Nikon’s new mirrorless system, coming in ... late September 2018

[DP]

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 

[shadowblade]

about the same time: Panasonic G1 = Sep 2008, Sony Nex3/Nex5 = May 2010... yes, about the same time 

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.

[jeremyrh]

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 :-(

[BernardLanguillier]

Nikon D1 - 15-June-1999
Canon 1Ds - 24 sept 2002

3 years 3 months, not 2 years.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

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.

[D Fuller]

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...

[BJL]

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.

[BJL]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

We will know in 4 days, but it seems likely that the Z mount is btw 55 and 58mm.

Cheers,
Bernard

[davidgp]

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/

[Ray]

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.

[scooby70]

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.

[HSakols]

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. 

[BJL]

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.

[Rory]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Alex Waugh]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/08/20/new-nikon-mirrorless-camera-teaser-video.aspx/#more-124873

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

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? 

[BJL]

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!