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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Joking aside, have you noticed the inherent paradox of the new generation of mirrorless (Nikon, Canon)? They are supposed to be more compact, and they are, and yet, they come with ginormous lenses. Not much change in total.

I think I did not make myself clear with this remark.

It is not about immediately pointing out lenses that are available for the new systems and are compact. It was about the touted inherent advantage of mirrorless - having large lens mounts that, in turn, enable really fast lenses, which, in turn, are then ginormous.

If that is the inherent advantage, yes you can have the system without buying those fast lenses, but how are you going to resist the siren call of what the system is best at? It is like buying a Ferrari and saying: "Nah, I am just going to drive it at 35mph to the nearest supermarket." You surely can, but that is not what Ferraris are designed for.

[KLaban]

I think I did not make myself clear with this remark.

It is not about immediately pointing out lenses that are available for the new systems and are compact. It was about the touted inherent advantage of mirrorless - having a large lens mounts that, in turn, enable really fast lenses, which, in turn, are then ginormous.

If that is the inherent advantage, yes you can have the system without buying those fast lenses, but how are you going to resist the siren call of what the system is best at? It is like buying a Ferrari and saying: "Nah, I am just going to drive it at 35mph to the nearest supermarket." You surely can, but that is not what Ferraris are designed for.

This is a large part of the reason I use Leica M. Superb lenses that fit in the palm of my hand and compact but solid bodies.

[John Camp]

I think I did not make myself clear with this remark.

It is not about immediately pointing out lenses that are available for the new systems and are compact. It was about the touted inherent advantage of mirrorless - having large lens mounts that, in turn, enable really fast lenses, which, in turn, are then ginormous.

If that is the inherent advantage, yes you can have the system without buying those fast lenses, but how are you going to resist the siren call of what the system is best at? It is like buying a Ferrari and saying: "Nah, I am just going to drive it at 35mph to the nearest supermarket." You surely can, but that is not what Ferraris are designed for.

I don't think the larger mounts are basically about faster lenses, but rather are more about flexibility. Given the improvements in ISO ranges, which still maintain the quality (or better) of low ISO in previous generations of cameras, I think fast lenses are becoming less relevant for anything but specialized forms of photography -- and you usually don't buy long zooms for specialized photography. (Or where you do -- for all the varieties of news photography, for example, then ultimate quality isn't really necessary, because the typical reproduction modes can't utilize it all.) Essentially (it seems to me) where you want fast lenses is where you want to isolate the focus point from the fore- and background, and that usually would mean a prime lens, which you could get as fast as you wish, down to f0.95. From my point of view, the siren call of fast lenses is easy to resist because I prioritize size, weight and ergonomics over lens speed. It's more a case of "Jeez, I wish they could make an f2.8 or f1.8 the size of an f4, but since they apparently can't, I'll take the f4."

[BernardLanguillier]

I tend to be brief when typing from a phone.

I think Z7 is closer to a D750 than a D850 in what it can do, regardless of the Nikon marketing.
Either way, the fact that the Nikon D750 doesn't have a 45MP sensor is only a business decision and Nikon could have most of the capability of D850 in a D750 body size, or most of the Z7.
This being said when you talk about the weight losses that are be made by going mirrorless one can start from the D750 body weight as a point of reference and not artificially make it look better by starting at the D850 size.

Out of curiosity, what makes you say that the capabilities of the Z7 are closer to that of a D750?

Don’t get we wrong, I used to love me D750, but the key differences with the D850 were:
- sensor
- viewfinder
- AF
- framerate
- XQD vs SD
- level of weatherproofing
- feel of the body/construction

On most accounts the Z7 seems to have gone for the D850 spec don’t you think?

Or are you saying that the reports about AF perfo of the Z7 makes you anticipate that it will perform AFwise similarly to the D750?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dan Wells]

Nikon claims (I'm not an optical engineer, so I can't evaluate their claim) that the big mount helps them with optical performance on their modest-speed lenses. While it is a computed MTF chart, not a measured result, the chart Nikon is showing for the 50mm f1.8 is very similar to the 55mm Zeiss Otus (yes, the Otus is 2/3 of a stop faster, but it's also 6 times the price and 3 times the weight). You have to extrapolate because the Otus is shown at 10,20 and 40 lp/mm, while the Nikon is shown at 10 and 30 (the 30 line for the Nikon fits between the 20 and 40 lines for the Otus, right as you'd expect for similar lenses. If it really shoots like an Otus, most of us are going to forgive it for being f1.8.

Canon's 50mm f1.2 for the new mount is also in a different (and better) class from any Canon 50mm  for the EF mount. It's half a stop faster than the Otus, and its chart isn't quite as good. What would happen if it were tested at f1.4? Might it be in Otus territory?

Meanwhile, and again with the caveat of computed MTF, the 24-70 f4 Z is showing MTF charts never seen before for a zoom. It's better than what LensRentals came up with for any of the "big three" 24-70mm f2.8 lenses, better than the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 and better than the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 PRO (from a depth of field perspective, the Fuji is no faster than the Nikkor, and the Olympus is slower, due to the smaller sensors). If this thing shoots like it computes, it's quite simply the sharpest standard zoom ever built (unless there's something obscure, probably either a Leica lens or something with a restricted zoom range). To be fair to Canon, the computed MTF charts for their 28-70 f2 also look incredible.

