Mirrorless fans...

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by fotolopithecus, Jun 13, 2016.

  1. There seems to be some fairly good evidence that Nikon is producing a full frame, and DX mirror-less camera based on patents, and supposedly reliable sources. I've wondered in the past why they've not, but it seems they might quite soon. Who's excited?
     
  2. Well I've got a lot of Nikon glass, so if everything from pre-AI to G-AFS lenses will mount I'll be very interested. But it also depends on the spec and handling of the bodies.
     
  3. 'Excited' is putting it a bit too strongly, but it would be good to have another player in the mirrorless arena: it will renew consumer interest and possibly stimulate technological progress.
     
  4. A pro-quality mirrorless camera will erode Nikon's DSLR market in the near term. In the long term, it is necessary as a matter of survival. "Long term" probably means 5 years or less. I suspect there's a war going on between Nikon corporate and division leadership as we speak. If you think giants can't fall, remember Graphlex, Rollei and Minolta. Leica is barely holding on.
    A complete offering would require lenses specifically for the mirrorless platform, fully-integrated, smaller and sharper, to remain competitive. It is simple enough to adapt Nikon SLR lenses to a mirrorless body, even with full AF and diaphragm control. A native mount would make conversion easier, but does not give Nikon an edge in a market already packed with capable cameras.
     
  5. The existence of patents doesn't automatically means that new products will see the light. It means that Nikon is technically able to produce something new, but it says nothing about the price and profitability of the supposed new products.

    But let's assume that Nikon is really heading there... Too late for me. I've completely replaced my Nikon stuff with Sony. They lost a customer with almost 15 years of fidelity.
     
  6. I agree with Fabrizio. In fact, the Sony A7R has been my favorite camera that I have ever owned so far and I just returned from a 2 week trip around southern Utah and Yellowstone. What a difference in the weight of my camera gear especially when doing some of the more challenging hikes like Angels Landing in Zion.
     
  7. Maybe my absence of wealth is linmiting the excitement for now. - Its also questionable if Nikon will ditch the policy of funneling serious users into their DSLR systems by simply cheaping out on MILC user interfaces. - Take the EOS M or the Nikon 1 series as examples.
    Consumer bodies with one wheel + shift button for settings not burried deep in their menus have always been cheap but in many cases annoying enough to convince folks to want a two wheeled enthusiats model. - Would Nikon really offer the latter as a MILC?
     
  8. Leica is barely holding on.​
    That is probably true, Edward, but it is not unique to Leica history or that of others (Topcon, Konica, original Zeiss and Voigtlander, Epson digital, and others who have fallen by the wayside), . When Leica sacked the M4, CL and M5 cameras in the mid seventies, they almost gave up the RF (classical mirrorless) market, but the head of Leitz Canada (then 25 years in business) and Mandler convinced the mandarins in Wetzlar to remodel the M4 as the M4-2 and make it in Midland (that hads made some screw mount and M bodies before) and thus saved that lineage. Today, Leica is probably most interested in its lens production.

    I would question Nikon and Canon going seriously into the mirrorless full frame market. FF mirrorless lenses are not that much smaller than FF DSLRs so the savings in weight and bulk are not all that significant. Of course, a continued rush future to mirrorless FF may change that.
     
  9. so the savings in weight and bulk are not all that significant.​
    That's true, but I'm not sure is relevant. I mean: I was an APS-C Nikon shooter, I turned into an APS-C Sony shooter. Up to 70mm the weight saving is relevant and that's why I switched (I carefully computed the weight and size of many possible combinations of camera + lens, including other systems such as Fuji or m43 before switching). Up to 200mm is not relevant; longer than 200mm there's no weight saving (but I extended my range from 300/500mm - with teleconverter - to 600mm). So, yes, for me bulk and weight were relevant.

