The game is about tho change

<p>Dave,<br>

On retroflection, this thread was started to announce Nikon's venture into high-end mirrorless cameras, and a possible divorce from Sony as a source of Nikon's sensors. The implication was that Sony is henceforth doomed. Nobody acknowledged this prophesy, hence the recriminations and foot-stomping.</p>

<p>Like you, I find it encouraging that Nikon is taking a tentative step forward, but with a healthy bit of skepticism that they will take this ball and run with it. Kodak never realized the significance of digital while film reigned supreme. I suspect that Nikon feels the same about the reflex system v the EVF.</p>

<p>Nikon faces a grim reality. Every MILC sold means one less DSLR across the counter, whether it's a Nikon or a Sony (or whatever). In the past, you needed a Nikon body to take full advantage of a Nikon lens. This week a Chinese F to FE adapter (Complite) was announced with auto-focus capability. Tick ... Tick.</p>

<p>Edward,<br /><br />Actually this thread was started to discuss a wild tale on a rumor site. And from what I've heard, it's been debunked. So there's that...</p>

<p>Just throwing this out there....but is it maybe a tad late for all this? Can't help but wonder if someone's going m/less they've already chosen/invested in a side be it Fuji, Sony or Olympus/Panasonic. Canikon certainly possess the technology but I remain unconvinced that they're interested in m/less at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually this thread was started to discuss a wild tale on a rumor site. And from what I've heard, it's been debunked. So there's that...<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not so sure about the "debunked" part. Samsung is an highly innovative company. Nikon may be interested in a second source for sensors, if not an entry into the electronic viewfinder game. If there were no truth in the rumor, it would be ignored. Denials usually imply some truth is behind the rumors, often leaked by a low level source privy to some level of company strategy.</p>

<p>Paradigms operate. Maybe Nikon is too wed to the DSLR technology (which they have certainly mastered, like other top DSLR makers). Change can require a lot of time. Perhaps one is old enough to remember when the traditional Swiss watch companies did not take the quartz electronic watch innovation very seriously at first, and lost considerable market before finally adopting at the very least a technology mix.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can't help but wonder if someone's going m/less they've already chosen/invested in a side be it Fuji, Sony or Olympus/Panasonic.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Mark</strong>, I've never bought into the 'invested' argument. If people want to sit around on a forum and get defensive about gear they own because they are 'invested' in it and for some reason feel the need to defend it against newer/better/different gear well....that's just foolish and those people aren't really photographers.</p>

<p>Ones photographs should speak for themselves. It doesn't matter what gear you have, just go out and shoot with it. If the gear is disappointing you or holding you back somehow then sell it and buy other gear. But a competent photographer should be able to pick up just about any camera and in some way be able to produce compelling imagery. And cameras today are so good anyway that there shouldn't be anyone out there stewing over a bad 'investment'. If you cant take great photos with the gear available today then maybe more time should be 'invested' in improving ones photography.</p>

<p>The great thing about my style of photography is the fact that the body I own is nothing more then a digital back due to my exclusive use of old film lenses. The only thing I'm invested in are some cheap adapters. Got tired of my Sony a7? Sell it and get a Fuji XT-1 (which I almost have on several occasions). Then all I do is buy a couple of new adapters and all my old lenses are producing images again. I am looking forward to a serious mirrorless camera from Canon and I will be giving it a good look when it is finally announced. I currently shoot Sony because they have made the best camera for <em>my</em> style of photography. But if Canon can match or better them in the mirrorless market then my money will go back to them. Having said that tho, what Sony has been able to bring to market in such a short time has truly been staggering and shows they are serious and on the move.</p>

<p><strong>Edward</strong>, I really hope there is some truth to these rumors. It would make so much sense for Nikon and Samsung to combine forces in the mirrorless arena, each corporation producing to their strengths and complimenting the other. A Nikon mirrorless body with their professional build quality and name recognition combined with a class leading Samsung sensor and EVF with each company then producing lenses for the new mount would be a force to be reckoned with.</p>

