Are you staying with dSLR's? No mirrorless?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by mark_stephan|2, Aug 6, 2019.

  1. You misunderstand!

    Nikon deliberately made it so if you mounted, say, the Nikon 200-500mm, to the j5 (via the FT-1) it would show an 'error' message saying you can't use this lens.

    The theory was it prevented legal claims that fitting eg. a 600mm f4 and picking up the combo via the J5 body, broke the body mount. No kidding! The J5 is no bigger than a back-cap really!

    I wondered if, as the PF is much smaller and lighter, it's 'allowed'?

    They had a 'disallowed' list somewhere, but I can't seem to find an updated version!
  2. OK, no need to yell. Sorry I didn't know you were asking a tricky question. Since no no one responded, thought I was just helping out. :(
  3. According to Nikon USA, this 500mm f/5.6E PF lens can be used on the N1 J5. (See link - - Scroll down to the bottom of the page belowr "Technology"). Hope this is the appropriate answer?
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
    mike_halliwell likes this.
  4. Sorry Mary, I thought BLOCK CAPITALS were shouting...:confused:

    Thank you, that's the link I was after. I couldn't seem to find it on Nikon Europe.
    Mary Doo likes this.
  5. You make it sound so tempting. :) That's the problem - they're not worth much money, but I do have a couple of lenses for mine, an F mount adaptor that I've used, and a case and so on. So it's value to me is marginally more than I can imagine it being reasonably worth to someone else. Plus the recent announcement of a 4mm extreme fish-eye (210 degrees) is mildly interesting.

    But it's 12MP of pretty ancient sensor tech on a relatively large body. It was at the balance point of having relatively complete physical controls and also a touchscreen, but we've got back there with the latest generations. It's not much of an aspirational body. It'll just about fit in a large coat pocket with the 14-42PZ on it, but the RX100 will take better photos in less space.
  6. At the risk of not knowing what I'm talking about, I would expect a 1.25" eyepiece to vignette on a full-frame sensor - fortunately there's also a 2" standard for larger scopes, but obviously crop sensor systems won't have this problem. The problem I've met instead is that some scopes don't have much slack in the focusser, such that the flange distance of the F mount can cause a problem - something that mirrorless bodies suffer less from. IIRC I'm just about okay on my Skywatcher, but there isn't much slack.

    It's often easier to focus (and position) a scope by live view than with an optical finder - you want pixel-perfect sharpness anyway. So arguably a dSLR doesn't have much of an advantage, although I'm not sure an EVF is much better than the rear screen except when it comes to not blinding other photographers; you're moving the camera to track and focus, so the head position moves.

    Having the sensor completely open to the sky for extended periods is a little unappealing to me; mirrorless bodies tend to be a little easier to sensor clean afterwards, but even so. I've been tempted to stick a teleconverter in the way just to block dust. I do, fortunately, have a light pollution reduction filter that screws into the end of the eyepiece, and also blocks dust.

    I long ago decided that a big tracking scope was going to be a lot of money and effort to produce images a lot worse than Hubble, especially since I have so much light pollution. A Dobsonian is a lot of light gathering for optical astronomy (there's something to be said for seeing things yourself) per unit money, although it would help if I were better at navigating the night sky. More light gathering, be it via a larger aperture or longer exposure, doesn't help me much for astrophotography: I just saturate the sensor with light pollution, even with a filter (and I'm interested in deep sky objects, so star clusters hold limited interest). A relatively small lens (300/4, may yet try my 200-500) on a cheap tracker is about as far as I'm prepared to go, and I've not even processed those images yet. For those who enjoy the processing and don't live under large amounts of urban light pollution, more dedicated set ups are, I'm sure, more rewarding. Planetary photography is a bit more amenable to street lighting, although I believe many use a web cam to capture a lot of images and try to eliminate atmospheric disturbance.
  7. I intend to use the 17mm on it.
  8. I suspect a Coolpix A will take better photos in less space, although it's still not exactly tiny. :) (Update, Nikon?) They don't look expensive on eBay, though.
  9. Quality? Not as important as I think the GF2 was still made in Japan.
  10. I've not used by GF2 for a little while, but if you mean construction, the GF2 and Coolpix both seem fairly robust; if anything, the Coolpix A has a little more wobble in its buttons, but they're solid (as is my RX100). I'm surprised to see DPReview complain about the clickable dials in the GFX-100; I really like the GF2's version (being used to it, I guess, from my old Sony-Ericsson P800) to the extent that I'd like Nikon to adopt it (with two dials), at least as an option: you'd be able to adjust exposure and ISO without having to take a finger off the shutter. I don't really know how Nikon have forgotten the goal of "always being ready to shoot while adjusting exposure controls" from the F5 period.

    Image quality: the Coolpix has the sensor from the D7000, IIRC - and that sensor was the point where Sony sensors started being isoless, so base dynamic range is very good. It's been a while since I edited a GF2 image, but dpreview used words like "venerable" even when it was launched, so I wouldn't expect much. I've not pushed the lens of the Coolpix far - I usually tend to use it stopped down a bit anyway for street shooting, although it's at least "okay" wide open. The 14-42PZ isn't all that special; the 20mm prime isn't all that hot wide open either. I've not tried a 17mm, but reviews I think prefer the 20mm?