    But I'm seeing a lot of people moving to Sony full frame and using expensive glass even at shorter focals, and in the end those combos are not much lighter than the equivalent DSLR system. So I presume that people is appreciating other features, such as the EVF. Actually I like the EVF a lot - in the beginning I considered it a side-effect that I had to accept for going lighter, but I appreciated it so much that for several months in which I still had the Nikon body operational with the 300mm, that I hadn't replaced yet, I found myself really unwilling to use it because of the OVF. Also, the EVF enabled me to comfortably work with manual focusing, which had been always a problem for me with the OVF.​
     
  10. by "evidence," do you mean unconfirmed rumors? a patent is a long way from full production. let's look at what nikon has done in the past year or so:
    • introduced a prosumer DX body and a pro sports FX body
    • introduced a 1" line of compacts with iterated fixed lenses
    • apparently discontinued the Nikon 1.
    Nikon has already whiffed, pretty much, with its two forays into mirrorless--the Nikon 1 ILCs and the Coolpix A. it has just introduced a new line, the DL, based around the 1" sensor, which competes directly with Canon GX__ and Sony RX100. No doubt the company is waiting to see how those high-end compacts do, sales-wise. That said, they could plug up some of the mirrorless leakers by putting out just a few more higher-end DX lenses. As tempting as the XPro2 body is, it's still not as performance-oriented as the D500, and the pricing is comparable.
    to answer the question, the possibility of a FF mirrorless from nikon in and of itself isn't necessarily exciting. as others pointed out, a new lens mount could undercut both of their established formats (DX and FX), while an FX mirrorless using F-mount wouldn't necessarily shave weight and size. A new mount also doesn't make a whole lot of sense as it would impact F-mount lens sales. A DX mirrorless ILC could be a little smaller than FX, but would undercut their current DX DSLRs. It could be cool to see a modular MILC set-up, or fixed-lens compacts at various focal lengths, but Nikon already tried that with the Coolpix A (which wasnt a terrible camera, just overpriced for what it was). Production costs may eventually make mirrorless ILCs a fair accompli for nikon, but i dont think that will happen until DSLRs lose more market share than they currently have.
     
  11. Well what I read, and I don't remember where it was, but that the two new cameras were confirmed, and would likely show up at Photokina this year. The lenses are suppose to be completely new, and if I remember correctly older dslr lenses would not be compatible. In other words a whole new line of lenses, with two competing types of cameras within Nikon. Isn't that more or less what Sony is doing. In any event don't hold your breath because I'm not sure how reliable the info is, but I just remember thinking it sounded pretty credible when I read it.
     
  12. what I read, and I don't remember where it was...
    don't hold your breath because I'm not sure how reliable the info​

    without a link, this is just hearsay of hearsay. i suppose anything's possible, but again, Nikon has not been successful thus far with mirrorless, and would likely take from their own sales if they did launch a FFMILC line. It's also possible that Nikon will reboot the Nikon 1 line as the DL series, with 1" sensors and interchangeable lenses. The reason i am skeptical is because mirrorless bodies dont currently outsell DSLRs. Not being able to use F-mount lenses might make new bodies less attractive to longtime Nikon users, if anything.
    Isn't that more or less what Sony is doing.​
    Sony's approach has been described as throwing gum on the wall to see what sticks. They have a APS-C and a FF DSLR line, two series built around the 1" sensor, mirrorless APS-C, and FF mirrorless. What they dont really have is 10s of millions of lenses already out there in the wild.
     
  13. What they dont really have is 10s of millions of lenses already out there in the wild.​
    That means absolutely nothing to most photographers who can get by extremely well with 3, 4 or 5 well chosen focal lengths. Add to the mostly very good Sony optics those made by Zeiss for Sony and I don't think too many serious photographers will complain. Not this one. I would recommend to Nikon and Canon to stay with their DSLRs, their bread and butter, unless the market demand for FF mirrorless becomes too great to resist, as they have done for so long.
     
  14. I would question Nikon and Canon going seriously into the mirrorless full frame market. FF mirrorless lenses are not that much smaller than FF DSLRs so the savings in weight and bulk are not all that significant. Of course, a continued rush future to mirrorless FF may change that.​
    The mantra of size and weight pervades the arguments for and, oddly, against the mirrorless revolution. It is amusing to hear from DSLR devotees that mirrorless cameras MUST be small to be of value. To some extent downsizing was why I ventured into the world of digital Leica, hence to a Sony A7ii and A7Rii. As a benefit, I could use Leica lenses, subsequently Nikon lenses I had accumulated over the years. That was a brief transition, thanks to the gradual introduction of truly world-class native lenses by Zeiss and Sony. I came for the size, but stayed for the quality and other features. Fabrizio summed it up rather nicely.

