The game is about tho change

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by carl_stone, Dec 2, 2015.

  1. Watch out Sony!
    http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com
    I said the other day that folks shouldn't expect that Nikon and Canon are just going to idly stand by and let Sony take over the camera market. It looks like we are in store for some very exciting news as soon as next month.
     
  2. So, what?!
     
  3. Make of it what you will. My take is that Nikon is going after Sony's market share.
     
  4. This could be interesting. The Samsung NX1 is a fairly large body. If Nikon builds in two card slots, a full-sized sensor, a larger battery and possibly an high resolution EVF, they could be a contender. Sony has a big head start, and Samsung doesn't have much of a lens selection, none for full frame.
    Will Nikon be willing to compete with their own DSLR lineup? Will they play nice with Zeiss?
     
  5. This is the least exciting thing I've read about mirrorless cameras since the Canon M10 announcement.
     
  6. Zeiss? The Sony-Zeiss lenses certainly don't measure up to Zeiss lenses. Nikon can produce competitive lenses without
    Zeiss.
     
  7. I wouldnt say the game is about to change, at least not anytime soon. But this does bode well for there to finally be some sort of serious entry from one of the big two into mirrorless cameras. But what I glean from this is the fact that Nikon obviously had NO major mirrorless development of its own going on. Not if it felt the need to buy out Samsungs mirrorless business. I suppose they could have purchased it for the patents involved but more likely they needed it to try to get a leg up on mirrorless since so many others have pulled ahead and even Canon are saying that they are developing something for this market.
    Either way its a good thing. I'm glad all that Samsung has done in the market wont be a complete wash. Samsung cameras were great but they were the Rodney Dangerfield of mirrorless....they just didn't get any respect. Hopefully Nikon will use this to jumpstart their efforts to make a serious mirrorless, either apsc or FF.
    So much of their success is going to be how they (Nikon and Canon) choose to design their cameras. If they choose to see their mirrorless offerings as subservient to their DSLR's (highly likely) then design decisions will be made concerning mounts and lenses that have the potential to gimp or even ruin long term realization of the cameras effectiveness. If, on the other hand, they can be forward thinking enough to understand that the strength of mirrorless isn't in tying it to an aging system, but rather designing it from the ground up as a new system full of promise....then they will most likely have a winner on their hands.
    Heres hoping. I have wanted the big two to get serious about mirrorless for a long time now. Between this information and other news that Canon is most likely working on something then there will be some good times ahead for sure.
    The Sony-Zeiss lenses certainly don't measure up to Zeiss lenses.​
    Have you heard of the FE 55/1.8? And anyway, it really doesn't matter. Lenses are so good today that you can almost be assured that there are no dogs out there. Are some of them overpriced? Oh sure. But if you cant capture compelling imagery from any of the main lenses from Sony or anyone else then put your camera down and GO HOME.
    I'm mean, jeeze....all I use on my a7 are old lenses from the 60's and 70's. And my photos look pretty darn good.
    ps. I will also add this link which goes to the actual article as opposed to the OP's link which just leads to mirrorless rumors.
    http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hot-rumor-nikon-bought-samsung-nx-mirrorless-tech/
     
  8. I don't know if the game is about to change but I just bought my second mirrorless full kit with the Canon M3. It
    contains the 22 mm f2, the 11-22 WA, the kit 18-55 stm, and the 55-200. Last year I sold a similar Sony N5N kit.
    I like the small size of both. I paid a little over a thousand for M3, EVF and lenses. I still have and will keep my 7D2
    and L lenses for sports and wildlife. The M3 fps is slow and the evf lags a bit in initial capture but works great in
    bright light. However it has a 24Mp sensor and like the original M produces high quality images. I really think
    mirrorless is coming. While I understand there are better mirrorless cameras than the M3 my specific priorities lie in
    image quality and price. The Canon M lenses are according to most reviews are good quality and inexpensive and
    that allowed me to make the buy. The Sony A7 bodies are quite good but out of my price range particularly when I
    have to maintain a mirrored system as well. I have a large investment in Canon lenses but I probably won't use
    them on the M3 as I bought ir because I live in a lively seacoast town where there a lot of boats and water and I like
    to go walking with a light kit with WA, kit lens and maybe the 55-200. They fit in a small bag. I like to shoot people.
    I will seriously consider a full frame body when and if you can seriously shoot sports with it and use the legacy
    Canon lenses; and, when it can capture multiple pictures as well as my 7DII which is pretty damn good at 10fps and
    has exceptional capability to capture moving targets This is a standard that any mirrorless system in my opinion a
    mirrorless camera has to meet to replace my mirrored body. After taking a few pictures with the new M3 the 7DII
    with the 100-400 II seems awfully damn big and heavy.
     
  9. Gup

    Gup Gup

    Some disruptive Samsung rumor coming soon! Nikon, Canon and Sony fellow should not miss to read this one!
    Headline found at the link provided by the OP. I'm having trouble getting excited about this leak.
     
  10. Zeiss? The Sony-Zeiss lenses certainly don't measure up to Zeiss lenses. Nikon can produce competitive lenses without Zeiss.​
    Yes they do and Nikon hasn't. I have several of each, and Sony G, Sony/Zeiss and Zeiss are all first rate. The only Nikon lens that comes close in sharpness is the 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor, but the bokeh is not all that good. Nikon does okay in the 400 - 600 primes, but their shorter lenses and zooms are relics of another age.
     
