Should Nikon make a FF High End Mirrorless?

<p>Do you think Nikon should introduce a FF high end, not necessary top of the line but in the D800 class, mirrorless camera? I ask because it seems that many expect the Df to be a mirrorless and now some are wishing the D5 is a mirrorless.</p>

<p>I don't think I'd be interested in it. I just don't want to put that kind of money into a digital camera. I also would want something smaller, with smaller lenses. That's the appeal for me. I don't see the appeal of a 35mm sized mirrorless.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

I see 2 reasons to use a MILC:

 

1 - Small size. That means using small lenses as well.

 

2 - Using all kinds of old lenses via adapters. That's being experimental.

 

A FF MILC defeats much of 1, while 2 is a small market.

<p>I think Nikon should go back to producing advanced DX bodies and lenses that "advanced amateurs" want and are willing to pay for. The D300 is no longer sold new but it was an old model anyway. Why didn't Nikon just put a 24 MP sensor in it with updated electronics and cache! It would be called the D400. All these mirrorless cameras, point & shoots, etc have been a real diversion of resources for Nikon and have caused them to lose focus on the advanced amateur. Yes, the professional is well served by the D4S but they are expensive and have you held one of those beasts. Yikes. Nikon seems intent on going after new users by dumping multiple introductory, low margin, DSLR models into big box retailers. This market segment will also be gone in less than 5 years. </p>

Absolutely. I proposed that they do so to Nikon's Incoming CEO back in August 2007 at the Tokyo launch of the D3. His

response,"interesting." But nothing has happened yet. Bjorn Rorslett was standing next to me.

<p>Sure, but only if it includes an optical viewfinder or an EVF without lag or blackout for buffering. There's no point in a full frame rear-LCD-only camera. That's a step backward to the 1923 Leica and bombardier peep sight.</p>

<p>It's a niche where Nikon could beat Sony - something Nikon has failed to do with the CX/one-inch sensor. I'm still hoping for a digital equivalent to the Konica Hexar AF or, better still, the smaller 35mm film cameras with non-interchangeable 28mm or 35mm lenses from the golden age of compact film cameras.</p>

<p>But it must have a no-lag EVF or, if that's not yet technologically feasible, a good built in optical finder.</p>

<p>Oh, yeah, and a standard hotshoe and full compatibility with Nikon's existing iTTL/CLS flash lineup. Seriously, Nikon. Not another 1 System proprietary flash system, or Coolpix A without full compatibility. If it includes a built in flash, give it commander capability.</p>

<p><strong>"now some are wishing the D5 is a mirrorless."</strong></p>

<p>I'd like to see Nikon make a lot of things before a Mirrorless D5. Clearly the people in that market are not too concerned with size and weight of their gear. I would also imagine an EVF would be lacking in a low-light/action based environment. (an arena for which the D4s is designed to excel in)</p>

<p>interesting question, complicated answer. i'd like to see nikon compete with APS-C mirrorless first, but Fuji beat them to the punch and got most of the details right, such as high-quality compact bodies, full manual controls, and (mostly) compact, high-quality lenses -- including a fairly complete set of primes. as far as FFML, Sony beat nikon to the punch on that and appear to have gotten the bodies mostly right, though not the lenses. meanwhile, The Nikon 1 series is interesting, but the simplified UI is a step in the wrong direction, and the lenses have been underwhelming. they're not terrible cameras if you can live with their limitations, but Nikon doesn't seem to know who its marketing to. same thing with the Coolpix A, which lacks the top-end features to justify its price point. but to the OP, i'd have to ask, what would a nikon FFML offer that a Df doesn't, besides a possibly more modern appearance? using anything other than primes on a smaller FF body is going to be problematic, unless Nikon introduces a new mount, which would probably screw up their production pipeline. it is interesting that Sony hasn't gone all-in on FE mount lenses yet. and a nikon FFML would be interesting if it had faster and more accurate AF tracking than the Fuji XT1, but then the same could be said of an APS-C mirrorless, which could conceivably use the smaller DX lenses. i really think the mount issue is what's stopped Nikon from innovating more in the mirrorless realm. you can't just abandon the F-mount to build a new system -- or can you? and if you could, would you want to?</p>

