why mirrorless and can i use Dx lens

Hi Everyone,

 

I'm exploring the world of "mirrorless" and come up with some questions, please enlighten me with your thoughts! I shoot with 2 Nikon DX bodies and got lenses like 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 17-55mm, 80-200mm etc. From a youtube clip, I've got the idea that any Nikon lens can be mount on Nikon mirrorless with an adapter! Now my question is since these new cameras come up with large sensor in a small body, therefore, can Dx lens be mount on mirrorless? is ther any crop factor or any other issue?

 

my two other questions are, why should I buy mirrorless over Dslr? (except that overweight factor) and how good is Nikon mirrorless Z series? Please advise. Thanks in advance. Raihan.

I can't speak to the Nikon mirrorless bodies. However, I've been using another brand's mirrorless body for several years and in addition to its autofocus lenses, I am able to use all of my Nikon, Canon, Leica. Yashica (Y/C), and Tamron lenses using the proper adapters. There is a crop factor on most mirrorless bodies. One advantage of that crop factor is that some of the aberations which typically occur near the edges of images taken with those lenses on their original SLR/DSLR bodies, don't occur because the sensors are just using a smaller portion of the glass - basically the central area of the lens. Mirrorless vs DSLR - I'd say it depends on what you do with your pictures. If you're mostly using the internet, not printing the images 16x20 inches or greater, a good mirrorless body can do fine, and most have features similar to DSLRs. If you're going for large prints or exhibition prints, you might prefer a DSLR .

I know with Canon mirrorless you can mount any Canon DSLR lens on a mirrorless with an adapter so I would assume the same with Nikon

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

@SCL- i do mostly weddings, thanks to you and Brett.

Using DX lenses on the Nikon full-frame Z series cameras would be a total waste of time. The smaller image circle would effectively give you no better resolution than a 24 megapixel DX camera, and that's with the Z7. The Z6 cuts that resolution in half again.

 

However, you have at least 3 lenses that will properly cover full-frame, and those should be fully useable. Except there have been reports of inferior AF performance using adapted lenses. And of course you won't get the angle-of-view that you're used to with those lenses - it'll be much wider.

my two other questions are, why should I buy mirrorless over Dslr?

 

- Only you can answer that.

 

Will it save weight and size? Hardly, when you add in the bulk and weight of the necessary adapter.

and how good is Nikon mirrorless Z series?

 

- Ask that again in about 6 months, when enough real users, not paid reviewers, have found the bugs and positives.

 

Personally, I think you'd be crazy to trust any newly-released and relatively untried product as your income-earning tool. And even if it works out OK, the outlay on a fairly overpriced system is going to take some while to recoup.

Thanks Joe

This is the age old Nikon marketing smoke and mirrors.

 

 

Now to the question of putting a F lens onto a Z camera via the FTZ adapter.

 

First you have to know which of your lenses are FX/FF and which are DX.

The FX lenses have a larger image circle which will cover the Z sensor.

The DX lens has a smaller image circle that will NOT cover the entire Z sensor. You have to use DX lenses in DX mode.

As for your lenses:

This only addresses coverage of the Z sensor.

To me it makes no sense to use a DX lens on a Z camera in DX mode. You should be using all FX or Z lenses, so you can operate in FX mode.

 

The other thing is lens coupling and autofocus.

The FTZ adapter will only autofocus with an AF-S lens.

Main advantage of mirrorless camera is in their emplementation of video, you always in life view mode unlike DSLR, otherwise it is pretty much the same. It is a bit lighter if you use native lens, with adaptive lens weight difference insignificant and autofocus ability is limited. I am using Sony A72 and Nikon DSLR's.

Mirrorless cameras have many advantages over DSLRs, besides size and weight.

• Precise auto focus - the sensors are in the image plane
  
• Precise auto exposure - the sensors are in the image plane
  
• Augmented manual focus - peaking (so-so) and digital magnification
  
• Quiet operation - no mirror to make noise, quiet or even silent (electronic) shutter operation
  
• Continual live view - both eye level and rear display
  
• Bright finder at all ambient light levels
  
• High resolution - even 24 MP is more than most DSLRs possess.
  
• Face recognition (for both AF and AE)
  
• Eye focusing
  

Where mirrorless suffers is in battery life, due to the small available space and high overhead of the finder. That said, the new Sony battery is twice as large as the old version, and the cameras take 40% less power. I routinely get 8 hours or more and over 600 single frames ( potentially thousands if shot at 20 fps).

• DSLRs wake up faster, almost instantly for a Nikon, but up to 1 second for a Sony A9. The work-around is to activate the camera as you raise it to eye level.
  
• There are more long prime lenses for DSLRs (300 mm and up), important for sports and nature photography.
  
• DSLRs have less apparent blackout when shooting (the Sony A9 excepted).
  