    It is unlikely that a mirrorless pro-grade Nikon would ever approach the size of a single-digit "D" body. There's no need for that in the absence of an obligatory moving mirror. Something a little more beefy for tossing around f/2.8 zoom lenses, drip-proof, with space for dual cards, a larger high-eyepoint EVF and a full-time vertical grip, oh yeah. The Leica SL601 set the trend in that direction.

    Sony is clearly aiming for the high-end, full-frame market, and that piece of gum is sticking.
     
  15. Leica is barely holding on​
    Are you sure of that? It seems that they can barely keep up with demands for their products, no matter how ridiculously high they're priced. What's your evidence for this? According to a 2015 WSJ article http://www.wsj.com/articles/camera-maker-leica-survives-the-digital-shift-1426295228, Leica has been profitable since 2011 and profits have been increasing. Described as a Niche product in the digital market and seemingly doing quite well.
     
  16. In the decade or so including the 60's, Leica was probably the choice of half the photojournalists, at least as popular as the Nikon F. It was my choice in that golden era, and I have no regrets. Now it constitutes a tiny fraction of its former market share. I still have a profound attachment to their products, and am glad to hear they are financially sound, but Leica cannot be considered an industry leader. An acquired taste would be more descriptive, along with vinyl records and shaving mugs.
     
  17. I agree with Barry, Leica are doing quite well financially, but of course they are indeed now high-end niche products, when they were once just high end. So far I have yet to appreciate the tremendous advantages of mirrorless cameras over a good DSLR, apart from smaller size for APS/DX m4/3 types. I remember the days when SLRs were the same size as the Sony A7s of today, and yet small size became unfashionable and cameras trended to the size we saw in the late 1980s and 1990s and have stayed similar ever since. Miniaturization as a principle of good design seems to have come back into vogue - at least as a marketing-led aspiration, even if not in reality.
     
  18. That means absolutely nothing to most photographers who can get by extremely well with 3, 4 or 5 well chosen focal lengths. Add to the mostly very good Sony optics those made by Zeiss for Sony and I don't think too many serious photographers will complain.​
    i think you're kind of missing the point. Sony being untethered to a legacy mount (other than the old Minolta A) means they can design new mounts like E and FE. The same goes for Fuji. Conversely, Nikon and Canon dont quite have the same leeway. They've been pretty reluctant to dip their feet in the mirrorless waters, and both the EOS-M and Nikon 1 lines have been underwhelming, possibly for this reason. The other thing is that if you've spent 20 or 30 years investing in lenses, switching systems may not be something you really want to do. If an adaptor develops which allows full functionality, including AF, with Nikon lenses on Sony A7-series bodies, then you could just buy a new body without having to replace all your lenses -- which may not be completely possible, in the case of exotics, tilt/shift, and the like.
    It is amusing to hear from DSLR devotees that mirrorless cameras MUST be small to be of value​
    im not sure anyone's actually saying this, and i also think rendering this statement as an absolute also misses the point. Value is a pretty subjective quality, but there is no denying that, at least initially, mirrorless was marketed as a smaller, lighter alternative to DSLRs. That's certainly the approach that m4/3 manufacturers have taken (as well as Sony NEX), and its resulted in a mirrorless ethos with varying degrees of success. That's changed a bit over time, as the industry-wide drop in camera volume sales has pushed camera makers to push higher-value products to compensate -- forcing mirrorless to compete directly with DSLRs at various price points.

    At this point, however, with a range of sensor and body sizes, not all mirrorless cameras fit the small/light ethos, and the physics of designing full frame lenses, as well as telephotos and pro-spec zooms for APS-C mirrorless, means there may not be considerable weight/size savings with some systems. Certainly, the idea of a 5-lb kit with comparable functionality to a 20-lb kit has a lot of appeal, but comparable doesnt mean completely equivalent across the board. There are still things that DSLRs do better than mirrorless bodies, as well as things some mirrorless bodies can do that DSLRs can't. With the latest generation of mirrorless cameras, the gap is closing, but then we haven't seen an end to innovation in DSLRs, either. if you look at the Fuji XPro2 and the Nikon D500, both have comparable price points and high-end features, and a nice selection of available lenses. But if you're choosing based on performance metrics, the D500 is clearly superior for action shooting and AF, while the Fuji might win out on pure image quality, and maybe on haptics as well. There are more lenses available for Nikon mount, but Fuji makes some lenses for APS-C that Nikon doesn't, like the 16/1.4. Ultimately, the plethora of choices is both a good and a bad thing. It's definitely a buyers market right now, but there may be too many choices out there.
     