  11. Given the tendency of one thing to lead to another I predict a great future for complexity. At least complicated alliances. Plus a great future for the crystal balls of rumor sites. Right now it's even betting money that the Fed will raise interest rates. Soon. And that, don't quote me, will mean that the dollar to yen ratio will change. And camera companies like C and N will cut costs by joining together or selling off divisions. I got this from a renowned rumor site, yet I forget which one. No matter. Anyway, let's agree that Sony and Panasonic have done well for consumer electronics outfits. One of whom still makes a fine rice cooker. Toaster oven. Both are not doing so hot on TVs but Samsung is doing well in TVs and cell phones and tablets. Cameras, meh... I have said it was and is a complicated business.
     
  12. This tendency in the media to proclaim every bit of news as "game changing" is pretty tiresome. It's a new camera (maybe), or Nikon getting closer to developing their own sensors. Which will result in a product to take photos and videos, just like existing cameras already do. Hardly changes the game, really.
     
  13. That is a really uninteresting mirrorless rumor. So Samsung have a sensor...that Nikon might use. Big deal.
     
  14. Well, Wouter, maybe you've been out of touch, but historically Nikon and Canon have leapfrogged each other with models
    that have changed sales for each. That is a game changer in the sales arena, and everyone in the business hopes that
    they will benefit from this type of thing. It might be a yawner to you, and some others, but it is a game if survival to some
    of the companies. If you look around, some camera companies are now extinct. That didn't happen by choice.
     
  15. Sony-Zeiss lenses certainly don't measure up to Zeiss lenses​
    My understanding is that Zeiss makes in-house only medium format and non photography optics. They are involved in the design and specification of Sony-Zeiss and Zeiss named products and as far as I know the differences if any are in the manufacturing precision and control. Where are each of these (sub-contracted or partnership) Zeiss designed lenses made? I don't know for sure, but I have heard good things about the 16-35 mm Sony-Zeiss Vario-Tessar (zoom) for E mount and have just ordered my first ever zoom for an RF or mirrorless camera, together with one of the more recent Sony A7 mirrorless bodies. Probably unlike future Nikon mirrorless the Sony can well accept my longer than 35mm Leica and V-C optics. I got tired of waiting for Leica to catch up or produce less expensive RF cameras, so Sony is a large part of the solution for me. Nikon or Canon are not even on my map.
     
  16. Well, Wouter, maybe you've been out of touch,​
    Or maybe I just have my two feet on the ground, and I don't get wow-ed anymore with every "game changing" release. The last year I read about 25 reviews of cameras that were told to be game-changing. And some of those sell well, and some not. One of them was a Samsung, by the way. Apparently it did not change enough game.
    And guess what? A photo is still a photo. You still need to be a competent photographer to get the best out of any of those cameras. So, I don't think the game really changes; digital did to some extent, but these iterations upon iteration? Evolution, bog standard evolution. So maybe the players change, and who sells most, but that's hardly game-changing, that's just how the market flows. And predicting that seems hard enough - for years I heard people say that Samsung would make a serious dent in the market (and of course, they would be game-changing). Well. Here we are.
    I know perfectly fine what is out there, and what my money could buy me. I wouldn't consider myself out of touch. Maybe I'm just a tad more cynical about what changes the game, possibly because I think a camera is a tool to be used, not some spec sheet to salivate over.
     
  17. I have Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad and Sony. If anything, the Sony versions raise performance to a new, higher level.
     
  18. If one of the least successful makers of mirrorless cameras buys the unsuccessful mirrorless business of another of the
    least successful mirrorless companies, the result is going to be an incremental change at best.
     
  19. Here is a bit of an update to the story.
    http://petapixel.com/2015/12/03/samsung-denies-nikon-nx-rumor-reportedly-has-a-full-frame-mirrorless-ready/
    Some interesting bits here. If in fact Samsung has a full frame camera (or just sensor) ready to go then there may be some behind the scenes goings on here that the rumor sites are just catching the fringes of.
    A very strong scenario here could be that Samsung realizes its brand recognition just isn't going to work for it in the camera market. So instead it ties itself to Nikon as a their sensor manufacturer and then shares some of its mirrorless tech and patents with Nikon in a partnership. This has the huge advantage for Nikon in that they can now break away from reliance on Sony for their sensors. A Nikon/Samsung developed mirrorless camera using name recognition and camera design history of Nikon combined with the great sensors and mirrorless experience of Samsung could be a match made in heaven.
    Lets not forget....Samsung sensors are the highest rated apsc sensor made if I remember correctly. And they were the FIRST to bring a BSI sensor to the (non phone) camera market. Sony hyped their BSI sensor in the a7 series and would like everyone to think they were first to market with this but Samsung beat them to it.
    My only fear...again...is that Nikon is just way to bolted down to the F mount and the existing lens line they currently have. It will take a monumental effort of will for them to break from this and design their new mirrorless with a fresh mount built around the strengths of mirrorless, not the weaknesses of the DSLR. Sticking with the F mount will also alienate anyone who want to adapt old lenses to their new camera, because any with experience in this realm knows you cant really adapt squat to the F mount due to it having just about the longest flange/focal distance out there.
    Putting the F mount on their new mirrorless camera would be a HUGE long term mistake. And its one I see them easily making. I really, really hope I'm wrong.
     
  20. i heard this rumor was unavailable in most european markets.
     
  21. What ever happened to Foveon game change? Remember Foveon, that novel system?. That was real and not a rumor. Did it go anywhere. I really am curious. Now will LG develop a camera system one day in Korea? Latter is Siegel Speculation, i.e not even a rated on a scale . Less than one to five veracity so maybe down to back fence /crackerbarrel chit chat level. I just don't keep in touch any more. Busy with chasing gals and feral cats out of the yard...