<p><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/758/21853315885_82dcb755cc_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not so sure about the "debunked" part.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both Samsung and Nikon have issued statements denying the acquisition of Samsung NX technology - for whatever that's worth. As Edward pointed out - the fact that "something" was denied, doesn't mean that there isn't "something else" going on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>unconvinced that they're interested in m/less at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If they were <em>totally</em> uninterested, Canon would never have developed the M-system to which they keep adding lenses, so they remain engaged: just wary and not convinced.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Paradigms operate. Maybe Nikon is too wed to the DSLR technology (which they have certainly mastered, like other top DSLR makers). Change can require a lot of time. Perhaps one is old enough to remember when the traditional Swiss watch companies did not take the quartz electronic watch innovation very seriously at first, and lost considerable market before finally adopting at the very least a technology mix.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, you hit it squarely on the head with this. I have been saying for a long time now that Canon and Nikon both understand what is involved with the production of a fresh new mirrorless camera. They will need a new mount to do it properly and a new mount means a whole new line of lenses. I am sure neither one of them is wanting to in any way give up the market dominance that they have in regards to a fully fleshed out lens line. Then they are in the position where a completely new set of lenses is competing against their old set of lenses, and a new body is competing with the old bodies. Sure, adapters will be available to use the DSLR lenses on the mirrorless and while this is definitely a workable solution (as Sony has shown) it isn't<em> ideal</em>.</p>

<p>Do they then look at mirrorless as the future, and a possible eventual replacement for their DSLRs? Will they work side by side instead as equals and need to be supported as multiple formats? Or should they view the mirrorless camera as subservient to the DSLR, a mere sideshow, and then run the risk that their competitors were right and new breakthroughs in mirrorless tech indeed make them the camera of the future?</p>

<p>Again we come back to the fact that the DSLR, while a highly advanced and capable machine, is also a device pretty much at the end of its development cycle. Mirrorless on the other hand has decades of improvement ahead of it. It is not an enviable time for Canikon right now, but their recent announcements about developing better mirrorless cameras show they are hopefully on the ball. History is full of companies who thought they were in a position of strength and that their position in the market was unassailable while at the same time misreading market trends and not making fast changes when necessary. IBM, Blackberry, Oldsmobile, Circuit City, Compaq, Kodak, Polaroid...those last two are very pertinent. Heck, even Yahoo is looking at selling major chunks of its web business now. Flickr itself might be up on the auction block....</p>

<p><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/753/21042097184_dda0fd4b08_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Both Samsung and Nikon have issued statements denying the acquisition of Samsung NX technology - for whatever that's worth. As Edward pointed out - the fact that "something" was denied, doesn't mean that there isn't "something else" going on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I'm not sure what we'd mean by "NX technology" and why Nikon would want it. Nikon already has enough knowhow in-house to make APSC MILC cameras, if they wanted to. It seems to me that it would probably be simpler and more cost effective for Nikon to start developing a camera from their own knowledge base than to try to integrate another company's technology and whatever comes with it. Unless they wanted an already established system and got into NX to maintain compatibility with an existing user base, like Sony did with A mount, but from the looks of things Samsung doesn't have that much of a user base to begin with.</p>

<p>If I'm Nikon and I'm working on a larger sensor mirrorless system, it's going to have a larger mount ring than F mount does, come in DX and FX from the start and I'm going to make a really good F mount adapter - something better than anybody's done already, that provides totally seamless integration of lens systems - and give a deep discount on it when bought with a camera. Use Nikon's existing user base, which is much larger than Samsung's, and win market share by making the camera better than the competition instead of a halfhearted attempt like CX or EOS-M. If Nikon also wants to add another sensor supplier, assuming their contracts with existing suppliers won't put up hurdles, this shouldn't be so difficult. They've done it before.</p>

<p>Why would Nikon need a larger lens mount? Nikon has many full-frame sensors, and the current mount is more than adequate. The closer the sensor to the flange, the less restriction imposed by the lens mount.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why would Nikon need a larger lens mount?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The current F-mount throat diameter doesn't support CPU lenses with f/1.2; f/1.4 is the maximum aperture that is doable.<br>

<br />Canon and Nikon have a lot to lose if they don't get their "mainstream" mirrorless cameras right. The companies that currently offer mirrorless all have either pulled out of the DSLR market or never made it to begin with. None of them could/can compete with Nikon/Canon on that market segment. Questionable if Pentax can survive in the long run. Sony's A-mount is pretty much irrelevant nowadays - Sony probably hasn't found the right time yet to announce that they are giving up on that Minolta burden altogether.</p>