  19. Why not look at Sigma as an example? - They did the "unthinkable": After failing to sell their Foveon sensors in DSLRs; they took that mount and stuffed the latest Foveon into an all new MILC.
    I wouldn't know whats wrong about Nikon trying the same. - Maybe they could create something between Olympus' MFT SLR lookalikes and a Leica SL with insanely high resolution EVF? - It could become a nice umpteenth body, maybe dedicated to shooting even pre-AI lenses in the bag. - Or how about a WLF MILC with rotating back for tall people?
    There seem enough options to add into their current system, without becoming their own competition.
     
  20. . . . but Leica cannot be considered an industry leader. An acquired taste would be more descriptive, along with vinyl records and shaving mugs.​
    Vinyl records are making a comeback :) Yeah, you're right, but a lot good photographers still buy or covet those cameras.
     
  21. One thing I would think makes Mirror-less ultimately attractive to Nikon is just that the manufacturing of the cameras would be simplified with no mirror mechanism. When you think about it in historical terms the DSLR starts to look like a bit of a Rube Goldberg machine. Although it's a beautiful dinosaur the DSLR is still a Dinosaur in the long run.
     
  22. Nikon is good at making cameras and not so good at making sensors so I would think they want to make more mechanically complex cameras.
     
  23. There seem enough options to add into their current system, without becoming their own competition.​
    That's been Nikon's (and Canon's) strategy to date - mirrorless cameras which don't compete with their DSLR cameras. Unfortunately their competition is going for the jugular. Doing the same thing, time after time, is not a viable survival strategy.
     
  24. Thom Hogan has a recent article outlining what he believes to be the strategies and goals of the major camera companies. He expects Canon to do a mirrorless, Nikon maybe stick with the DL.
    http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-differing-goals-of.html
     
  25. Thom Hogan has a recent article outlining what he believes to be the strategies and goals of the major camera companies.​
    every now and then, Thom delivers a spot-on analysis. this is one of those articles. Kinda feel sorry for Pentax here ("Pentax makes some fine products with unique features. But their iteration tends to be just a step slow, so they often end up being the last DSLR maker to achieve something (e.g. high pixel counts), and in terms of market share, they’re essentially ignorable. Meanwhile, they’re a step behind on some basics, such as autofocus performance. That doesn’t make their products bad, it just makes them tough sells in a declining market. "), but i can't disagree, despite all the fanboi chattering about the K-1.

    As far as Nikon jumping into mirrorless with two new cameras with new lens mounts this year, he doesn't see that, and neither do i. it could happen, i suppose, but recent history (Coolpix A, Nikon 1, Df) suggests it probably wont, at least not anytime soon. It makes much more sense for Canon to do that, given their market position and resources. i'll bet Nikon will be closely watching, because the trick for the Big Two, is how do you introduce new product lines without cannibalizing existing sales in an overall-declining market? I'm not sure how Nikon could drop not one but two new mirrorless lines without eating away at their DSLR market share, which is still considerable, if not robust. It would make more sense for them to strongly push their 1" sensor DL lines as competitors to the other 1" sensor offerings from Panasonic, Sony and Canon, and to offer some new DX lenses specced to match the D500. We might see a D820 or D900 as well, come Photokina time
     
  26. FF mirrorless lenses are not that much smaller than FF DSLRs so the savings in weight and bulk are not all that significant.​
    If you compare the flagship Nikon DSLRs with the top-of-the-line Sony A7Rii (or A7ii), there us a substantial difference in size and weight

    Nikon D2h v Sony A7Rii - Front
    [​IMG]

    One of my all time favorite Nikons is the F3, which is the same size as the original F with some refinements, including a token hand grip. It is actually smaller than a Leica M9 (which is the same as an M3, only 1/8" thicker), which in turn is the same size as a Sony A7Rii. While not "compact" or pocketable in the modern sense, I think we can all agree that the Leica M, Nikon F3 and Sony A7Rii are relatively small and easily handled. Zoom lenses, especially of the f/2.8 variety, are going to be large regardless of the application. That's why I used prime lenses in these comparisons. Leica is by far the most compact, while the Nikon and Sony/Zeiss lenses are similar in size but larger. (The 55/2.8 Micro is about 1/2" longer than my Nikon 50/1.4, which seems to be in hiding at present).