    Hmm. Could this be the first Casual thread where noses are a bit out of joint re the market and consumer impact of a rumor. One that has not been microwave -baked.

    Sorry , I got to wonder what is left of photo net when it goes the route of DPR forums,-- at least a couple of them.

    ( PS. I like the " Play nice with Zeiss" quip. Thanks Edward Ingold. Hell man, I can use that rhyme one day. So all is not lost. Aloha all.)
     
  22. My only fear...again...is that Nikon is just way to bolted down to the F mount and the existing lens line they currently have.​
    Whatever mount Nikon decides to put on its mirrorless - it better be fully compatible with the currently available DSLR lenses - or that mirrorless will be still born. I am not saying it should have an F-mount - but it definitely needs to have an adapter that guarantees full compatibility with the current lenses (not the old screw-driver ones - that would be asking for a bit too much).
    Sony has been very slow on providing lenses for the NEX and still quite slow doing so for the A7 cameras. Expecting Nikon to come out with mirrorless and a full set of lenses all at once is quite unrealistic. How long will it take Leica to build a lens system around the SL? There's one lens available (24-90/2.8-4), and two announced (90-280/2.8-4 and 50/1.4); that's all for the time being. That maybe sufficient for some - but it doesn't make a system. Sure, one can adapt a lot of lenses to the SL - the high price of the camera body will see to it that not many will go that route, especially given the obvious limitations.
     
  23. So, Sony starts to catch up with Nikon in terms of lensing just a little more and this is supposed to make Nikon nervous (and Canon)? I doubt it.
    This is the least exciting thing I've read about mirrorless cameras since the Canon M10 announcement.​

    Oh, yeah... an interchangeable lens camera with no flash hot shoe. Wow. Bigger fails are few and far between. Perhaps you were kidding.


    I don't think Nikon and Canon think that the future market for mirrorless is going to be large heavy full-frame cameras, and I think they're right, and I think fanboi's warning that the sky is falling on them based on rumor sites is just a little premature.

    If one of the least successful makers of mirrorless cameras buys the unsuccessful mirrorless business of another of the least successful mirrorless companies, the result is going to be an incremental change at best.​
    yup.
     
  24. LG cameras: not a bad idea. Foveon is still around, but I am not sure why Sigma keep it going, I suspect they hope that with further development it will take off, but I can't imagine it is making Sigma any money.
     
  25. Dieter, of course Nikon would have adapters available for their old F lenses with full functionality. If they were smart they would make those available for both the AF lenses and the older manual focus lenses. Why not have your new camera have backwards compatibility with the entire catalog of your old lenses? It only makes sense.
    But only if you do it via adapters, and not by actually crippling your shiny new mirrorless camera with a permanently attached F mount. Now is the perfect time for Nikon (and Canon) to give serious thought to what type of system is going to take them thru the next half century of camera and lens design. The timing now could not be more perfect to update their product line with new technology which opens up new areas of technical possibilities.
    Because I'm sorry, the F mount and the EOS system are due for an update. Sure, they work perfectly well right now and have the strength of being the status quo solidly behind them. But in 10 years? 20? 50? Do we honestly think the photographers of 50 years from now are going to be lugging around the new Canon L 24-70/2.8 MK VIII in the same old tired EOS mount?
    This is going to be the single hardest thing for Canon and Nikon to overcome in their approach to serious mirrorless models. They have to understand that the mount that made their SLR's and DSLR's great will not be the same mount that makes their mirrorless cameras great. I mean, the plain fact is written right there in the name...SLR...Single Lens Reflex. Mirrorless cameras don't have that single lens reflex mirror, thus the name mirrorless. To design such a camera with more concern toward how it can serve your aging DSLR's instead of how it can better them and surpass them is simply folly.
    I am sooooo looking forward to what Canon and Nikon finally bring to the table. They have so much opportunity to succeed and bring out something new and fresh and exciting. But I have this horrible little feeling in my gut that I'm going to be disappointed. I hope I'm wrong.
     
  26. If they were smart they would make those available for both the AF lenses and the older manual focus lenses.​
    I am sure they will for the manual focus ones. The screwdriver AF lenses will be more problematic - they will require an adapter with a built-in motor.
    I am not so familiar with Canon - and hence have no idea why their EF-mount would need updating. Nikon's F-mount has its fair share of compatibility issues nowadays - but with AF-S E lenses, all communication is finally electronic. Naturally, if there is no mirror, there doesn't need to be clearance for one and the flange-to-sensor distance can be shrunk. Not too much though - or one encounters that issues Leica has with making their M-mount lenses work with digital sensors.
    I don't want to get into a discussion about the merits of mirrorless vs DSLRs - for me, mirrorless isn't there yet - and has some major hurdles to overcome to make it.
     
