Mirrorless fans...

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>'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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. <br>

<br /> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. <br>

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?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Leica is barely holding on.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

<br>

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.</p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>so the savings in weight and bulk are not all that significant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>by "evidence," do you mean unconfirmed rumors? a patent is a long way from full production. let's look at what nikon <em>has</em> done in the past year or so:</p>

<ul>

<li>introduced a prosumer DX body and a pro sports FX body</li>

<li>introduced a 1" line of compacts with iterated fixed lenses</li>

<li>apparently discontinued the Nikon 1.</li>

</ul>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what I read, and I don't remember where it was... <br>

don't hold your breath because I'm not sure how reliable the info</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't that more or less what Sony is doing. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What they dont really have is 10s of millions of lenses already out there in the wild.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Sony is clearly aiming for the high-end, full-frame market, and that piece of gum is sticking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Leica is barely holding on</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> It is amusing to hear from DSLR devotees that mirrorless cameras MUST be small to be of value</p>

</blockquote>

<p>im not sure anyone's actually saying this, and i also think rendering this statement as an absolute also misses the point. <em>Value</em> 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.<br>

<br>

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 <em>too many</em> choices out there. </p>

<p>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.<br>

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? <br>

There seem enough options to add into their current system, without becoming their own competition.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . but Leica cannot be considered an industry leader. An acquired taste would be more descriptive, along with vinyl records and shaving mugs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Vinyl records are making a comeback :) Yeah, you're right, but a lot good photographers still buy or covet those cameras. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>There seem enough options to add into their current system, without becoming their own competition.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

<p>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.<br>

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-differing-goals-of.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thom Hogan has a recent article outlining what he believes to be the strategies and goals of the major camera companies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>every now and then, Thom delivers a spot-on analysis. this is one of those articles. Kinda feel sorry for Pentax here (<em>"</em><em>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.</em> "), but i can't disagree, despite all the fanboi chattering about the K-1. <br>

<br>

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 </p>