<p>Until, or unless EVF-Optical viewfinders provide realistic clarity, I'm hoping for the digital equivalent of a Contax G2, with a larger viewfinder obviously. I do think a full frame mirrorless is on the horizon from Nikon, as long as there is enough heat sink.</p>

<p>If by D5 you mean the next top camera of Nikon, then the answer is simply NO, Never. But a better MILC from any manufacturer will very likely be made.</p>

<p>Looking through an EVF makes me feel sick. If Nikon went mirrorless with the D5, I'd consider quitting photography entirely since I wouldn't be able to time shots by eye and using it would likely be an unpleasant experience (not to mention an entire new lineup of lenses for AF to work well and to make any sense out of a size reduction). To be honest I think the D3/D4 size bodies are a good match to my hands so I don't see going smaller to be much of an improvement, either.</p>

<p>Ilkka, for the first time, I don`t agree :). They (Nikon) are proven ergonomics masters, and they know how to make the most compatible mount ever. And I`m pretty sure there are better focusing systems than the current available at DSLRs. Another topic is if they want or not making it possible. <br>

<br /> Of course, I`m waiting for it. In fact, I have the idea that digital reflex cameras are on the dead end line; although it`s very likely that we will have another generation of reflex top cameras, but I think they should be the latest ones. (We could have a 60Mp D800x when all other manufacturers were making a7 type cameras).</p>

<p>Anyway, Nikon have proven for several times that they are soooo conservative in their releases (e.g., the F6, to cite an example), so it`s probably that they reach the finish line in the latest position (pun intended), although with a very competitive product as usual (admiration).</p>

I tried the latest Oly OM camera at the weekend and the EVF was still quite a way short of an

optical one in my opinion. The crushed dynamic range and flicker under fluorescent lights

for starters.

<p><em>they know how to make the most compatible mount ever.</em></p>

<p>Well, at the moment their "most compatible" mount preserves no AF on non-AF-S lenses, and center point AF only for AF-S lenses from F mount. It is likely because the PDAF sensors embedded on the main sensor could not be designed to work properly on off-center areas with both types of lenses. Olympus preserves some AF functionality through their adapter for Four Thirds lenses, but judging from dpreview's video demonstration the AF with jitters a lot. Sony supports AF of their A mount lenses through an adapter which contains basically the semitransparent mirror etc. so it turns the A7 into an SLT camera. Canon's on-main sensor PDAF was compared with that camera's (consumer level) PDAF-through-mirrors and the former was a lot slower. While there is some progress in this type of AF in recent years, it seems unlikely that a mirrorless system would be designed in such a way that it gives competitive AF on existing DSLR lenses, as to get advantage from the mirrorless design, size mainly, native lenses are required, and those have different optics as they're much closer to the sensor than DSLR lenses, so the PDAF needs to be different, and CDAF which is typically used in low light (since the on main sensor PDAF isn't very sensitive) is relying basically on exhaustive searching of all focus positions to find the optimum (which works best on purpose made lenses that utilize stepper motors). I think a mirrorless autofocus camera necessarily leads to eventual abandonment of all existing autofocus lenses, and likely with inferior performance in low light. This, to me would be a big step backwards in the capability of photographic gear. </p>

<p><em>they are soooo conservative in their releases</em></p>

<p>Like with the D800(E)? Two years later Sony is able to make a 36MP camera, and Canon is still at 22MP. Anyway, I'm likely going back to 24MP and maybe 16MP as for me the quantity of data from shooting 50k 36MP files per year is too much for everyday use.</p>