  27. Zeiss? The Sony-Zeiss lenses certainly don't measure up to Zeiss lenses. Nikon can produce competitive lenses without Zeiss.​
    Yes they do and Nikon hasn't. I have several of each, and Sony G, Sony/Zeiss and Zeiss are all first rate. The only Nikon lens that comes close in sharpness is the 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor, but the bokeh is not all that good. Nikon does okay in the 400 - 600 primes, but their shorter lenses and zooms are relics of another age."
    Edward, Edward, that flies in the face of Ming Thein's experience with these lenses. Here's an excerpt from his remarks:
    Sony Zeiss FE ZA cobranded (B&H Amazon)
    2.8/35, 1.4/35, 1.8/55, 4/16-35, 4/24-70, many others for DX and A mount via adaptors. Pick of the bunch: 1.8/55
    These are native mount, offer full functionality and the best value for money. They are made by Sony and not QC’d by Zeiss as per the other lenses; this means there is some significant sample variation possible. The 1.8/55 can be very impressive if you get a good copy; I’ve had to test six to find one though. Other lenses have significant field curvature/focus shift (the 2.8/35 for example) or are average (4/16-35). The 4/24-70 is a real mediocre disappointment and it’s a wonder that Zeiss ever agreed to have their name on this thing at all. I am not considering the SLR A mount lenses here because they are very expensive, clunky in operation via the various adaptors, and will really only work on Sony cameras – IMHO, not worth the investment given the recent confusion (by their own local principals, no less) over whether Sony was discontinuing the Alpha mount. Needless to say, it does not really inspire much confidence. But that might mean some used market bargains to be had…"

    He had to try 6 samples to get a good one? Clearly that is NOT up to Zeiss standards. If you want to see the entire article try this link.
    http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/11/15/zeiss-lenses-for-sony-fe/
    I think you're are being blinded by your Sony loyalty.
     
  28. Ming doesn't like those lenses much, but the great majority of people who have written about them do. Particularly the two
    35mm and the 55, and also the non-Zeiss 28. Sony, M43 and Fuji are already out ahead with their lens lineups -
    Panasonic and Olympus have had several winners lately and Fuji doesn't waste time on bad lenses - so Nikon has some
    catch up to do if their plan is to make it big in mirrorless.
     
  29. I think you're are being blinded by your Sony loyalty.​
    Ming Thein is one reviewer among many, with his own preferences and extraordinary sense of self-importance. In terms of objectivity, I see little to differentiate Ming Thein from Ken Rockwell. It's my money, and I think I've made the right choices.
    If you choose to kneel at the altar of one reviewer, okay. Otherwise do your homework, or better yet, see for yourself.
     
  30. "If you choose to kneel at the altar of one reviewer, okay. Otherwise do your homework..."

    How 'bout Thom Hogan then?
    "
    • Worst Lenses. As time passed, I had to change my answer here: pretty much everyone is making good to excellent lenses, though Sony still probably has more weaker ones than the rest of the players. The real issue here is quantity of lenses. m4/3 wins hands down, while everyone else is still playing catch up. "
     
  31. 'm4/3 wins hands down, while everyone else is still playing catch up'
    They make some nice lenses as do all manufactures in todays world. But that little sensor. Hmm.Fuji are the kings of lenses...easily. Thom Hogan is a Leica man and the quality of Fuji lenses are a challenge to Leica as are their cams. Personally I think Leica is still out in front(so they should with their prices) but Fuji is slowly but surely closing the gap.
     
  32. The customer for the Olympus/Panasonic µ43 and the customer for the Sony mirrorless are totally different customers.

    I'd never consider the Sony. I don't blow up stuff huge, don't want anything big to carry around (or I would have kept my Nikon) and I don't want to use every conceivable brand of lens on my camera (although, obviously, I could and do use one Nikkor).

    But Thom is not the only one who is saying that Sony has a lot of weaker lenses either.
     
  33. A thread about the possibility of a major Nikon entry into the mirrorless ILC field proved to be an irresistible platform for bashing Sony. Oh well, it's a slow football weekend.
    Thom Hogan's article, quoted above, was written on 5/4/2015. To date, he has not reviewed the A7ii, much less the A7Rii and A7Sii, which are far advanced from the first versions. Furthermore, Sony or Zeiss have introduced at least four new lenses since that review, the 90/2.8 Macro, Zeiss Batis 25/2 and 85/8 and Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8. There may be others, but these lenses are as good as anything else on the market. At the time of Hogan's review, the Loxia 35/2 and 50/2 had been available since December, 2014. These, along with the Sony 55/1.8, 35/2.8, 28/2, 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 are also highly regarded (except to those who think f/2.8 is a minimum requirement for zoom lenses). Only the 24-70/4 seems to be held in low regard, except that it outperforms my Nikon 28-70/2.8 by a considerable margin, especially in the corners. There are also several consumer level Sony lenses hardly worth mention, a situation shared by Nikon and Canon.
    While Thom Hogan is well regarded and, from what I've seen, objective, he is definitely a day late and a dollar short on keeping up with developments at Sony. In all fairness, keeping up with Sony would be a challenge for anyone.
    I'm curious about the trouble Ming Thein cites regarding the quality of Sony's 55/1.8. I suspect that trial samples sent to verious photographers in rotation get battered a bit, and may represent early production or prototypes. He is the only one that I've seen to kiss six frogs before finding a prince. The 55/1.8 stands near the top of the DXOMark list, regardless of any manufacturer.
    Returning to the actual topic of this thread, I think Nikon has a lot to offer in the MILC world. They have a well developed service organization, an excellent reputation for bulletproof professional cameras, and an enormous range of lenses which have a more uniform appearance than Sony's mixed lineup (that must be important).
     
  34. One should worry less about what others say about lenses, and more about what is coming out of one's own lenses.
    In other words, reviewers are just people...like me an you. Plenty of them prefer one system to another and will downplay rivals if they can. I mean, they are just people right.
    What comes out of your OWN camera is much more important then what comes out of somebody else's mouth, or keyboard.
     
