State of the camera market (mirrorless and otherwise)

[BJL]

The Sony E mount is to mirrorless what the F mount has been to DSLRs. It is too small to be optimal but large enough to design excellent lenses.

Stating the the Z and R mount are significantly superior isn’t Sony hatred, it is a fact.

Cheers,
Bernard

The question for me, as usual, is quantitative rather than yes/no: how much of a difference does the extra mount diameter make? This will mostly be for lenses offering very low f-stops. If Nikon and Canon can use clearly better designs for things like a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 or maybe a standard zoom faster than f/2.8, they might have some significant advantage, if only in some specific and rather high end use-cases. OTOH, if the extra options are just very extreme designs like f/0.95, the difference will be almost entirely about bragging rights.

I doubt that Canon and Nikon both stupidly burdened themselves with oversized mounts, but it is not clear yet what fraction of ILC users will experience significant benefits.

[hogloff]

The Sony E mount is to mirrorless what the F mount has been to DSLRs. It is too small to be optimal but large enough to design excellent lenses.

Stating the the Z and R mount are significantly superior isn’t Sony hatred, it is a fact.

Cheers,
Bernard

Seems like there are some exceptional lenses designed for the Sony mount...some that are class leading as tested by Lensrental. Sure...maybe one can't get f0.95 lenses onto the Sony mount...but then who in the hell wants to lug a monster around with them?

Bernard...have you looked at the Sony 12-24 zooms which kills the Nikon 14-24 or perhaps the 24-105 zoom which is the best 24-105 made or perhaps the 100-400 zoom which again is the best out there. Have you looked at the Sony 85 prime?

Sure if one shoots test charts one might see some improvements in the deep corners of lenses designed for the larger mounts...but tell me this Bernard...is it test charts that you shoot?

I can guarantee you that YOU could not pick out which lens was used to create say 24x36 prints in a gallery from the 30 that are hanging there. That's the bottom line...the rest is just fanboyism running rampant on the net and the camera manufactures marketing teams have everyone jumping for that last pixel in the deep dark corner of the image.

 

[Two23]

The question for me, as usual, is quantitative rather than yes/no: how much of a difference does the extra mount diameter make? This will mostly be for lenses offering very low f-stops. If Nikon and Canon can use clearly better designs for things like a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 or maybe a standard zoom faster than f/2.8, they might have some significant advantage........

I think  what  you're  missing  is the advantage  in  creating wide angle lenses.   Those have historically  been  the  most  difficult.


Kent in SD

[BJL]

I think  what  you're  missing  is the advantage  in  creating wide angle lenses.   Those have historically  been  the  most  difficult.


Kent in SD

Could be. Good wide angle designs are hard, but I have no idea how much the difficulties relate to a narrower vs wider throat. One thing that makes them hard for SLRs is the need to have the rear elements so far from the focal plane, so on that count, all the new mirrorless mounts make it easier. (Aside: this is one reason that all the hopes/predictions about staying with existing SLR mounts makes no sense.)

[Telecaster]

Sure...maybe one can't get f0.95 lenses onto the Sony mount...but then who in the hell wants to lug a monster around with them?

Leica's 50/0.95 Noctilux exhibits no more corner vignetting on an A7iii than on a Leica. Which is to say, there is some but it's intrinsic to the lens. Sony's FE mount is likely on the edge of acceptability for such ultra-fast lenses, but then such lenses are on the edge of practicability for real-world applications.

When different camera systems are effectively equal in real-world value, outlier cases are what brand acolytes must seize upon to justify their continued allegiance.

-Dave-

[BernardLanguillier]

Seems like there are some exceptional lenses designed for the Sony mount...some that are class leading as tested by Lensrental. Sure...maybe one can't get f0.95 lenses onto the Sony mount...but then who in the hell wants to lug a monster around with them?

Bernard...have you looked at the Sony 12-24 zooms which kills the Nikon 14-24 or perhaps the 24-105 zoom which is the best 24-105 made or perhaps the 100-400 zoom which again is the best out there. Have you looked at the Sony 85 prime?

Sure if one shoots test charts one might see some improvements in the deep corners of lenses designed for the larger mounts...but tell me this Bernard...is it test charts that you shoot?

I can guarantee you that YOU could not pick out which lens was used to create say 24x36 prints in a gallery from the 30 that are hanging there. That's the bottom line...the rest is just fanboyism running rampant on the net and the camera manufactures marketing teams have everyone jumping for that last pixel in the deep dark corner of the image.

The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is a 10 years old design, I sure hope that the Sony betters it. Not sure why you use the word kill.

I am also not sure why you speak about good enough in a conversation focused on better performance in relation to the mount.

Even the good old Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is good enough isn’t it?

Cheers,
Bernard

[hogloff]

The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is a 10 years old design, I sure hope that the Sony betters it. Not sure why you use the word kill.

I am also not sure why you speak about good enough in a conversation focused on better performance in relation to the mount.

Even the good old Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is good enough isn’t it?

Cheers,
Bernard

Not the one I had. Sucked big time in the corners...easily saw issues in my prints.