The proof is in the pictures, and we haven't seen many of those yet, but there may be something special in these big, new mounts (or Nikon and Canon are doing something special with aspherics and/or exotic glass and their standard SLR lenses haven't caught up yet)?

Dan

[shadowblade]

The MTF charts aren't comparable because they're taken at different apertures. You're comparing a 24-70mm lens at f/4 with three other zooms at f/2.8. There would be a problem if it didn't look sharper.

Compare them all at f/4 and you'd likely get a different result.

[armand]

Out of curiosity, what makes you say that the capabilities of the Z7 are closer to that of a D750?

Don’t get we wrong, I used to love me D750, but the key differences with the D850 were:
- sensor
- viewfinder
- AF
- framerate
- XQD vs SD
- level of weatherproofing
- feel of the body/construction

On most accounts the Z7 seems to have gone for the D850 spec don’t you think?

Or are you saying that the reports about AF perfo of the Z7 makes you anticipate that it will perform AFwise similarly to the D750?

Cheers,
Bernard

Maybe not entirely based on reality and maybe a little too harsh but I feel Nikon held too many punches to protect their D850.

Just skimming through the initial reports I get the impression that Z7 focus is nowhere close to D850, and most likely significantly under D750 too. I expect Fuji X-T1 level. But I often say the key to happiness is to lower your expectations.

[Dan Wells]

There aren't any readily available MTF charts of the Canon, Nikon or Sony 24-70mm f2.8 lenses stopped down... The new Nikkor also looks a lot better than the Canon EF 24-70mm f4, the Sony "Zeiss" 24-70mm f4, the Nikkor 24-120mm f4, the Canon EF 24-105mm f4 or the Sigma Art 24-105mm f4. Yes, three of these are longer lenses, and two are older lenses - there are no direct competitors (nobody has a brand-new 24-70mm f4, or for that matter a brand-new 50mm f1.8, in an older mount)...

Remember that the Canon RF 28-70mm f2.0 also looks very good in computed MTF charts, and that has a 1-stop disadvantage compared to the SLR lenses. Either the new mounts, some new optical design or both are producing (at least theoretically) extremely sharp lenses...

[Dan Wells]

The Z7 is specifically compared to the D850 in durability and weatherproofing - Nikon emphasizes that, and the bodies I handled definitely felt that way - they were really solid.

Due to the inherent advantages of on-sensor hybrid phase/contrast AF, I suspect the focus precision of the z7 will eclipse any other Nikon (the RF should eclipse any other Canon as well). AF coverage on most newer mirrorless designs will be wider than any DSLR, from any manufacturer - this is just an advantage of on-sensor AF over any viable separate sensor (and, even if you're willing to use a DSLR in live view without an eye-level viewfinder, nobody has put a huge number of PDAF points on a DSLR sensor yet). AF speed won't be as fast as the best DSLRs, although it's better than an X-T1 by a significant margin.

The Z7 has a relatively slow framerate (the Z6 and the Canon RF are both faster), but you aren't taking the film holder out and turning it around after every shot, and it's getting close to 4x5" film resolution (it's probably better than almost any sub-4x5 film, and 6x9 cm, another possible comparison, was never a film format known for high frame rates, either). How often do you need both absurdly high resolution and the framerate of a movie camera?

The idea of the Z7 is to take a very, very, very high-quality sensor and put it in a durable, ergonomic package with superb optics. It's not meant to be the ultimate Instagram camera, the best choice for shooting the Olympics or the Indy 500, nor even necessarily the best camera for day-to-day shooting if you don't print big (it'll happily melt your computer and overload your drives, and it doesn't offer the ideal lens for pictures of the kids).

It's built to be Galen Rowell's dream camera - the most image quality you can haul the farthest from the trailhead and bang around/get rained on. It also has applications in some places where medium format digital is the other choice - fashion, architecture and product photography (and the focusing is far better than current MF digital). The D850 works just as well in those applications, but no better. From the early "reviews", the Z7 will probably succeed at its goal...

The Z6, EOS-R and A7III are meant to be more versatile - they offer good resolution, although not as jaw-dropping as the Z7, more speed and they're cheaper with files that are less of a pain to edit.

 If you can lift your printer by yourself (unless you're a bodybuilder and can somehow lift a modern 24" or 44" printer!), you are not the Z7's target customer (or the A7r III's, for that matter). It feeds big, luscious files to big, ugly printers for big, gorgeous prints, and that's all it does.

[faberryman]

If you can lift your printer by yourself (unless you're a bodybuilder and can somehow lift a modern 24" or 44" printer!), you are not the Z7's target customer (or the A7r III's, for that matter). It feeds big, luscious files to big, ugly printers for big, gorgeous prints, and that's all it does.

