Nikon Announces the Development of D6 and 120-300mm/f2.8 in F Mount

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ShunCheung, Sep 4, 2019.

  1. Incidentally, if we're speculating on features that might be interesting... Canon have just announced a cine camera with "5-axis electronic stabilisation". Three is easy (shift and rotate the rectangle crop of the sensor making the image); the other two axes are new. One possibility would be to use the dual-pixel capture Canon have at every sensor site (unlike, I believe, the Sony sensors) and use it to realign the focal plane, in the same way you can (slightly) adjust focus with their dual-pixel raw on dSLRs. Or it could just be badly advertised sensor movements.

    For Nikon, you'd have to change their historical sensor philosophy, but it's an interesting bit of (possible) tech. Or you could just shift and tilt the sensor (I've thought a digital camera with substantial rear movements by moving the sensor around would be useful for a long time) - but that's a pain in a dSLR unless you give up on mirroring the result in the viewfinder (you'd have to make a corresponding adjustment to the mirror assembly, and it feels complicated).

    Just a thought.
  2. Canon's C500 II just have electronic stabilization in software, the sensor does not move. But I believe they are working on their version of sensor stabilization.

    As for sensor stabilization in a DSLR; Konica-Minolta (-Sony) and Pentax have used it. Of course the viewfinder is not stabilized. Even with Nikon's VR lenses, the stabilization is said to be different during viewing (where only some of the movement is corrected, to allow easier composing) and the exposure (where all movement is (attempted to be) corrected apart from panning where the correction is typically not done in the panning direction). I have used the 7D and the K-1 briefly and the sensor-moving stabilization seemed to work fine.
  3. Ever hear about the Fuji X-H1 or GFX 100???
  4. The question then is how is it "5-axis"? I can see three axes of adjustment within a plane, but not five. Post-focus is one possibility, although I'd be a little surprised.

    As for matching movements in the finder, I was really talking about larger, static movements, giving you tilt-shift effects within the lens image circle. Since you don't typically need much tilt, at least, I always thought it should be possible - perhaps more so for DX mirrorless. Shifting the whole aperture mechanism around on multiple axes is more of a pain than just doing it to the sensor, admittedly; maybe when/if electronic shutters become universal.
  5. Electronic shutter isn't that important in an SLR designed as it still has the mirror which is more of a limitation for noise and speed than the shutter. Of course in live view you don't need the mirror but if you use live view most of the time with an SLR then the MLIC is much better.
  6. True, but although my dSLR usually gets used with the mirror down (obviously), it's still useful to be able to achieve the higher frame rates and quieter release from an electronic shutter occasionally - plus there's the EFCS.

    Currently one issue is that a fully electronic shutter is a rolling shutter determined by the sensor read speed - and currently a mechanical shutter moves faster, so long as you don't have to re-cock it between shots; I assume an EFCS can work because resetting the sensor rows can happen faster than reading the data from them, so it can keep up with the movement of the mechanical shuttter. A true global shutter (as in the D1, if I'm not confused) is approximately instantaneous, and having run into issues with smearing subjects at faster shutter speeds, I think it's a useful technology - maybe even more so if you could do the variable density global shutter that Red offer with their variable ND approach. Sensor read speeds are likely on the up, and it may be we'll have a way of doing a true global shutter that doesn't negatively impact image quality in the future. Plus doing it electronically potentially removes the cost of the mechanical shutter.
  7. Actually I like the idea of electronic shutter because it can be accurate. Mechanical shutter simply can't.
    Andrew Garrard likes this.
  8. The shutter creates higher frequency vibrations than the mirror. For sharpness I with lightweight teles, I find EFCS very important also in viewfinder photography (it is available in Q and Qc modes in the D850). It makes a surprisingly large difference. For tripod based shots of static subjects I generally use LV and EFCS as well. I don't usually use the viewfinder much for tripod based landscape shots because it's awkward to look through the VF in many typical situations when the camera is not at eye level. The LCD works great when the subject isn't moving and it can be angled. Actually I disagree that for LV work a mirrorless is better; most mirrorless cameras have smaller and lower resolution LCDs than the D850, and only Nikon so far have implemented the split screen display zoom which I use quite often.
  9. Well, if you think about IBIS, they market that too as "5-axis" but it doesn't have that many degrees of freedom for moving the sensor. I believe they simply consider lateral shifts (where the camera moves sidewise or up/down) and pitch/yaw separately (technically they are different degrees of freedom that can be measured, but the sensor only has three degrees of freedom to compensate the movement). In Canon's software based approach for video, they may model translation and rotation differently in the digital correction and this may somehow lead to a different result than if they had just measured acceleration and rotation in three degrees of freedom in total.
  10. I had a vague recollection TowerJazz were working on an FX sensor with Global Shutter?

    5-Axis?? Go ask a Nikon rep......;)
  11. I thought people claiming 5-axis IS generally combined sensor shift with a lens-based system, the former handling translation better and the latter handling rotation better? Canon's 100mm macro has multi-axis IS support (with a view to handling translation errors at short distances), but I'm not quite clear how it works. Maybe that was optimistic of me. I'm probably over-thinking what Canon are doing, although I maintain that it would be quite cool to apply post-focus this way.

    Presumably nobody supports in-body focus correction (stabilisation towards/away from the camera) with manual lenses by moving the sensor perpendicular to its plane? (Since the old Minolta that did this with film, anyway.)
  12. Ah, for some reason I'd remembered "5-axis" typically referring to VR in the lens plus three axes at the sensor - but that's not how Nikon label it for the Z series. Marketing fluff. Thanks for the link, Dieter.
  13. Not that I am hot to trot to go out and get one, having gotten a D850 a few months ago, but I would say the best thing about the D6 will be that it will cause D5 prices to drop!

Share This Page