mounting of SLR lenses will give performance that is good enough for many uses but not a match for the very best of SLR AF speed and such. If so, it would make sense for the first generation of bodies to target users who are not so bothered by that because (a) they intend to use new "Z-mount" lenses, not legacy SLR lenses, and/or (b) their plans for usage of SLR legacy lenses do not depend on extremes of AF speed and such. So:
- Entry level bodies, most likely in 24x16mm format.
- Bodies oriented more to high resolution and careful execution than to fast moving action.
- Maybe also bodies oriented to video, where the combination of an EVF and linear stepping AF motors seem the best tools.

[BJL]

The 32mm f1.2 used as a portrait lens offered very limited DoF, as anyone who has actually shot with a 35mm f1.4 at close range should be able to figure out.

Yes: as some larger format users seem to overlook, DOF can be quite shallow in close range shooting even with phone-cameras, let alone the relatively huge 1" format. For example, f/1.2 in 1" format gives DOF comparable to about f/10 in 36x24mm format, and macro shots can call for stopping down well beyond that. So there is room to learn something about Nikon mirrorless AF accuracy with its 1" format cameras.

[Eric Brody]

All formats are relative. All are ultimately based in history, art history, movie history, or photographic history. Going up or down in format size inevitably involves changes in DOF and resolution. There is no question that APS-C cameras can do technically outstanding work but objectively they cannot compare to technologically equivalent full frame sensors which suffer when compare to the best medium format digital sensors. All things being equal there's no substitute for film/sensor real estate.

A limiting factor for all of this though is print/display size. At smaller sizes, eg 9x13 it's can be hard to see differences in prints (without a magnifying glass) between an excellent APS-C (eg Fuji) and an excellent full frame sensor, (Nikon or Sony.) Another question is whether it really matters. I just saw the Minor White show at the Portland Art Museum. His images are superb, some are a bit fuzzy when one's nose is really close to the glass, but their architectural and compositional perfection is not to be denied. He, as would Ansel, would likely have loved to use today's modern equipment. His magical vision would remain unchanged, his results "better."(?)

Photography, for those of us who do not earn our living from it is a process, to be enjoyed. In the day, I thoroughly enjoyed the convoluted process of using my 4x5 view camera. I no longer use it. I made very different images then than I do now with my iPhone. Unlike many, I actually enjoy working in Photoshop with digital images. We sometimes resemble the Middle Ages priests arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I often laugh at myself when I get too involved with the minutiae of resolution and microscopic differences between lenses and cameras. It is and should be fun though. But is it art?

[Two23]

All formats are relative. All are ultimately based in history, art history, movie history, or photographic history. Going up or down in format size inevitably involves changes in DOF and resolution. There is no question that APS-C cameras can do technically outstanding work but objectively they cannot compare to technologically equivalent full frame sensors which suffer when compare to the best medium format digital sensors. All things being equal there's no substitute for film/sensor real estate.

A different POV.  I choose photo gear based on what I want to do with it, and with the resulting image.  I have a number of different interests in photography, so I have a number of different outfits.  I love to play with historical lenses and have begun shooting dry plate.  For that i have lenses 1845-1860 and 1905-1925.  I really love the look it gives!  Sometimes I just want something small, such as "street shooting" in a big city.  Don't carry anything rare or expensive because it will get stolen.  For that I take either Nikon D5300 with Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 or Leica IIIc with 28/35/50/90mm, or Nikon F3T with AiS 28/50/105mm.  Sometimes I hike in the mountains.  For that I take the D5300 or maybe a 1937 voigtlander Bessa RF (a folding 6x9.)  Sometimes I shoot weddings or family portraits.  For that I use a pair of Nikon D800E.  Generally I shoot at f5.6 (smaller formats) or f32 (4x5, 5x7)  Even though I shoot at night a lot I don't often use f1.4.   I'm not at all loyal to any format either.  I'll have to wait and see what a Nikon mirrorless offers me, but I'm guessing it will be too large & expensive for a "street" or travel camera, and really offer no advantage over the D800E for weddings etc.  All of my lenses for D800E are f2.8 or f1.4, but I very rarely shoot that open.  I conclude that I really hate spending $$ on new camera gear.  Rarely does it make a difference in my images, and I've come to the conclusion the money is better spent on travel.


Kent in SD

[jeremyrh]

[...] spending $$ on new camera gear.  Rarely does it make a difference in my images,

Now go and sit quietly by yourself and think about what you've just said. Come back when you're truly sorry.