The Z7 sensor resolution is 8256x5504. My printer, which I can pick up, has a native resolution of 360ppi, which means a print size of 23"x15". So the Z7 resolution is just about right for small prints too.

[BernardLanguillier]

It's built to be Galen Rowell's dream camera - the most image quality you can haul the farthest from the trailhead and bang around/get rained on. It also has applications in some places where medium format digital is the other choice - fashion, architecture and product photography (and the focusing is far better than current MF digital). The D850 works just as well in those applications, but no better. From the early "reviews", the Z7 will probably succeed at its goal... .

Very good point Dan. I hadn't thought of Galen Rowell, but now that you mention it that's right on. This is indeed his dream camera come true.

Cheers,
Bernard

[armand]

Very good point Dan. I hadn't thought of Galen Rowell, but now that you mention it that's right on. This is indeed his dream camera come true.

Cheers,
Bernard

I certainly hope you are both right. As I said above the 24-70 and probably the 14-30 fit with that, I'm not sure we have the telephoto covered. I feel that 70 is a touch too short, would have been nicer in the 90-120 range. You can theoretically add the 70-200 F4 or the newest 70-300 with the adapter but the weight will be a little too much.

PS. On a second thought it might be enough with the extra resolution of Z7, you can have a 105mmm equiv with 20+ MP, probably enough for most purposes.

[DP]

nobody has put a huge number of PDAF points on a DSLR sensor yet)

Canon Dual Pixel PDAF sensors are in their dSLRs ... the mere fact that firmware does not present you so many "PDAF points" in dSLR's UI in LV mode does not mean that Canon can't

[Dan Wells]

How wide is the spread of the Dual Pixels on any of the Canon DSLRs - I believe there is hardware behind that, either on the sensor itself or in the various filter layers above it? I don't know where they are on the sensor...

On the issue of a telephoto for the Z system, I'm hoping Nikon comes out with a high-quality variable aperture 70-300 (Canon actually had a Fresnel version) - they are welcome to do constant-aperture versions as well, but a really compact lens would be something like f4-5.6. There have been a couple of nice lenses in that focal length and aperture range (the current Canon L and possibly the DO Fresnel version, plus the latest Nikon AF-P VR version) as well as a lot of forgettable ones. Nikon could use the big mount and their increasing expertise with PF lenses to produce something compact but high quality...

[jeremyrh]

I tend to be brief when typing from a phone.

Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.

[francois]

Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.

 

[davidgp]

How wide is the spread of the Dual Pixels on any of the Canon DSLRs - I believe there is hardware behind that, either on the sensor itself or in the various filter layers above it? I don't know where they are on the sensor...

Dual Pixels and PDAF on sensor is not something it is done over or behind the sensor, it is done in the sensor itself. At pixel level in the sensor.

- In PDAF, in a very broad view, what they do, if they say that a camera has XXX number of PDAF points, 2 x XXX pixels of the sensors are used. Over the microlens that is put over the pixel/photodiode itself, the block half of it, usually in the green pixels, and the other half in a pixel next to it. So, each pixel is recieving light from oposite sides lens, what is needed of PDAF to work. There are two drawbacks from this approach: maing one, you have 2 x XXX amount of pixels getting half light, those pixels have more noise. Anyway, Sony commented that the percentage is to low for someone to worry about. Also, the metal that blocks the light can create some banding paterns, this is more noticiable in "lower" megapixel cameras (you can find lots of threads around internet about this topic for the Sony A7 III or A9, it is not the banding due to light sync with electronic shutter, it is something more subtle).

- Canon when other way, a more interesting one, their sensors, again a very general explanation, in reality, they are not a 30 megapixel sensor (like the one in the Canon 5D Mark IV), it is in reality a 60 megapixel sensor. Each pair of pixels shares one unique microlens, in this way, each, let's call it sub-pixel, gets light from one side of the lens. Each pair of this sub-pixels is a PDAF sensor. They use that information to AF the lens and then, when they create the image, they joing the light capture by each subpixel into just one pixel. If you speak people that does video everybody says the same, Canon has the best AF for video, and this is understable, they collect in all pixels Phase Detect information... they have more information for tracking than anybody else. They just need the procesing power and CPU to use it.

I read other method in a paper of Sony about how to do phase detect at pixel level (I need to look for the reference) that I was not able to follow, since they were using some mathematical model to extract the Phase information in a derivative way that will not have the problems of blocking half of the pixel, but I think they have not implemented yet in any camera, maybe the idea was not good from the theoretical model to a practical one.

Regards,

David

[Paulo Bizarro]

This is a large part of the reason I use Leica M. Superb lenses that fit in the palm of my hand and compact but solid bodies.

Same feeling here, but replace with Alpha 7 and Loxia lenses:)

[KLaban]

Same feeling here, but replace with Alpha 7 and Loxia lenses:)

Now, if only the lenses were faster, the bodies had rangefinders and haptics that didn't see me wanting to slam them into a wall...

;-)

[BernardLanguillier]

The Z7 was announced to become available in Japan on Sept-28th.

Cheers,
Bernard