  35. "What comes out of your OWN camera is much more important then what comes out of somebody else's mouth, or keyboard".
    Indeed. David , where are those very fine photographs which you added to your posts. Feel a loss and I strongly suspect as do others.
     
  36. Really, Edward, you know full well that Thom Hogan used the Sony A7Rll in his recent sports shoot. And you know that it
    did not fare well in that endeavor. Nobody is looking no bash Sony, in spite of your claim, but, a dose of reality is definitely
    called for.
     
  37. Indeed. David , where are those very fine photographs which you added to your posts. Feel a loss and I strongly suspect as do others.-​
    You know Allen, I simply got away from adding them to each post. I fully intended to keep doing it since I have over 2000 photos up on flickr so there are plenty to choose from. I can easily add them again if you like. As long as I don't forget that is. :)
    [​IMG]
     
  38. Really, Edward, you know full well that Thom Hogan used the Sony A7Rll in his recent sports shoot. And you know that it did not fare well in that endeavor.​
    Really, Carl...does it matter? Its been beat to death that the A7RII isn't the best at sports. Even though there are pro shooters using the camera for all kinds of photography, sports included. Yes, that's right, people are making money, memories and art with the A7RII and all the other Sonys. Myself included. And we are having a darn fun time doing it I can assure you. Whatever it is that Thom Hogan Rockwell Thien Kai Huff says about gear has no bearing on what I can create with it. I guaran-freaking-tee you that if you give me Thoms 'bad' lens I can go shoot some awesome shots with it.
    How about this Carl. What are YOU shooting? And with what gear? What gear makes YOU get up at the butt crack of dawn to go get some keepers? What is it that inspires YOUR photographic passion? And while we are at it, please post up some examples of how all these subpar Sony lenses have let you down. I would love to see how Sony's crappy quality control and lack of lenses have prevented your creativity from flowing.
    [​IMG]
     
  39. It was Edward who said that Hogan had no experience with recent Sony models, now wasn't it. We all know that Edward
    knew better.
     
  40. Really, Edward, you know full well that Thom Hogan used the Sony A7Rll in his recent sports shoot. And you know that it did not fare well in that endeavor. Nobody is looking no bash Sony, in spite of your claim, but, a dose of reality is definitely called for.​
    The sidebar on Hogan's home page says that a review of the A7ii and A7Rii is forthcoming. No mention was made of the DPReview article, which appears to be a one-off experience regarding an highly specialized application.
    The gist of the Hogan article you cited was that there were not as many lenses for the Sony as for Fuji. Several more lenses have been introduced since that article, dated 5/4/15. I'm not sure the count is as important as the quality. Not all lenses are the same. This is not to say that Fuji lenses are not as good. In fact I make no inferences in that regard whatsoever. However the Fuji is based on the APS-C sensor, which many people consider inferior to a full-sized sensor.
     
  41. I think you're are being blinded by your Sony loyalty.​
    You keep saying this. It would be more accurate to say "enlightened by my Sony experience." There is a lot of information available on the internet, but nothing is a substitute for first-hand knowledge. Add Hasselblad, Leica and Nikon to that list. My photos may not be the best, but at least I post a few. Join the party, Carl.
     
  42. If the Samsung-designed Nikon mock-up is any indication of what's likely to come, I'd say one thing to Nikon. Stick a viewfinder in it before you even think of bringing it to market. EVF, optical, I don't care. But with the sort of photography I do, which includes working in bright sun, a display is next to useless, especially if it doesn't articulate. And an EVF isn't a lot better because they tend to get dim in bright sun.
     
  43. It was Edward who said that Hogan had no experience with recent Sony models, now wasn't it. We all know that Edward knew better.​
    You can prevaricate all you want, but you still haven't answered my questions. I've been waiting.
     
  44. Junior, you can wait 'till the cows come home, I don't answer to you. Get over yourself.
     
  45. Caught Carl napping under a bridge ;)
    [​IMG]
     
  46. Hmmm, personal attacks. One might think that you're desperate. Hogan used the A7Rii to shoot sports, then he reported
    his findings for that use. This is known as a review, Edward, although it was limited in scope. He did this in early October
    if this year, so it was recent. I only mention this because it was you that posted erroneous info about what he had said
    and done.


    You could do as David, and stomp your little foot, if that makes you feel better.
     
  47. Carl,
    In eleven years, you've never posted a photo nor admitted to owning a piece of gear you've commented on. Who's acting childish now?
     
  48. Carl, I asked you serious questions about your photography in an effort to understand you better. Frankly your whole attitude toward this mirrorless thing is puzzling and I was seeking to clarify your meanings and intentions in a more productive way then just writing you off as a fanboy. I simply don't get your need to seemingly poop all over the idea that mirrorless cameras (Sonys especially) are a valid photographic tool and I was trying to discover some reasoning behind this.
    I don't understand your angry retort about not owing me anything, or me stomping my foot. I thought this was an adult conversation we were having here, an exchange of ideas. This is a public forum where people come to discuss different points of view, in this case on photography. If you aren't comfortable discussing deeper elements of photography, yours mine or anyone's, then one might question your motives for being here if only to talk down one type of gear and talk up another.
    But obviously you are extremely uncomfortable discussing your photography. My apologies for pushing you out of your comfort zone.
    [​IMG]
     
  49. You are in error, yet again, Edward. Not that anything that I would post has any bearing on my comments in this thread.
    Anyway, this has become boring, so you, David, and your hype can have it. Bye.
     