<p>It's going to <em>have</em> to come sometime, but I doubt that Nikon will take the first step. You only have to see and feel the quietness and quick shutter response of the D800 in LiveView mode to see that it's the way forward. (The ridiculously long time to review is a different matter.) The mirrorless DSLR makes perfect sense from an engineering point of view.</p>

<p>An optical viewfinder? Leica have that covered - badly. Who's going to twiddle a rotating turret of viewfinder lenses these days? And automatically coupling the lens to a zoom viewfinder rules out backward compatibility with Nikon's entire F mount lenses to date.</p>

<p>That leaves the EVF, which videographers have been perfectly happy to use for ages now. In fact a high resolution EVF that gave a close WYSIWYG to the final image would be a great step forward in terms of improving photographers' visual abilities; rather than being encumbered with a stack of useless peripheral exposure information. The magnified point-of-focus inset is a great tool once you get used to it, and as long as it can be switched on and off at will. </p>

<p>If Nikon made an FX mirrorless at the moment, they'd be in exactly the situation that Sony are in - no native lenses, quite expensive, not that small. (Although they might not screw up the raw files as Sony have.) I do believe that on-sensor phase-detect, or something similar, might be coming - existing DSLR mirror focus systems are clearly sometimes struggling, but on the other hand current phase-detect systems can't quite compete with moving subjects in the way that an SLR AF system can. The same applies to metering - the sensors in the finder-based metering modules are much bigger than the main sensor sites, and I'm sure they have a higher dynamic range; I would not be surprised if this relates to the level of flash support in mirrorless systems (you need a very fast response to get a pre-flash right). Sensor-based systems may get there eventually. So if Nikon tried to go mirrorless to go "smaller", no, I don't think that's sensible, for the reasons Antonio stated. If they do it because existing mirror systems are reaching the end of the line, then maybe. But it's going to have to be a damn good EVF both in response time and dynamic range. (However, I don't think that adding an EVF to a prism finder is technically all that hard. Canon have put LEDs in the finder for years - you just need a lot more of them!)<br />

<br />

Jose: Nikon have hired ergonomics masters, and then kept the formula with minor tweaks. While I appreciate what devices like the Df and V1 can do, they do not give the impression of being designed by someone with usability training. And yes, I've had courses in designing user interfaces. Not that I'm claiming that designing a good camera interface is easy, but some mistakes are avoidable - and even obvious. As you say, they're very conservative with the bodies that do have a good design - and the F5 change was an emergency response to Canon, who were heavily competing with the F4. As for the compatibility of the F mount, there is not a single camera on the market that can use every F mount lens properly, and there are a significant number of F mount lenses that do not work properly on common current bodies. The table of "small print" for compatibility is large. Yes, they've done a good job of incremental updates, but there have been a lot of false steps along the way. I don't like that Canon made everything before 1987 unusable, but I have to say that everything since "just works". Now, if only Leica had autofocus...<br />

<br />

But I'm sure Nikon will continue to produce very good products (and I'm happy with mine). I'm not actually a hater, I'm just not in awe of their every decision.</p>

<p>Lex - You should take a look at the fuji x100s, which with the wide angle conversion lens will give you 28mm and 35mm fov (in 35mm terms). Its a fantastic camera, a pleasure to use and the image quality is superb. It has both OVF and EVF, both of which are very good. i have a D7100, so am on the latest generation of APS-C nikon camera, and I would say in noise terms the x100s is at least a stop better. If I didn't have quite so much invested in Nikon glass I would seriously consider the XT-1.</p>

I would like to see them release a ff rangefinder so that an optical viewfinder will be an option for shooters looking for a

smaller body with smaller lenses. I am not sold on the EVF yet.

