Discussion in 'Nikon' started by frans_waterlander, Mar 29, 2021.
Thermal noise is a current, so the effect depends on the length of the exposure.
The level depends on how hot the sensor is. The heating-up time in mirrorless cameras is not just that fraction of a second that it takes to capture a photo.
This isn’t a Q-anon board, you can’t just make *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* up. You persist in making this claim but have no evidence that supports it. Every single person here with actual experience says you’re wrong. The burden to provide evidence is yours. “Google it” is not evidence, it’s a way of saying you have none.
That elephant is certainly not in my room. I've used a wide range of mirrorless cameras sometimes for intensive shooting at motorsports. Sensor heat up has never been apparent on any of them.
It might become an issue if you leave the camera on endlessly without shooting - but I didn't do that with my DSLRs so don't see the need to with mirrorless cameras. 10 minutes left on isn't a problem.
I find for most of my shooting mirrorless suits me better, but as my cameras are all older models I've certainly found EVFs are slightly less comfortable for motorsports & so I still use my DSLRs for that.
Any of my mirrorless cameras are still usable for motorsports (even the ancient G1) and I've never been able to determine exactly what it is with the DSLRs that's preferable - viewfinder lag has not been an issue for me. It could just be that I don't have good native AF super telephoto lenses for my mirrorless cameras...
That’s not a mirrorless problem. DSLRs also get long exposure noise. In this case the R5 had more long exposure noise than a Nikon or Sony mirrorless or an older model Canon mirrorless - it’s about the R5, not evidence that mirrorless cameras have an inherent heat problem.
I only know of one camera where overheating is a significant problem under some real-world conditions. This reminds me of the joke about Pirerre, and his doomed attempt to be called a bridge builder, after many years in the trade. Overheat once...
Nah, I think I'm good there!
These image quality issues are not strictly mirrorless-bound but they are related to technologies commonly used in mirrorless cameras (and not strictly speaking needed on DSLRs). DSLRs don't need dual-pixel sensors (leading to requirement for twice as many pixels in the sensor than can be utilized in the final image, which can lead to increased heat and noise) or OSPDAF sensors (which can cause banding and striping when light comes in at certain angles) unless live view and video AF are prioritised. Nikon and Canon DSLRs use in-lens optical stabilizers to provide accurate viewfinder framing (instead of in-camera stabilizers). In-camera stabilizers mean the sensor heat is not as efficiently transmitted to the rest of the body. Increasing pixel count to double (or quadruple if they decide to make cross-type sensors) can increase heat and noise. R5 introduced Canon's first in-camera image stabilization and that combined with the 90-MP sensor may be one reason why it has this long-exposure noise issue to greater degree than their previous cameras (which had fewer pixels and no in-camera stabilization). A7R II has IBIS and A7R does not, and I've read tests showing there is increased long-exposure noise for the A7R II. Sony remove some of the long-exposure noise with the algorithm known infamously as the "star eater" as it removes some stars along with the noise.
Of course DSLRs have noise at long exposures as well but in a design where there is no sensor stabilizer, the noise can be lower than that in mirrorless cameras with sensor stabilizers. Some DSLRs have dual-pixel or on-sensor PDAF and these have similar issues as mirrorless cameras with those features, but it's not necessary for a DSLR used for still photography to have those features, thus these artifacts are avoided or reduced in magnitude.
The Z7 is a newer camera than the D850 yet the data show the former is behind the latter in midtone SNR at ultra-high ISO settings:
Nikon D850 vs Nikon Z7 vs
Also dynamic range at both low and ultra-high ISOs is worse for the Z7 than D850:
Nikon D850 vs Nikon Z7 vs
Tonal range and color sensitivity also show the D850 is somewhat better at the extended ISO range.
Although the long-exposure tests show good results (at least side by side with the R5), Nikon still can't get the mirrorless camera sensor to perform as well the closest DSLR version. The differences may not be all that large but they are there.
However, this isn't the reason I don't use Z cameras. I simply prefer the optical viewfinders. I also find that many of the lenses I'm most keen on aren't available for mirrorless cameras as native lenses. Mirrorless cameras have their own advantages as do DSLRs. I am not at all suggesting that mirrorless cameras shouldn't be made. I use some of them for work although I don't own any of them personally at present.
“Dual pixel” af was first used in Canon DSLRs. And it’s not used in all mirrorless. And there’s no reason to think it’s the cause of that guy’s camera having long exposure noise. Three out of four mirrorless cameras he tried did not produce significant long exposure noise, which is evidence that Frans’s hypothesis does not pan out in real world use.
The sensor in a mirrorless camera is active all the time it is powered up, whereas only at the time of exposure in a DSLR. The sensor itself generates very little heat, but may be heated by imaging processing circuitry in close proximity.
The rear LCD generates a surprising amount of heat. If you're completely obsessive on this matter, unfold the LCD a bit so that air can circulate behind it. High intensity LCD displays, e.g., in an Atomos Ninja V, would get too hot for comfort were it not for fan cooling.
I don't shoot sports, so a real-time optical finder isn't a priority. That said, my Sony cameras now update 120 times/sec, so the lag is not noticeable.
On the other hand I shoot a lot of landscapes, and an EVF is the only thing which gives me an accurate idea of DOF and focus. An OVF is only useable if the lens is wide open, and only marginally useful for manual focus. Having an artificial horizon is not a bad thing either, especially when nothing around you is level.
As with a lot of choices presented to us, the ideal choice is not either but both.