  50. Dave,
    On retroflection, this thread was started to announce Nikon's venture into high-end mirrorless cameras, and a possible divorce from Sony as a source of Nikon's sensors. The implication was that Sony is henceforth doomed. Nobody acknowledged this prophesy, hence the recriminations and foot-stomping.
    Like you, I find it encouraging that Nikon is taking a tentative step forward, but with a healthy bit of skepticism that they will take this ball and run with it. Kodak never realized the significance of digital while film reigned supreme. I suspect that Nikon feels the same about the reflex system v the EVF.
    Nikon faces a grim reality. Every MILC sold means one less DSLR across the counter, whether it's a Nikon or a Sony (or whatever). In the past, you needed a Nikon body to take full advantage of a Nikon lens. This week a Chinese F to FE adapter (Complite) was announced with auto-focus capability. Tick ... Tick.
     
  51. Edward,

    Actually this thread was started to discuss a wild tale on a rumor site. And from what I've heard, it's been debunked. So there's that...
     
  52. Just throwing this out there....but is it maybe a tad late for all this? Can't help but wonder if someone's going m/less they've already chosen/invested in a side be it Fuji, Sony or Olympus/Panasonic. Canikon certainly possess the technology but I remain unconvinced that they're interested in m/less at all.
     
  53. Actually this thread was started to discuss a wild tale on a rumor site. And from what I've heard, it's been debunked. So there's that...​
    I'm not so sure about the "debunked" part. Samsung is an highly innovative company. Nikon may be interested in a second source for sensors, if not an entry into the electronic viewfinder game. If there were no truth in the rumor, it would be ignored. Denials usually imply some truth is behind the rumors, often leaked by a low level source privy to some level of company strategy.
     
  54. Paradigms operate. Maybe Nikon is too wed to the DSLR technology (which they have certainly mastered, like other top DSLR makers). Change can require a lot of time. Perhaps one is old enough to remember when the traditional Swiss watch companies did not take the quartz electronic watch innovation very seriously at first, and lost considerable market before finally adopting at the very least a technology mix.
     
  55. Can't help but wonder if someone's going m/less they've already chosen/invested in a side be it Fuji, Sony or Olympus/Panasonic.​
    Mark, I've never bought into the 'invested' argument. If people want to sit around on a forum and get defensive about gear they own because they are 'invested' in it and for some reason feel the need to defend it against newer/better/different gear well....that's just foolish and those people aren't really photographers.
    Ones photographs should speak for themselves. It doesn't matter what gear you have, just go out and shoot with it. If the gear is disappointing you or holding you back somehow then sell it and buy other gear. But a competent photographer should be able to pick up just about any camera and in some way be able to produce compelling imagery. And cameras today are so good anyway that there shouldn't be anyone out there stewing over a bad 'investment'. If you cant take great photos with the gear available today then maybe more time should be 'invested' in improving ones photography.
    The great thing about my style of photography is the fact that the body I own is nothing more then a digital back due to my exclusive use of old film lenses. The only thing I'm invested in are some cheap adapters. Got tired of my Sony a7? Sell it and get a Fuji XT-1 (which I almost have on several occasions). Then all I do is buy a couple of new adapters and all my old lenses are producing images again. I am looking forward to a serious mirrorless camera from Canon and I will be giving it a good look when it is finally announced. I currently shoot Sony because they have made the best camera for my style of photography. But if Canon can match or better them in the mirrorless market then my money will go back to them. Having said that tho, what Sony has been able to bring to market in such a short time has truly been staggering and shows they are serious and on the move.
    Edward, I really hope there is some truth to these rumors. It would make so much sense for Nikon and Samsung to combine forces in the mirrorless arena, each corporation producing to their strengths and complimenting the other. A Nikon mirrorless body with their professional build quality and name recognition combined with a class leading Samsung sensor and EVF with each company then producing lenses for the new mount would be a force to be reckoned with.
    [​IMG]
     
  56. I'm not so sure about the "debunked" part.​
    Both Samsung and Nikon have issued statements denying the acquisition of Samsung NX technology - for whatever that's worth. As Edward pointed out - the fact that "something" was denied, doesn't mean that there isn't "something else" going on.
     
  57. unconvinced that they're interested in m/less at all.​
    If they were totally uninterested, Canon would never have developed the M-system to which they keep adding lenses, so they remain engaged: just wary and not convinced.
     
  58. Paradigms operate. Maybe Nikon is too wed to the DSLR technology (which they have certainly mastered, like other top DSLR makers). Change can require a lot of time. Perhaps one is old enough to remember when the traditional Swiss watch companies did not take the quartz electronic watch innovation very seriously at first, and lost considerable market before finally adopting at the very least a technology mix.​
    Arthur, you hit it squarely on the head with this. I have been saying for a long time now that Canon and Nikon both understand what is involved with the production of a fresh new mirrorless camera. They will need a new mount to do it properly and a new mount means a whole new line of lenses. I am sure neither one of them is wanting to in any way give up the market dominance that they have in regards to a fully fleshed out lens line. Then they are in the position where a completely new set of lenses is competing against their old set of lenses, and a new body is competing with the old bodies. Sure, adapters will be available to use the DSLR lenses on the mirrorless and while this is definitely a workable solution (as Sony has shown) it isn't ideal.
    Do they then look at mirrorless as the future, and a possible eventual replacement for their DSLRs? Will they work side by side instead as equals and need to be supported as multiple formats? Or should they view the mirrorless camera as subservient to the DSLR, a mere sideshow, and then run the risk that their competitors were right and new breakthroughs in mirrorless tech indeed make them the camera of the future?
    Again we come back to the fact that the DSLR, while a highly advanced and capable machine, is also a device pretty much at the end of its development cycle. Mirrorless on the other hand has decades of improvement ahead of it. It is not an enviable time for Canikon right now, but their recent announcements about developing better mirrorless cameras show they are hopefully on the ball. History is full of companies who thought they were in a position of strength and that their position in the market was unassailable while at the same time misreading market trends and not making fast changes when necessary. IBM, Blackberry, Oldsmobile, Circuit City, Compaq, Kodak, Polaroid...those last two are very pertinent. Heck, even Yahoo is looking at selling major chunks of its web business now. Flickr itself might be up on the auction block....
    [​IMG]
     