    This post is just for fun and (possibly) reference, when we start reminiscing about the good-old days of small cameras. Of course there are other reasons to buy a Leica over an F3, such as shutter noise. The F3 reminds me of a loose rail at a train crossing when it goes off. Things are better now.
    You can see the complete set of these comparisons in my portfolio "Camera Sizes" (http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1091803). I will probably add to this folder from time to time.


    Nikon F3 v Sony A7Rii
    [​IMG]

    The 50 mm Nikon lens (55/2.8 Micro) is about the same size as a Zeiss Loxia 50/2 for the Sony, until you add the mirror box

    Nikon F3 v Sony A7Rii - top view
    [​IMG]

    Sony A7Rii v Leica M9 v Leica M3
    [​IMG]
     
  27. If I buy a mirrorless it would be a view camera as I think mirrorless technology is needed in a view camera and not as replacement for a DSLR.
     
  28. Sinar makes a reflex (mirror) attachment for a 4"x5" back which some people find quite handy, especially if the camera is used at waist level or below. It also eliminates the need for a darkcloth when used outside, and a loupe for focusing.
    My Sinar weighs 8.5 pounds and folds to a compact 15" x 8" x 4", perfect for travel and street ;) It remains mirrorless, however.
     
  29. If you compare the flagship Nikon DSLRs with the top-of-the-line Sony A7Rii (or A7ii), there us a substantial difference in size and weight
    the comment was about full frame lenses, not bodies. in any event a D2H isn't a full-frame camera, so i'm not sure why we need a picture of it. and the lenses are similarly-sized, anyway. what happens when we compare a Leica SL + 24-90 to a Nikon d600 +24-85? or a Sony 70-200/2.8 GM with a Canon 70-200/2.8 USM?
     
  30. Perhaps a better launching point would have been a quote from Robin Smith...
    I remember the days when SLRs were the same size as the Sony A7s of today, and yet small size became unfashionable and cameras trended to the size we saw in the late 1980s and 1990s and have stayed similar ever since.​
    There are only minor differences in size and weight between my D3, which is currently unavailable (in my son's possession), and the D2H. I stipulated that f/2.8 zoom lenses are large, whether for mirrorless or SLR cameras. Why you need to reiterate the obvious is, well, typically "Eric." Parse-quibble-parse-quibble. You manage to turn every discourse into a p...g match.
    I don't disguise the fact that prime lens size is similar between Sony and Nikon, but the Sony/Zeiss/Leica lenses are much more sophisticated. Nikon's forte for most of this millennium has been hulking, f/2.8 zoom lenses, well adapted to cameras with 6 to 20 MP sensors and bodies the size of dinner plates. I can only illustrate the cameras I own, which agree with Robin's observation. If you want to see a more comprehensive set of comparisons, I invite you to peruse this link from Steve Huff's website.
    http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/08/18/camera-size-sony-a7rii-size-compared/
     
  31. even if we swap the new D5 for the D2h, that comparison with the A7RII seems highly inequivalent. Im not sure who would consider the two bodies equivalent in terms of features and performance, since the D5 is a $6500 sports camera, and the Sony is a $3000 landscape/portrait camera. A more apt comparison would be the D810, but that body doesnt have an integrated vertical grip. There are some size/weight savings vs. Nikon's FF line, but i dont think they need to be exaggerated by making misleading comparisons.
     
  32. The comparison was to illustrate a top of the line Nikon v top of the line Sony. The imbalance is indeed evident, but I digress. The bulk of my post was to reinforce the comparison between Sony, Leica, and the original Nikons, which shows, in effect, how we are returning to our origins. I had forgotten just how petite the F3 was. I do remember finding ways to balance the back of an F, which removed completely for loading. Hiding the battery and memory card under the base plate of the M9 is about as much tradition as I care to manage. At least it fits in a shirt pocket.
     
  33. On close examination of this illustration, the Nikon D810 is reproduced at a smaller scale than the Sony, as evident in the sensor size and lens mount. You would have no difficulty telling them apart in the dark ;)
    While not as slick, my illustrations were photographed side by side.
     