<p>That's interesting about the 1.2 thing Dieter, I didn't know that.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Canon and Nikon have a lot to lose if they don't get their "mainstream" mirrorless cameras right.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Soooo right. I just started another topic concerning a video from The Camera Store TV where they guys comment that they are seeing people dump Canon and Nikon 'in droves' for mirrorless, the A7RII in particular. I think the sleeping giants of Canon and Nikon have woken up and we will see some good stuff from them soon. But you are right, they have got to get it right. I keep saying this, but they better not make these cameras in any way subservient to their DSLR's, especially where the mount is concerned. </p>

<p>That limit must apply to DSLRs, not mirrorless cameras with a 20 mm or so back focus. The Leica M mount is about the same size as the Nikon F and Sony E mount, and supports an f/0.95 Noctilux, which is smaller than a Nikon 50/1.4. Voigtlander makes a 50/1.2 with an M mount.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That limit must apply to DSLRs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was very clear and specific in what I wrote Edward; I did not mention the M-mount. Nikon has the 50/1.2, 55/1.2 and the 58/1.2 Noct for the F-mount - neither has a CPU (though with difficulty, one can be fitted). Nikon's F-mount throat diameter is 44mm (same as Leica M), Canon's EOS mount has 54mm. Sony E-mount is 46mm. </p>

<p>Dieter,<br /><br />http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36976-USA/Nikon_1435_NIKKOR_Normal_50mm_f_1_2.html</p>

<p>http://www.noct-nikkor.com/</p>

<p>Lots of bad info in this thread...</p>

<p>Peter, if you look at the entry just above yours, you see that I listed the lenses you linked to. I also specifically mentioned that the issue is with CPU lenses. Please read before jumping to conclusions and accusing others of posting bad information.</p>

<p>Dieter, the whole thread was started by commenting on some debunked rumor. How much more "bad info" can we get.<br /><br />I'm not necessarily talking to you in this next statement, Dieter... but...<br /><br />Look, it's wonderful we have choices, but if the only way to enjoy our choices is to find ways to deride others choices, and if the only way my Whizbang 2000 can be cool is for me to talk about how the people who make the GeeWhiz 3000 are doomed...<br /><br />...sorry, but that kind of junk, which this part of the forum seems filled with lately, is useless to everyone ultimately.<br /><br />It's kind like when I was a kid and you could be a Who fan or a Stones fan, but you couldn't like both. Or you can root for the Bengals (which I do) but that meant that you had to HATE the Steelers.<br /><br />Or if you're a musician... My Fender guitar is awesome and they are all awesome, here's why all Gibson guitars suck. (especially if I just plunked 2 grand down for a Fender and am trying to convince myself I didn't make the wrong choice...)<br /><br />The whole discussion is bad info. Someone reading this hoping for some guidance in what brand they should get are instead confronted with knee-jerk fan-boi ranting lately... and then they head over to the Nikon forum where the moderators are exceptionally skilled at keeping that from happening and still allowing stimulating dialogue.</p>

<p>David....with "investment" I meant more financially than emotionally i.e. if someone's bought a m/less body (or 2) and 3 or 4 lenses they're gonna be reluctant to dump it all in favour of the new kid even if he has a famous name. Someone loyal to that name might, but it seems to me an expensive risk. Having had my own battles with GAS I'd certainly be reluctant to switch brands now. The cons just seem too heavily weighted over the pros. <br>

I totally agree with your views on the state of camera selection today. There really is something for everyone and we have no excuses on that score. I've seen pics to die for taken with all the m/less brands i mentioned before. "But you need full frame" some cry....yeah right....oh you mean 35mm? Full compared to...? The recent movie "We'll Take Manhattan" about David Bailey's famous NYC shoot with Jean Shrimpton is a classic example. His employer (Vogue) instructed him to shoot medium format because 35mm was "not professional". I got a giggle out of that! Anyway he shot 35mm and changed fashion photography forever. But i digress...pick what suits YOU (hey we're all different) and knock yourself out. I feel zero need to defend my choice because no-one else's opinion matters on it. You choose Sony? I have no problem with that nor would i argue over it or anyone else's gear. In fact viva la difference! The thing I WOULD argue is the current pre-eminence of gear over education....grrr.....a great tog with a scratched X100 vs a gear freak with a fool (sorry) full frame 5Dmk3? Who are you gonna put your money on? I suggest we buy more books...information, inspiration, education trumps more megapickles yes? We can start with Dan Winters "Road To Seeing"....all the best from Downunder where its currently warm & sunny ;-)</p>