  59. Both Samsung and Nikon have issued statements denying the acquisition of Samsung NX technology - for whatever that's worth. As Edward pointed out - the fact that "something" was denied, doesn't mean that there isn't "something else" going on.​

    I'm not sure what we'd mean by "NX technology" and why Nikon would want it. Nikon already has enough knowhow in-house to make APSC MILC cameras, if they wanted to. It seems to me that it would probably be simpler and more cost effective for Nikon to start developing a camera from their own knowledge base than to try to integrate another company's technology and whatever comes with it. Unless they wanted an already established system and got into NX to maintain compatibility with an existing user base, like Sony did with A mount, but from the looks of things Samsung doesn't have that much of a user base to begin with.
    If I'm Nikon and I'm working on a larger sensor mirrorless system, it's going to have a larger mount ring than F mount does, come in DX and FX from the start and I'm going to make a really good F mount adapter - something better than anybody's done already, that provides totally seamless integration of lens systems - and give a deep discount on it when bought with a camera. Use Nikon's existing user base, which is much larger than Samsung's, and win market share by making the camera better than the competition instead of a halfhearted attempt like CX or EOS-M. If Nikon also wants to add another sensor supplier, assuming their contracts with existing suppliers won't put up hurdles, this shouldn't be so difficult. They've done it before.
     
  60. Why would Nikon need a larger lens mount? Nikon has many full-frame sensors, and the current mount is more than adequate. The closer the sensor to the flange, the less restriction imposed by the lens mount.
     
  61. Why would Nikon need a larger lens mount?​
    The current F-mount throat diameter doesn't support CPU lenses with f/1.2; f/1.4 is the maximum aperture that is doable.

    Canon and Nikon have a lot to lose if they don't get their "mainstream" mirrorless cameras right. The companies that currently offer mirrorless all have either pulled out of the DSLR market or never made it to begin with. None of them could/can compete with Nikon/Canon on that market segment. Questionable if Pentax can survive in the long run. Sony's A-mount is pretty much irrelevant nowadays - Sony probably hasn't found the right time yet to announce that they are giving up on that Minolta burden altogether.
     
  62. That's interesting about the 1.2 thing Dieter, I didn't know that.
    Canon and Nikon have a lot to lose if they don't get their "mainstream" mirrorless cameras right.​
    Soooo right. I just started another topic concerning a video from The Camera Store TV where they guys comment that they are seeing people dump Canon and Nikon 'in droves' for mirrorless, the A7RII in particular. I think the sleeping giants of Canon and Nikon have woken up and we will see some good stuff from them soon. But you are right, they have got to get it right. I keep saying this, but they better not make these cameras in any way subservient to their DSLR's, especially where the mount is concerned.
     
  63. That limit must apply to DSLRs, not mirrorless cameras with a 20 mm or so back focus. The Leica M mount is about the same size as the Nikon F and Sony E mount, and supports an f/0.95 Noctilux, which is smaller than a Nikon 50/1.4. Voigtlander makes a 50/1.2 with an M mount.
     
  64. That limit must apply to DSLRs​
    I was very clear and specific in what I wrote Edward; I did not mention the M-mount. Nikon has the 50/1.2, 55/1.2 and the 58/1.2 Noct for the F-mount - neither has a CPU (though with difficulty, one can be fitted). Nikon's F-mount throat diameter is 44mm (same as Leica M), Canon's EOS mount has 54mm. Sony E-mount is 46mm.
     
  65. Dieter,

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36976-USA/Nikon_1435_NIKKOR_Normal_50mm_f_1_2.html
    http://www.noct-nikkor.com/
    Lots of bad info in this thread...
     
  66. Peter, if you look at the entry just above yours, you see that I listed the lenses you linked to. I also specifically mentioned that the issue is with CPU lenses. Please read before jumping to conclusions and accusing others of posting bad information.
     
  67. Dieter, the whole thread was started by commenting on some debunked rumor. How much more "bad info" can we get.

    I'm not necessarily talking to you in this next statement, Dieter... but...

    Look, it's wonderful we have choices, but if the only way to enjoy our choices is to find ways to deride others choices, and if the only way my Whizbang 2000 can be cool is for me to talk about how the people who make the GeeWhiz 3000 are doomed...

    ...sorry, but that kind of junk, which this part of the forum seems filled with lately, is useless to everyone ultimately.

    It's kind like when I was a kid and you could be a Who fan or a Stones fan, but you couldn't like both. Or you can root for the Bengals (which I do) but that meant that you had to HATE the Steelers.

    Or if you're a musician... My Fender guitar is awesome and they are all awesome, here's why all Gibson guitars suck. (especially if I just plunked 2 grand down for a Fender and am trying to convince myself I didn't make the wrong choice...)