  34. Wasn't too long ago, the conversation was all about getting camera's to lose weight. Well, now we have light, compact, well built, portable, go anywhere camera's at our disposal, and the price tags found reason compared to that high priced character, and they take great pictures, sharp, nice color fidelity and again built well. For awhile there mechanical build was limited to just a couple of manufacturers. As a new XT-1 owner, operator, I can willingly admit, I'm happy! The threads sent the call and we got the goods, be Happy!
     
  35. The bulk of my post was to reinforce the comparison between Sony, Leica, and the original Nikons, which shows, in effect, how we are returning to our origins.​
    are we? i dont know about that. certainly the retro trend has been in effect since the X100 and digital PEN models landed, but it would be difficult to mistake the Sony bodies as anything other than the latest technology in a compact package. The Nikon Df was supposed to be a return to the FM3A days, but the Leica SL and some of the recent Panasonics have gone away from the smaller ethos. Lenses are creeping up in size, too. I think Don's point is well-taken, that the current market is saturated with choices for just about anyone.
     
  36. Some choices matter more than others. The differences between SLR and mirrorless technology are revolutionary, not incremental.
    For starters, the Nikon D5 has phenomenal focusing accuracy and speed. However they have added an automatic fine tuning mechanism for focusing. That's like getting a side reaction from a drug, and having the doctor prescribe another drug to take care of it (which happens all too often). The D5 is lauded for its ability to shoot 15 fps almost without limit, yet video cameras shoot 30 fps to 120 fps (or faster) without a hiccup, for hours on end. One difference is the elimination of an elaborate reciprocating mechanism, coupled with faster image processing and data transfer. Image size is limited by video conventions. Yet you can easily extract 8 MP images from a 4K stream, and that size will increase to 23 MP with 8K video, which is right around the corner.
    Among the inherent advantages of mirrorless technology ...
    • Focusing sensors can be embedded directly in the sensor. No calibration is needed to reconcile manufacturing tolerance in the placement of external sensors.
    • As a corollary to the first point, there is almost no limit to the number and coverage of embedded sensors, which push 90% coverage in some mirrorless cameras, compared to 50% or less in most DSLRs, including the Nikon D5 (30%).
    • With greater coverage, focus tracking is limited by only software and processing speed.
    • Live view can be used through the viewfinder, approaching continuous coverage. What you see is what you get.
    • Electronic viewfinders can also display a wide variety of useful data, in an heads-up fashion rather than on the back screen or in the margins of the finder.
    • Elimination of a reciprocating mirror and/or mechanical shutter allows completely silent, vibration-free operation.
    • As a corollary, continuous shooting speed is limited by data processing and transfer, not by a mechanical mechanism.
    • Lens design is less restricted, especially for short focal lengths, by a reduction in the mandatory back focus clearance.
    This may result in larger bodies, approaching the size of present day, flagship DSLRs (but half as thick). This, in turn, will allow permanent vertical grips and controls, and space for a larger battery. You can get only so much out of a 1000 mAh battery in a small camera (a D5 battery is nearly 2-1/2x as large). A quicker wake-up time, comparable to a DSLR, would allow better power management and longer charge life. Focus speed and tracking are largely limited by software design, not hardware. None of this is science fiction.
     
  37. If the grip area of the new XT-2 was larger to accommodate a larger battery, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Although in my view the size and weight characteristic of the present day mirrorless camera's are the point. Size and weight of these camera's are its selling point. This may sound redundant, but I'm hoping getting back to growth isn't in the cards for this genre. The size of the XT-1 is genius. It seems all predicated, or formed around the screen. This including the viewfinder as it is, well surly its not by accident. I hope the XT-2 stays in its present XT-1 profile with all of the new, or XPRO-2 features. We see success messed with in so many other examples. I presume Fuji considers the XT-1 a great success and that they will honor that.
     
  38. The current assortment of MIL cameras demonstrates that you can pack a lot of power into a fairly small package. If less is demanded from a camera, they can be smaller yet, as witnessed by the most popular mirrorless camera of all, the smart phone.
    Recognize, however, that size is not the only need, and that some uses commend themselves to larger cameras. The most significant need is probably that of longer battery (i.e., charge) life, which means larger batteries. Professional applications, including sports and fashion, gravitate toward larger, faster lenses, and possibly larger sensors. If your tool is a 300 mm, f/2.8 lens, the size of the camera is a secondary consideration. That's true even for fast zoom lenses, which are the staple for journalists.
    If Nikon and Canon stick with small, mirrorless cameras, it is precisely because they do not serve the applications of their flagship DSLRs.
     