But it is a safe bet we will have our choice made for us, and mirrorless it will be.
I think you might be right. Though I believe Nikon is currently weighing whether or not to release a D850 successor soon (if not before fall, then I think the time has come and passed). Not that I am waiting for one or expecting it to be significantly different from the D850. Probably an "upgrade" similar to the D750 -> D780 (which is basically a Z6 with a mirrorbox) - so the main improvements would be on the live view/video side of things. Though the D6 AF module could find use in it as well. Similarly, but IMHO much less likely is a D500 successor. For both, there should be a market - but the question is whether or not Nikon has the production capacity to do those and the much more important (to them, not necessarily for me) mirrorless bodies and lenses and whether or not Nikon thinks there is sufficient profit to be made. Aside from the slim and slimmer chance for a D880 and D580, I don't expect any further DSLR from Nikon.
I do expect Nikon to bring out a consumer-oriented DX mirrorless below the current Z50 - call it a Z30. Most likely before they come out with one above it (call it Z70). Frankly, I was surprised that Nikon brought out a DX mirrorless at all. An FX one below the Z5 (call it Z3) makes much more sense to me - I doubt that Nikon will build a full DX Z-mount lens system - it's more likely a repeat of the rudimentary DX F-mount lens "system" they (did not) create. I'd be interested in a high-end DX mirrorless body (equivalent or better than the D500) - but I doubt it will happen (at a reasonable price and within a reasonable time frame); I more likely will have to wait for a Z8 or bite the bullet and go all out for the Z9. Or just stick with what I currently have, replace like-for-like in case of breakage/failure as long as it is possible.
Agree, I was hoping that Nikon would do a low end FX mirrorless, as the Nikkormat was to the Nikon F. And a cheaper non-pro lens line.
That would tremendously simplify migration from one to the other. Unlike the pain of going from DX to FX.
I think they were market pressured into the DX mirrorless. They could not "give" the DX/APS-C market to Canon.
Yet, there is some logic to keeping the DX line. With the DX line, it is a more price sensitive market, vs. Canon, in the big box stores.
With the FX line, they can raise the margins and make more $ per unit.
If you can keep the two lines separate, it works. It becomes an issue at the top of the DX range if you want to migrate to FX.
Canon solved that by giving the APS-C M50 a different mount than the FF R. To go from M50 to R, IS a system migration.
DX to FX: For me with a D7200 and was considering a D750, the issue was lenses. I wanted to go FX. But the cost of a DX 16-80/2.8-4 would financially lock me into DX. So I just could not make a decision, and was stuck in indecision.
I finally broke the stalemate by going the other way, to micro 4/3. This was driven purely by size and weight, as the weight of my DX/FX kit was getting too heavy for the old man to easily carry.
With only TWO DX Z lenses, Nikon is seriously lagging behind the Canon M50 in native lenses. But as you said, DX has always lagged behind FX, and has always had holes in the DX F lens line-up. I had to go to FX and 3rd party lenses to fill the gaps in the DX F lens line.
I am surprised that Nikon would discontinue the D3500 and D5600, without having a mirrorless replacement on the market. To me, this creates a marketing hole that Canon can exploit.
The main reason i think there will be no new development for DSLR's is that i feel there is nothing they can really improve padt the D850 / D6 / D500 unless they would look at verry high investment with insufficient return to make it wellworthy, whereas the mirrorless lines still have headroom to develop further in interresting ways..
I totally agree. I doubt the D780 sells all that well - I consider it a trial balloon by Nikon to see whether the changes made from the D750 draw a sufficient number of customers. If yes, we may see a D880 ; if no, we won't. A possible D500 successor is even less likely - I believe the D500 sells in smaller numbers than the D850 and those live view/video-centric upgrades aren't of high importance to what I see as the main D500 customer.
Certainly. But it's also a market of small profits per unit. And one that is rapidly shrinking, yielding to smartphones. And a more crowded one. With one very active participant - Fuji. And one lethargic one - Sony. And then the m4/3 manufacturers.
Nikon demonstrated that the D500 works at a price point similar to mid-range FX. But the D500 is a niche camera for sure.
I take a D7200 with the 16-80 over a D750 with the 24-120 anytime.
Holes? What was supposed to be a blanket more closely resembled a net - more holes than material.
I think with the Z50 Nikon is attempting to find out if there is sufficient demand. And I think a Z30 is coming. I don't think going DX mirrorless was a good move by Nikon at all.
Sony just released three "small" lenses - 50/2.5, 40/2.5, and 24/2.8 - each one sells for $600!!! That price might be OK for the 24 (though the tests I have seen show rather weak performance); but for a moderate-aperture 50 or 40mm lens, $600 is outrageous (same price as for Nikon's Z-mount 50/1.8S). A nifty-fifty for a DSLR (50/1.8) used to cost $200 at most - the Zeiss 55/1.8 for Sony E-mount is $1k!
A "nifty-fifty" worked well enough at 12 MP, or with film, with no real competition, but is disappointing when used on a 45 MP mirrorless when compared to a native mirrorless lens. The long back focus distance of an SLR lens avoids many problems attributed to the angle of incidence at the sensor, but instead of being bad at the corners, it is uniformly bad throughout, and nearly unusable at maximum aperture. Of course the Z 50/1.8 has 12 elements in 9 groups, compared to 7 elements in an AF-S 50/1.4 or f/1.8.
Since nearly any lens can be fitted to a Nikon Z, you can make direct comparisons, rather than rely on often wistful memories.
Separate names with a comma.