    The whole discussion is bad info. Someone reading this hoping for some guidance in what brand they should get are instead confronted with knee-jerk fan-boi ranting lately... and then they head over to the Nikon forum where the moderators are exceptionally skilled at keeping that from happening and still allowing stimulating dialogue.
     
  68. David....with "investment" I meant more financially than emotionally i.e. if someone's bought a m/less body (or 2) and 3 or 4 lenses they're gonna be reluctant to dump it all in favour of the new kid even if he has a famous name. Someone loyal to that name might, but it seems to me an expensive risk. Having had my own battles with GAS I'd certainly be reluctant to switch brands now. The cons just seem too heavily weighted over the pros.
    I totally agree with your views on the state of camera selection today. There really is something for everyone and we have no excuses on that score. I've seen pics to die for taken with all the m/less brands i mentioned before. "But you need full frame" some cry....yeah right....oh you mean 35mm? Full compared to...? The recent movie "We'll Take Manhattan" about David Bailey's famous NYC shoot with Jean Shrimpton is a classic example. His employer (Vogue) instructed him to shoot medium format because 35mm was "not professional". I got a giggle out of that! Anyway he shot 35mm and changed fashion photography forever. But i digress...pick what suits YOU (hey we're all different) and knock yourself out. I feel zero need to defend my choice because no-one else's opinion matters on it. You choose Sony? I have no problem with that nor would i argue over it or anyone else's gear. In fact viva la difference! The thing I WOULD argue is the current pre-eminence of gear over education....grrr.....a great tog with a scratched X100 vs a gear freak with a fool (sorry) full frame 5Dmk3? Who are you gonna put your money on? I suggest we buy more books...information, inspiration, education trumps more megapickles yes? We can start with Dan Winters "Road To Seeing"....all the best from Downunder where its currently warm & sunny ;-)
     
  69. Mark, excellent response. And I agree wholeheartedly with you as well. There is to much interest today in gear centric photography. Well, let me back up a bit. There is nothing wrong with gear talk or speculation about gear. Photographers tend to be gear heads and in a way we have to. Our whole art is based around machines and how advancements to those machines can change the way we photograph.
    The problem arises when more emphasis is placed on gear specs then knowledge of photography. The countless arguments of this brand is better then that brand are futile and do nothing but stir up bad feelings in general. Meanwhile, the photographers are out shooting....
    Peter, this dovetails a little into some of what you are saying. I agree with you as well....Brand X/Brand Y fights are silly and counterproductive. But sometimes people have a simple interest in changing technologies and how that will effect the industry, long term and short, as a whole. And people go to forums to discuss this and share ideas.
    I am excited about mirrorless cameras and I love what they have done for my photography. I am excited about Sony and what they have done for mirrorless cameras. I am disappointed that I do not have great options to choose from in this market from Canon and Nikon.
    In NO way does this mean I hate on DSLR's. But I am very interested in how the mirrorless shake up to the market will impact Canon and Nikons decisions to bring serious mirrorless cameras to the public. And this is followed up with the interest in how this will effect the long term camera gestalt if the two biggest players are forced to produce serious mirrorless offerings (and support them with quality lenses) which will vie with both their competitors camera and their own DSLR models.
    My personal opinion is that this quite possibly may spell an eventual end to the DSLR's current market dominance in lieu of increasingly capable and sophisticated mirrorless/EVF cameras. This still doesn't mean I hate on DSLR's. I'm just incredibly curious almost from a future historians view on how this effect photographic gear in the years to come. But to often this view can be misunderstood by those reading my posts, either thru my inability to convey my meaning or shortcoming on the readers part who may only see my words as an attack on 'his camera'.
    I love the history of photography gear, especially the lenses from the 60's and 70's that I shoot with. Actually, I love history in general and I tend to always view the present as simply future history. We are, in other words, living in the history of the future right now. And we could possibly be living through a pivotal point where one type of machine eventually supplants another and big players may not succeed as they have done in the past. Who knows?
    I don't. But I love talking about. Which is why I post to these fora.
    By the way, Holga bit the dust. For good. The Chinese company that owns the brand said they destroyed all the machines and molds used in the production of Holga cameras. So a sad day for toy camera aficionados and lovers of Holga.
    But an interesting day for photographic history buffs.
     
  70. Peter, there's a reason why posting about rumors is banned in the Nikon Forum.
    And there's no bad info posted in this thread at all - it's not even info but speculation about and around a rumor.
     
  71. And there's no bad info posted in this thread at all - it's not even info but speculation about and around a rumor.​
    Really Dieter? Because in this thread I learned about limitations in the F mount, from you Dieter, that I otherwise didn't know.
    Guys, discussions often evolve way beyond the scope of the original post, don't pretend like you don't know that isn't the case. These type of posts about "Well this type of discussion shouldnt be allowed anyway cause nothing is being said" generally comes when you don't have much else to add.
     
  72. I was very clear and specific in what I wrote Edward; I did not mention the M-mount. Nikon has the 50/1.2, 55/1.2 and the 58/1.2 Noct for the F-mount - neither has a CPU (though with difficulty, one can be fitted). Nikon's F-mount throat diameter is 44mm (same as Leica M), Canon's EOS mount has 54mm. Sony E-mount is 46mm.​
    Mirrorless IL cameras are closer in form to Leica than Nikon. If Nikon wishes to be a contender in that arena, they will have to design or contract a new line of lenses for that form factor, and probably a new lens mount. Compatibility will be one-way only, using an adapter. DSLR lenses will be made as long as there are DSLRs in use, but there's no economic pressure to upgrade the DSLR mount.
     

Share This Page

1111