  39. If your tool is a 300 mm, f/2.8 lens, the size of the camera is a secondary consideration. That's true even for fast zoom lenses, which are the staple for journalists.​
    If you're talking about pros, I think you're correct. My point is that a pro can afford to spend a lot of money on tools, because he makes a living out of them, so he can even pick different systems, etc... This is not necessarily true for a serious amateur who doesn't want to spend a lot of money. I mean: I've completed my Sony setup with the Sigma 150-600mm C plus Sigma MC-11. Together with the a6000, it's basically the same size and weight of my old Nikon D7000 + AF-S 300mm f/4. I use long focals for landscapes too, but this is a typical wildlife/birding combo. So we can say that in this area - similar to the sport segment you referred above - there are no size/weight advantages.
    But the same E-mount system allows me to go much more lightweight in shorter focal combinations and for me it's a value to have a single system rather than different ones. And while I'm losing something in AF at the moment, I suspect I'll be more or less at the same level when I will upgrade to the a6300. Plus, I'll be enjoying the EVF.
     
  40. I totally agree with your assessment. I suspect that more "pro" cameras are i the hands of dilettantes than on the job with professionals. There's another reason for that. Nikon has always put more thought into these cameras and lenses, and made their features more accessible. There are good alternatives to the single-digit Nikons now. but they're lagging the industry on MIL cameras.
    One of the frustrating thing about P&S cameras, even extending into the "pro-sumer" range is the confusion of features and poor ergonomics. What, exactly, does "Closeup," "portrait" or "landscape" picture mode entail (and I'm not talking about which way to hold the camera)? Just finding a manual mode on a P&S can be a challenge, only to have it revert to some automatic default when you turn the power off and on again. There's something comforting and familiar about dials for shutter speed, aperture and focus. I'm okay with thumbwheels if that's all there is and they're consistent. As far as the mode dial on my Sony, "A, S or M" is all I care about.
    I would be happy with an f/4 mid-range zoom. Unfortunately Sony/Zeiss dropped the ball on quality with the Vario-Tessar version. Sony went all out with the f/2.8 GM versions, much like Nikon did with their f/2.8 zooms. If you want prime (or near prime) quality, you put up with the size and weight.
     
  41. I have long hoped Nikon would come out with a high end mirrorless camera, but I gave up waiting about 2 years ago and have slowing been transitioning over to the Sony a7 series. The a7RII, in terms of image quality and performance, readily competes with the best of Nikon (with the caveat there are functional capabilities that Sony does not match Nikon) at least for my needs. Not sure what Nikon could offer that would attract me back.
    Off camera lighting limitations with Sony was a major deficit, but solutions and options are improving.
    On my most desired list are 24-70 and 70-200 f4 lens that match the reported quality of the new G series lenses. I have moved almost entirely over to Sony primes as the current f4 24-70 and 70-200 zooms fall noticeably short with the higher pixel resolution sensors.
     
  42. who's excited?​
    Nobody should be! Nikon has been great in making cameras, especially SLRs. But there is no evidence they can make any MILC that is better than the Sony's. Well, maybe Nikon lenses are better but Sony MILC can use Nikon lenses too. As a mirrorless fan, one should not choose Nikon, even if you already have a lot of Nikon lenses. I see clearly that Nikon can never catch up with Sony in MILC, unless Sony quits eventually.
    So the question is not to see Nikon goes deep into MILC business but only the hope of some of us (and of Sony) to see Nikon stops developing their DSLRs, because MILC still can not replace the top DSLRs, unless Nikon and Canon stop making them
     
  43. What's better is different for everybody, but I don't see any reason the preeminent camera maker in the world wouldn't be able to make a competitive mirror-less. The reason I like Nikon is primarily for IQ, so couldn't they bring those chops to their mirror-less.
     
  44. Nikon made great cameras with great shutters and great reflex viewfinder but a great mirrorless doesn't depend on these.
    A great mirrorless should have a fully electronic shutter, great on sensor AF and a great EVF. Nikon or Sony who is better to develop these?
     