    Online reviews will probably be better than my hazy memories, though. When I want to use the GF2, it's nice to have - but if it were my go-to body I wouldn't be lurking in the Nikon forum.
  11. I shoot film and digital so I like camera systems that make that sandbox easy to play in. That being said, I have found Nikon mirrorless cameras to be outstanding in terms of producing great images and especially the Z lenses, just spectacular. I have one D850, two Z6 and one Z7 body, the 850 will likely be my last DSLR.
    Fiddlefye likes this.
  12. Regarding OP's question, I have no plans for mirrorless, as much as I might enjoy such a system. I am just now in the process of upgrading from a D40(!) to a D7100, allowing me to more effortlessly use my manual focus lenses and my one AF-D lens. The AF-D lens came free with an N90s, which I'm also enjoying.

    Moving from early 2000s technology to 2013 technology will give me much better low light, flashless capability, at half the cost of my original D40 purchase.
    Andrew Garrard likes this.
  13. The only think tempting me to go Nikon FX mirrorless at the moment is 'in body VR' for my non-VR long teles.

    However, I guess they will (could!) build this into the next high-end DSLR?

    ...along with pixel-shift too.
  14. Pixel shift I'd like. It wouldn't hurt to have in-body VR, although it obviously won't help the viewfinder view unless something weird is done with the mirror. I assume Nikon are now over the "it makes the sensor too fragile for cleaning" thing? All the mirrorless stuff is still useful for live view (and therefore video) shooting on a dSLR, it's just whether you have the OVF there as well. And I'd still like an optional additional focus confirmation pass once the mirror lifts (admittedly, this probably means the aperture has stopped down); currently that would be contrast-detect, but I miss enough with f/1.4 glass that a final correction would be helpful. I have mild eye-detect envy, but I don't do enough portraiture for it to be limiting.

    They need to fix the buffer (easy) and viewfinder black-out (slightly harder, at least the metering got IIRC fixed) before I don't feel I can track wildlife better with the D850, though - at least with the grip. Plus I have screwdriver lenses. Only a couple, but still.
  15. I still shoot the D800E--a lot--but once in a while I want something lighter and so use my D7100 with a DX 17-55 f/2.8 or occasionally one of the 70-200 VR variants, or something else. I still have the D3s but have not shot it in a long time.

    I have bought a lot of used things out of curiosity and tend to use them for specific applications. I shoot on the fly with my phone a good bit (Google Pixel 2), but I also have a Sony A6000 (mirrorless) as well as an Olympus OM-D E-M5 (mirrorless), which I shoot solely when I want to hike in the mountains and use it with a Panasonic 100-300mm so that I can have up to 600mm (effectively) in a very light package. I also have an old beater Canon 6D for low light, and I tend to keep a beater EF 24-70 f/2.8 on it expressly for that purpose. With such an array, I see no particular reason to put more money into mirrorless.

    So, I have a lot of rigs for specialized applications, but the old D800E is pretty much what I grab before I go out the door. At seventy-four, I expect what I have will outlive me. I really am not interested in learning another system at this point. If all of the above sounds like an indulgence, well, it has been an indulgence, but I think that the D800E was about the last big thing I bought new--back in October, 2012. It's all been fun, and it still is. My Nikon stuff (except for the D3s) all runs off the same model battery and charger--I'm not totally indifferent to the virtue of simplicity, in spite of the varied collection which I have

    I have yet to try to sell any photos. I'm saving that for my old age.

    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
    Andrew Garrard likes this.
  16. Well, after really analyzing my needs, mirrorless was the way to go. I love my Z6!
  17. I finally have a set of lenses for my D750 that I love, so now's the time to switch!

    Just kidding, I'm hoping to add a Z6 sometime before summer, but IDK if I can actually do it financially. We are going on a night photography workshop, and I'd like to have two bodies, one set up to do star trails, and one set up to do whatever else I want at the same time. I'll probably end up renting something, but the Z6 gets good reviews as an astrolandscape camera. I'm sure as soon as I buy it they'll release the next gen....;)

    I used to have a Fuji X100T(i think that's the right number!) that had a fixed lens, I used it as my "purse camera" when traveling for work. I liked it, but the focus was sometimes tricky and I often wished for something that small that had interchangeable lenses. So I sold it and was going to buy something else, but then we bought/sold/moved house and I never got around to replacing it. Plus the Z6 came out at that time, so I wanted to wait and see what that was going to be like. Still haven't really done anything other than hold the Z6 and love the size.
    Albin''s images likes this.
  18. I rarely do actual paying photo work, but found a shoot that took about half the sting out of it. Otherwise there was no possible way.
    andylynn and yardkat like this.
  19. I believe this topics has been discussed so many times, so once more I give my 2c opinion. Though I love all kinds of cameras including the Argus C3, I would not buy a MILC camera because I consider them as "lesser" cameras. Without a mirror and a prism, they don't have a View Finder. Of course they have EVF, in spite of their names, EVF is not a View Finder. I see these EVF are very useful but only to see quick (or very quick) review of the result instead of allowing the user to "view" the scene. These are two different things. I have not known (let me know if you know such a MILC camera that is not really really expensive) any EVF that gives what is close to (forget about exactly the same or very close to) the scenes as I see with my own eyes (maybe because they don't know anything about my eyes at the time I use the camera). For example, it may show a bright scene while I see the scene is dark and vice versa.
  20. The EVF shows the scene as the camera sees it, with processing applied. Useful if you want to visualize the output but not an eye view. But neither is the view in a DSLR finder - that’s through the lens.

    If you want an optical finder there’s always the X-Pro2...

Share This Page