<p><strong>Mark</strong>, excellent response. And I agree wholeheartedly with you as well. There is to much interest today in gear centric photography. Well, let me back up a bit. There is nothing wrong with gear talk or speculation about gear. Photographers tend to be gear heads and in a way we have to. Our whole art is based around machines and how advancements to those machines can change the way we photograph.</p>

<p>The problem arises when more emphasis is placed on gear specs then knowledge of photography. The countless arguments of this brand is better then that brand are futile and do nothing but stir up bad feelings in general. Meanwhile, the photographers are out shooting....</p>

<p><strong>Peter</strong>, this dovetails a little into some of what you are saying. I agree with you as well....Brand X/Brand Y fights are silly and counterproductive. But sometimes people have a simple interest in changing technologies and how that will effect the industry, long term and short, as a whole. And people go to forums to discuss this and share ideas.</p>

<p>I am excited about mirrorless cameras and I love what they have done for my photography. I am excited about Sony and what they have done for mirrorless cameras. I am disappointed that I do not have great options to choose from in this market from Canon and Nikon.</p>

<p>In NO way does this mean I hate on DSLR's. But I am very interested in how the mirrorless shake up to the market will impact Canon and Nikons decisions to bring serious mirrorless cameras to the public. And this is followed up with the interest in how this will effect the long term camera gestalt if the two biggest players are forced to produce serious mirrorless offerings (and support them with quality lenses) which will vie with both their competitors camera <em>and their own DSLR models</em>.</p>

<p>My personal opinion is that this quite possibly may spell an eventual end to the DSLR's current market dominance in lieu of increasingly capable and sophisticated mirrorless/EVF cameras. This still doesn't mean I hate on DSLR's. I'm just incredibly curious almost from a future historians view on how this effect photographic gear in the years to come. But to often this view can be misunderstood by those reading my posts, either thru my inability to convey my meaning or shortcoming on the readers part who may only see my words as an attack on 'his camera'.</p>

<p>I love the history of photography gear, especially the lenses from the 60's and 70's that I shoot with. Actually, I love history in general and I tend to always view the present as simply future history. We are, in other words, living in the history of the future <em>right now</em>. And we could possibly be living through a pivotal point where one type of machine eventually supplants another and big players may not succeed as they have done in the past. Who knows?</p>

<p>I don't. But I love talking about. Which is why I post to these fora.</p>

<p>By the way, Holga bit the dust. For good. The Chinese company that owns the brand said they destroyed all the machines and molds used in the production of Holga cameras. So a sad day for toy camera aficionados and lovers of Holga.</p>

<p>But an interesting day for photographic history buffs.</p>

<p>Peter, there's a reason why posting about rumors is banned in the Nikon Forum.</p>

<p>And there's no bad info posted in this thread at all - it's not even info but speculation about and around a rumor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And there's no bad info posted in this thread at all - it's not even info but speculation about and around a rumor.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Really Dieter? Because in this thread I learned about limitations in the F mount, <em>from you Dieter</em>, that I otherwise didn't know.</p>

<p>Guys, discussions often evolve <em>way</em> beyond the scope of the original post, don't pretend like you don't know that isn't the case. These type of posts about "Well this type of discussion shouldnt be allowed anyway cause nothing is being said" generally comes when you don't have much else to add.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was very clear and specific in what I wrote Edward; I did not mention the M-mount. Nikon has the 50/1.2, 55/1.2 and the 58/1.2 Noct for the F-mount - neither has a CPU (though with difficulty, one can be fitted). Nikon's F-mount throat diameter is 44mm (same as Leica M), Canon's EOS mount has 54mm. Sony E-mount is 46mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mirrorless IL cameras are closer in form to Leica than Nikon. If Nikon wishes to be a contender in that arena, they will have to design or contract a new line of lenses for that form factor, and probably a new lens mount. Compatibility will be one-way only, using an adapter. DSLR lenses will be made as long as there are DSLRs in use, but there's no economic pressure to upgrade the DSLR mount.</p>