• Better weather-proofing
  

Comments on the above list. Quite a few DSLRs have resolutions >24MP (Canon 6DII, 5DIV, 5Ds, Nikon D850 etc). Precise auto exposure-can't see any difference here between the systems. DSLRs also have "continuous live view" via the optical viewfinder, but it is not called a fancy name. I do not find face recognition or eye focusing that earth shattering - OK if there is a single subject in the frame, but otherwise I don't find them very useful. Many DSLRs have "quiet mode"- admittedly not as silent as a full electronic shutter, but perfectly OK. An advantage of mirrorless over a DSLR is the nearly 100% frame AF coverage.

 

The slow start up time and difficulty shooting at fast frame rates are the main issues with mirrorless, as is the poor battery life. But obviously this is where the market is going. The weight issue is not such a big deal. The cameras are smaller, but the system as a whole is not, unless you go for a smaller format (APS, m43) which is certainly worth thinking about.

DSLRs also have "continuous live view" via the optical viewfinder,

• DSLR's which have live view (from the sensor) distinguish it from conventional view through the optical finder.
  
• Flagship DSLR's still hover at about 20 MP. Nikon and Canon have conceded to market demands with ~50 MP sensors in the D850 and 5Ds, but without lenses to match.
  
• Face recognition is very useful when shooting live events in the presence of distracting elements (microphones, furniture) which are closer than the subject
  
• Eye focus is extremely useful for portraits. For some reason, it will track a bee in flight around flowers ;)
  
• "Silent" mode for a DSLR means slower winding - less noise (maybe) for a longer time. "Silent" for a mirrorless camera means silent. The aperture is the loudest thing you hear. Even AF is quiet, nearly silent compared to the click and whir of AF-S
  
• If you think fast frame rates are a problem with mirrorless, you haven't tried a Sony A9 at 20 fps, with tracking that follows a subject off screen then recovers when it reappears. If tracking has a fault, it is being too "sticky" in the A9. Even the A7Riii is no slacker, at 12 fps at 42 MP per frame.
  
• A 400/2.8, or even a 70-200/4 on a MILC is a lens with an attached camera. A Sony with a Loxia lens is Leica-sized, but quieter, with an accurate viewfinder. It's even smaller than the F3, which is pretty small to begin with.
  

I hear that SLR's have been banned from the Oval Office in favor of MILC's because of the distracting noise. That may become the standard for official newsers, if not photo ops.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

DSLR's which have live view (from the sensor) distinguish it from conventional view through the optical finder.

 

Yes, but you are still seeing the image in real time and without the need for battery power

 

Face recognition is very useful when shooting live events in the presence of distracting elements (microphones, furniture) which are closer than the subject

 

True but not an earth shattering development. What happens when there are a lot of faces?

 

"Silent" mode for a DSLR means slower winding - less noise (maybe) for a longer time. "Silent" for a mirrorless camera means silent. The aperture is the loudest thing you hear. Even AF is quiet, nearly silent compared to the click and whir of AF-S

 

I never commented about the Sony A9: that is indeed the exception, but currently it is the only exception. Even with a cheap DSLR you get good rapid shooting.

 

A Sony with a Loxia lens is Leica-sized, but quieter, with an accurate viewfinder. It's even smaller than the F3, which is pretty small to begin with.

 

You are cherry picking an expensive prime manual focus lenses to represent the whole class of lenses. Overall the differences are not great in my opinion. The bodies are smaller, but the lenses in general are not.

Yes, but you are still seeing the image in real time and without the need for battery power

None of the DSLR manufacturers conflate "Live View" in the manner you suggest. The EFV updates at 120 fps, and there is no flicker or blackout if the shutter speed is 1/125 or faster.

True but not an earth shattering development. What happens when there are a lot of faces?

You can use the joy stick, 4-way, or simply touch the screen to select the face on which you want to focus. You can also use a head shot to designate specific faces, which will be automatically selected in preference to faces in general.

I never commented about the Sony A9: that is indeed the exception, but currently it is the only exception. Even with a cheap DSLR you get good rapid shooting.

Tracking is as good in the A7iii and A7Riii as in the A9. They're just not as fast in continuous shooting. Canikon flagship DSLR's top out at 12 fps, the same as the Sony A7Riii.

You are cherry picking an expensive prime manual focus lenses to represent the whole class of lenses. Overall the differences are not great in my opinion. The bodies are smaller, but the lenses in general are not.

They're far cheaper than Leica lenses. There are several small kit lenses for Sony too, but AF, focus-by-wire, and lesser build quality. If you want Leica image quality and handling on a Sony, then Loxia lenses are a bargain.

 

Look! I think all mirrorless cameras are headed in the same direction. I'm most familiar with Sony cameras, so I use them as examples. It will take Nikon and Canon time to catch up, but Sony won't stand still in the meantime.