<p>The main advantage of a mirrorless camera is the ability to use non-retrofocus lenses. Putting a bloated SLR lens on a mirrorless isn't much point. Of course, with the right adaptor, you could use a Leica or Voigtlander lens, but that isn't something that Nikon would normally promote. I'm not sure if the average prosumer DLSR user is ready to fork out a heap of cash for a new camera and a swag of normal lenses. I'd guess that the typical keen Nikon shooter would a fair amount of money tied up already in the SLR format.</p>

<p>I've been thinking about this a lot...</p>

<p>I love everything about MILCs except one thing... EVF and EVF shutter lag...</p>

<p>It's the only thing that has kept me from selling all my Nikon stuff and going with µ43.</p>

<p>"low end" feature in a "high end" camera? No, thank you.</p>

<p>That said, I would be first in line for a DX mirrorless body if it were nice and small and could very effectively use legacy lenses with an adaptor that didn't cost 400 dollars... but in addition to my regular DSLR, not instead of.</p>

<p><em>That leaves the EVF, which videographers have been perfectly happy to use for ages now.</em></p>

<p>I know some videographers and a lot of the time when I see them in action, they're not using the EVF. They're looking at the LCD or the subject directly past the camera. "The EVF is awful" is what have heard, unless they're using an extremely expensive high end video camera. In any case the video camera records a continuous sequence of shots at high frame rate so the user doesn't have to time shots based on subject micro-expressions (which the camera wouldn't record properly, anyway since it's all a blur at the shutter speeds required for a fluid appearance of motion) as still photographers do. It's the most important thing in the success of a photograph of a person in my view, how the facial muscles appear in support of the emotion expressed, and at the very least the foundation of my people photography.</p>

<p><em>a close WYSIWYG to the final image</em></p>

<p>That would be impossible since each raw image is processed using highly individual adjustments in post-processing. When I am photographing, I want to see the subject, not a computer's rendering of what it thinks the image of the subject should look like. The appearance of the photograph is determined afterwards. Learning to do proper exposures is like the first steps of a child learning to walk. Any experienced photographer is going to have no difficulty with trivial matters such as that. What they want to say with the image, that's another matter which some people do struggle with even later on.</p>

<p>The X100s is a nice, quiet camera. I never used the EVF; the optical viewfinder was however very nice (if dark). However I find the image quality of my Nikons to be much better, and the Fuji X100s doesn't do continuous autofocus with any but the central AF point. I specifically want my camera to have off-center AF tracking capability, which is one of the reasons I eventually bought the D7100.</p>

<p><em>Nikon should go back to producing advanced DX bodies and lenses that "advanced amateurs" want and are willing to pay for.</em></p>

<p>I think they do a lot of that already. The D7100 offers incredible AF and sensor for the money, and it's a well rounded camera with just a slight problem: a buffer that is small for the file size. This will no doubt be fixed in a future upgrade, and it'll still stay at about half the price of any D300s replacement. Nikon has in recent years introduced a lot of reasonably priced lenses at the advanced amateur: 28/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 are all getting excellent reviews and are priced very fairly. The 70-200/4 and the new 80-400/4.5-5.6 are also arguably affordable by this time (although when a brand new model, the AF-S 80-400 was quite expensive). The D610 has better image quality at 1/3rd of the price of the D3X and is much more compact as well. I often hear that this or that segment is "ignored" by Nikon but the facts don't seem to support that. For the specific type of high-fps photography, the used market has many D3s, D3, and soon D4 models available at reasonable prices compared to a new D4s. If you want high speed, and the latest technology, you have to pay to play. Second hand purchases have always been the way beginning photographers (as well as anyone who is particular about their use of money) can get better equipment than they could afford to buy new. In my first 5 years in photography most things I bought were second hand. I don't believe I complained about that, it was a great opportunity.</p>

<p>While I wan't experiencing first hand, history lessons tell me Nikon had a touch time convincing pro's that the partially electronic F3 could be as reliable as the mechanical F2. Reluctantly, they found it to be the case - mainly because the F3 was in fact very reliable (sure mine is).<br /> I guess in an ironic way, they now would have to convince them that mechnical is in fact the least reliable bit. Is it? Is broken mirrors the most frequent failure? The D600 issue the nail in the mirrored coffin? Seriously no idea, but it would be a rather important point if you want to update the workhorses (D5 sure is) to new technology: it has to be seriously reliable. There is little room for second chances.</p>