The Sony 12-24 is better than the Canon 11-24 which weighs twice as much and costs at least twice the Sony. Yeh...head to head with the Nikon...Sony truly kills it...I used both.

[BJL]

... the Sony 12-24 zooms which kills the Nikon 14-24...

I think we all agree that the 46.5mm deep Nikon F-mount was a disadvantage, and this is especially so for short focal lengths, where it constrains the rear elements to be far further from the focal plane than is possible with 18mm deep E-mount (or any modern non-SLR mount). To makes things worse, F-mount also has a slightly narrower throat than E-mount, 44mm vs 46.1mm.

The more forward-looking question is how Z-mount lenses will compare in performance and bulk to E-mount lenses, especially ones at the challenging extremes of speed and wide-angle coverage.

[BJL]

Leica's 50/0.95 Noctilux exhibits no more corner vignetting on an A7iii than on a Leica.

No surprise: E-mount is a bit wider and distinctly shallower than Leica M mount, so a lens designed for the latter will be fine on the former. The existence and performance of that 50/0.95 shows that it is possible to design a fairly extreme lens like that for E-mount—the next question is whether Z-mount (or Canon R-mount, which no one here seems to care about!) allows optically better and/or less bulky designs for such lenses.

[Kirk_C]

I see this thread has resolved to the usual LL discussion, pixels, mounts and other numbers but in response to an earlier post.

Conjecture: the photojournalism landscape changes so much in the next 5–10 years that sports photography as a business all but disappears.

Photojournalism has transitioning from any specialization whatsoever for at least 10 years now and dedicated stills shooters aren't even considered.

https://www.thebaron.info/news/article/2018/11/18/reuters-accelerates-news-picturesvideo-merger

[hogloff]

I see this thread has resolved to the usual LL discussion, pixels, mounts and other numbers but in response to an earlier post.

Photojournalism has transitioning from any specialization whatsoever for at least 10 years now and dedicated stills shooters aren't even considered.

https://www.thebaron.info/news/article/2018/11/18/reuters-accelerates-news-picturesvideo-merger

Yes and the rumoured A7S3 sounds like a killer system for this purpose.

[Telecaster]

Photojournalism has transitioning from any specialization whatsoever for at least 10 years now and dedicated stills shooters aren't even considered.

https://www.thebaron.info/news/article/2018/11/18/reuters-accelerates-news-picturesvideo-merger

Yep. I had videography in mind as well as stills…but failed to make that explicit.

-Dave-

[Two23]

(Aside: this is one reason that all the hopes/predictions about staying with existing SLR mounts makes no sense.)

Nikon is a smaller   company with  limited resources.  When the switch was made from S mount  rangefinder to Nikon F around 1960, I can't find any new S lenses introduced after then.


Kent in SD

[Dan Wells]

The S system had many fewer users than the F mount has now, and Nikon is a much bigger company now than it was in postwar Japan (1960 was still before the Japanese economy took off). I'd be shocked not to see F mount lenses - we may see a decline in numbers as they try to fill out the Z line, but they'll still design lenses for the F mount. Sony has actually released several A mount lenses since the E mount came out, and the A mount is much less successful than the F mount. Is the long term future of Nikon the Z mount? Probably... Would I worry about a lack of support for the F mount in the next 5-10 years? NO.

[BernardLanguillier]

My guess would be that we will see very few F mount lenses in the coming 2 years.

In my view, the only widely used lens that isn't best in class in their line up is the 14-24mm f2.8 and even so it remains pretty good in absolute terms. So Nikon is probably not feeling a strong need to consolidate further their leading position in the DSLR segment.

They will invest their best people and tools 99% on z mount until the line up is competitive, and that will take 2 years or so.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

I think this makes the most sense Bernard. The existing F mount lenses are so strong and the range of Z mount glass so limited Nikon are sure to work on it very hard. In the mean time existing F glass with the adapter will make the system very functional.

[BJL]

I agree with Bernard and Martin: for a while Nikon and Canon will prioritise expanding their new 35mm format mirrorless mount product lines, for much the same reasons that Sony has recently produced more new products in 35mm format than APS-C. Some will interpret this as abandoning SLRs and/or APS-C, but that would be jumping to conclusions.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Given that the D850 is an outstanding camera, one wonders whether all of Nikon R&D will be oriented towards mirrorless cameras.  Can the D850 really be improved upon?

[faberryman]

Given that the D850 is an outstanding camera, one wonders whether all of Nikon R&D will be oriented towards mirrorless cameras.  Can the D850 really be improved upon?

The could pop the new 60MP Sony sensor in it at the same time they upgrade the Z7 to Z8. Keep parity between mirrorless and DSLR.

[BJL]

... Can the D850 really be improved upon?

Of course it can, but the relatively low marginal utility and ROI probably put such improvements on the back burner for now. Some possibilities though: IBIS, better video (for all those news and sports photographers under increasing pressure to deliver video as well as stills but who still prefer Nikon’s DSLR AF), a future higher resolution sensor.