  45. The reason I like Nikon is primarily for IQ, so couldn't they bring those chops to their mirror-less.​
    the reality is that the majority of Nikon bodies use Sony sensors. In some cases, they have gotten better performance out of these chips than Sony's bodies, but Nikon's issue here isn't IQ, you can get that from the D8xx series. What Sony has done is bring a lot of proprietary technology to their mirrorless cams which go over and beyond just IQ. things like the on-chip AF, in-body stabilization, etc. Nikon would essentially have to change their entire design philosophy just to catch up with Sony in mirrorless. that's a tall order for a company which prides itself on having a defined identity. It's probably more likely that they will wait to see how Canon is going to make a move on mirrorless before jumping in wholly. All this talk about Sony going for the jugular and what-not, but their market gains have been incremental, suggesting they are just treading water at the end of the day, at least in the current market. That's why all the chatter about a mirrorless revolution seems somewhat rhetorical and/or overhyped, and will continue to be as long as mirrorless bodies represent such a small portion of all camera sales.

    I keep pointing this out, but Nikon has attempted mirrorless lines at least twice before, and whiffed both times. They never had an idea of what the Nikon 1 should be, or delivered a feature set which maximized the format's potential. And they not only overestimated the value of the Coolpix A, but also undercut its performance, just as they did with the Df. Their latest attempt at a mirrorless line, the DL series, isnt even commercially available yet in the US. That being the case, any talk of future mirrorless Nikons is way premature IMO. They may have plans and patents of potential ML models, but they aren't going to rush those out before the DL cameras have even had a chance to create their own niche.
     
  46. Well I see what you're saying, but I guess it depends on what you hold to be important. For example, I couldn't care less about in body stabilization. To me it's just something that makes cleaning the sensor a stressful exercise in not damaging the camera. You can get all that in the lens. Most of the features that many are infatuated with do nothing for me. What I like most is what Nikon does with it's Sony sensors, and I can't imagine I'm alone, maybe in a minority, but not alone.
     
  47. I couldn't care less about in body stabilization. To me it's just something that makes cleaning the sensor a stressful exercise in not damaging the camera​
    i think legacy lens users and video shooters might disagree here.
    What I like most is what Nikon does with it's Sony sensors​
    It's not just Nikon that uses Sony sensors, though. Pentax, Ricoh and Canon have also used them. Nikon has done well with them in their DSLRs, which perhaps explains some of the impetus behind Sony developing a mirrorless full frame line up where they could emphasize tricked-out features DSLRs dont have. Sony seems to have worked out some of the bugs in its UI, but the Nikons overall tend to have better ergonomics.

    Ultimately, i think mirrorless development is gonna hinge on two things: AF and EVF. if they can engineer these things to surpass DSLR performance, then there would be no reason, other than battery life and perhaps lens compatibility, to have a DSLR. But as it stands now, there are entry-level DSLRs which are better for action and sports than $3000 mirrorless bodies. Though there's a declining number of photojournalists, being able to capture action is still a thing PJs need to be able to do.
     
  48. Part and parcel of the IBIS system is a self-cleaning operation. It executes briefly each time you power up, and for about 3 seconds if you select the cleaning cycle in the menu. Furthermore the cover glass is treated to eliminate static, which goes a long way toward keeping the sensor clean. I have only resorted to wet cleaning twice in the last year, which is easy because the shutter is open while the camera is at rest.
    The M9 is not hard to clean either. The sensor is normally covered by the shutter, but open during a cleaning cycle. I see in my "overview" example above that there is a chunk in the center of the screen. That will probably come off by blowing or using a Visible Dust microfiber brush.
    In both cases, the sensor is relatively close to the flange, not deeply buried like in a DSLR. My D3 seems to have two modes - (1) cleaning the sensor and (2) shooting with a dirty sensor. I don't recall, exactly, the last time I cleaned the Sony - maybe early February. I used a tripod for the test shots, also an unusual occurrence.
     
  49. I haven't seen any other camera company that can get out of a sensor what Nikon does regardless of the sensor maker. Toshiba, and Sony both make sensors for Nikon, and yet Nikon gets better dynamic range, and noise out of the sensors then the makers of the sensors do typically. You've made excellent points about the legacy glass, but not everyone is in that boat, and I still find cleaning the Sony sensor nerve racking with ibis, being that it must be very delicate, and jiggles around.
    In any event I don't see Nikon having any insurmountable issues to overcome if they want to make a competitive mirror-less. I hope they're in the process, because I'm afraid that any company that isn't is toast in the not to distant future.
     

Share This Page