<p>Something about full frame mirrorless keeps me wondering. The most frequent mentioned advantage of mirrorless is size and weight. But full frame lenses are what they are, they cannot be relentlessly made smaller (or you only get short zooms with small apertures like the Sony A7 zooms - not the greatest choice). The full frame crowd is the most likely to already have lenses, so good backwards compatibility (posing no limitations in use of older gear) should be extremely high on the agenda. So high, you might just end up using the F-mount. With only AF-S and Ai/AiS properly supported?<br /> APS-C mirrorless makes so much more sense. A total action/sports APS-C professional grade mirrorless F-Mount camera - much the Fuji FT-1 but with a bigger lens line-up - with an EVF that is as responsive as an OVF, and enough heft to work with large teles. Basically, a D7100 without mirror but witha lot more buffer. And that begs the question: why exactly does the mirror has to go? How does that make it a better camera?</p>

<p>Should Nikon release a FF mirrorless <em>alongside</em> its DSLR range? Repurpose the Df to be a retro-step into the future? That would make a lot more sense. A slower path to convince those depending on these cameras daily that the mirror can go; a bit more wiggleroom to get things right. Could be a more sensible path. Or a APS-C Df-Dx with small new 16mm and 23mm primes?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"But full frame lenses are what they are, they cannot be relentlessly made smaller (or you only get short zooms with small apertures like the Sony A7 zooms - not the greatest choice)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Before the Sony RX100, and then the Coolpix A and Ricoh GR (APS version), came out, I would have imagined those cameras to be infeasible due to constraints on the practical lower limit of lens sizes with adequate image circles. Yet all three exist, due in part to some clever software engineering to straighten out the barrel distortion.<br>

<br>

Look at the tiny sizes of the non-interchangeable lens compact and P&S 35mm film cameras of the 1980s-early 2000s. In particular the fixed prime lens cameras like the Minolta TC-1 - possibly the tiniest of that era - and Ricoh GR1 and Nikon 35Ti/28Ti, among the smallest with reasonably fast f/2.8 lenses. Very small, reasonably fast f/2.8 primes in the moderate wide angle to short tele range are entirely feasible for a full frame digital sensor camera.<br>

<br>

The largest camera of that type from that era was the Konica Hexar AF, due in part to the slightly faster 35/2 lens, but it probably could have been made smaller than the near-Leica M type body size. Today, clever software engineering could easily (not necessarily to say satisfactorily) accommodate physically smaller fast primes by correcting near-fisheye distortion in raw files to provide an adequate image circle for a 24x36 sensor. The Sony RX1 lens size indicates they decided against that sort of compromise and went with more conventional optical engineering, resulting in a camera that would have been about the same size as the Hexar had Sony included a built in optical viewfinder.<br>

<br>

But I'm talking about a niche camera that would appeal primarily to enthusiasts and cult favorite fans. I'd agree that an FX mirrorless dSLR-style body would have a niche appeal, mainly to photographers who don't use bulky fast teles or telezooms. Without the now-obligatory and ergonomically friendly palm swell/finger grip, longer and heavier lenses aren't comfortable to use. And I don't see Nikon adopting the Olympus type route of providing optional handgrip/battery extenders for an FX mirrorless dSLR-style body.<br>

<br>

But sometimes Nikon surprises me, and not always pleasantly, including the increasingly baffling Nikon V-series, with the increasingly proprietary gadget oriented design rather than an integrated body with EVF. So a mirrorless Df wouldn't shock me at all. In fact, I thoroughly expected the first version of the Df to be a mirrorless EVF dSLR-type body.</p>

<p><em>Is broken mirrors the most frequent failure? The D600 issue the nail in the mirrored coffin?</em></p>

<p>I believe it was the shutter, not the mirror, that is the source of the debris on the D600 sensor. Most mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have physical shutters all the same. I've never heard of a mirror problem in Nikons, although I guess it's possible (and certainly regarding alignment of the main and sub mirrors). But it's the most important part of the camera for me so it would be the last that I'd let go as it facilitates the optical viewfinder.</p>

<p><em>they now would have to convince them</em></p>

<p>I doubt very much that Nikon is trying to convince pros that mirrorless is the way to go when acceptable focus tracking in low light with shallow depth of field doesn't exist in any currently realized mirrorless camera. It is likely this that is the reason why Sony's A7 is offered with a 35/2.8 prime as the fast wide angle for the time being, at roughly the same price that Nikon and Canon DSLR users can get Sigma's excellent 35/1.4 (two stops faster lens, and a known excellent perfomer). The large sensor mirrorless cameras likely can't track movement acceptably with a fast lens in low light. If the technology did exist, no doubt manufacturers would happily offer it. Certainly the X100s I used to have produced erratic results in low light in terms of focus, and wanted to activate the extremely distracting focus assist light (which was not possible in a concert to avoid the photographer becoming more noticeable than the performers). Within similar conditions the D800 had no trouble focusing fast lenses without any assist light. This is also noted by Nikon that while mirrorless camera AF is more precise (they may have meant accurate) in bright light, the DSLR AF is more precise in low light. Since these are dictated by optics, geometry and signal to noise ratio, likely their relative merits will remain so for the foreseeable future. If someone demonstrates a mirrorless full frame camera with 85/1.4 or 200/2 focus tracking an approaching subject at ISO 6400, f/2, 1/100s light levels or 1-2 stops dimmer than that (not unusual for concert lighting indoors), I will be happy to consider such a product assuming the viewfinder issue can be resolved some day. I would expect that in 5-10 years we will see where the technology goes, if the mirrorless camera manufacturers continue their research and development.</p>

<p>By the way I completely understand that people who primarily shoot stationary subjects and want to do it hand-held (e.g. when traveling, with the lightest possible setup) would prefer a mirrorless full frame camera. However, it comes with it the requirement to develop a whole new lens lineup, which makes the thought lucrative primarily to those manufacturers who don't have a large existing user base.</p>

<p>Ilkka - I love my D7100 and it is a big improvement over the D90 which i had before. IMO the x100s has the edge in image quality. I don't think there is much in it, but noise is less with the x100s, perhaps as a result of 16MP v 24MP on the D7100 - below ISO 800 I rarely bother with noise reduction from with images from the x100s. Straight out the camera, the images from the x100s are lovely; there is just something about that sensor. Of course the x100s is a completely different camera to the D7100 and doesnt compete against it, nor can it in some areas eg AF. I use my x100s mostly for street photography, but it has also become my family outing camera (along with the wide angle converter) , whereas before I would take the D7100 with 2-3 lenses. Where i need telephoto, super wide angle, zoom, macro or sport/action then I will use the D7100.<br>

From fuji, the D7100 is more likely to compete against the X-Pro 1 or the XT-1. I don't know much about these, but maximum credit to Fuji for developing their range of (so I hear very good) lenses, so quickly. They didn't have any FF lenses to fall back, and they still have some gaps, particularly at the telephoto end, but take a look at how they have supported the system - prime lenses at 14/18/23/27/35/56/60 (micro) mm. That's 7 prime lenses compared to Nikon's 4 DX primes, and four of them are wider than 35mm compared to Nikon's 1 which is a fisheye! How long have people been screaming for wide angle DX prime lenses from Nikon?<br>

i have never got on with live view even with macro, but one thing I love about having an EVF is the ability to see the shot as it would be exposed live, and see it change as I adjust exposure compensation, without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. You can't do that with a mirror.</p>