What would you want from a Nikon FX mirrorless?

<p>Mirrorless is the latest thing many people seem to be into.<br>

I would imagine that Nikon is at least thinking about a mirrorless FX system as it would sell to many people, however looking at the Sony A7Rii and the issues that surround it I would hope that Nikon may be able to pull all the stops out and make something special that would have lasting appeal.<br>

I would like to see a Nikon with:</p>

<p>In body stabilisation (most important)<br>

Standard Nikon menus with simple menus, not like the Sony. Make it intuitive.<br>

A decent size battery which may also mean a nice grip on the camera.<br>

DF style controls (this is a personal one).<br>

Make the camera 'right' so less grumbling and 'wait for the Mk 2 comments'.<br>

Not more that £2000. Sony is over charging for the A7Rii.<br>

A reasonably priced F mount adaptor - or maybe even include it in the box. Please don't charge us £400+ extra.<br>

Good power management that will not result in overheating<br>

Class leading EVF.<br>

4K video would be important so include it (but not something I would use as my TV is a standard 4:3 CRT set).<br>

Lenses at launch - this is tricky as a whole new lens line is expensive and creates confusion. Sony has the Zeiss lenses and if Nikon could do similar by allowing other manufacturers to make lenses that would help a great deal. I'm thinking Tokina or Tamron.</p>

<p>At the moment I am happy with optical finders and live view, however I do have a Fuji X100t and see the appeal of a high performance compact system. If Nikon were to introduce such a camera I would certainly be interested. I am imagining a D3300 size camera with FX sensor and big EVF.</p>

<p>So what would you want - or are you happy with SLR's enough not to be interested.</p>

<p>Wants:<br /> 1. A dual mount system (i.e. built-in lens adapter) that could shorten the register and allow lighter non-retrofocus wide-angle lenses to be used. Having the Leica mount would be nice, but that's probably asking too much.<br /> 2. Ability to take all generations of F mount lenses from AI onwards without losing metering, aperture or, where appropriate, AF automation.<br /> 3. An ETTR metering option.<br /> 4. Removable WiFi connected touch-screen monitor. (Although actually a full-swivel rear screen would do me just fine.)<br /> 6. Either an eyepiece EVF or glare-proof technology on the rear viewing screen. Preferably the latter.<br /> 7. Sort out the delay between magnified Live View shutter press and actually taking the picture - it's unacceptable and inexcusable!<br /> 8. 50 Megapixels would be nice, but only if there are lenses available to make use of that resolution - in short make it a Pentax645z/Aptus killer.<br /> 9. Good provision for off-camera flash with BI TTL radio triggering while keeping the good old P-C socket as well. That way we'd only need an updated receiver/trigger to adapt existing CLS flash gear.<br /> 10. Provision for a <em>simple</em> (and inexpensive) battery grip. Nobody really needs a duplication of camera controls or an intervalometer on a battery holder.</p>

<p>Don't wants:<br /> 1. I don't really care for the half-baked retro styling of the Df. If it was a properly crafted metal-bodied camera maybe, but to me it just feels like a chromed-plastic toy somebody has made to look like an old film camera. Plus I'm now well-used to the thumbwheel and joystick style of shooting. A retro styling wouldn't have widespread appeal to a younger market IMHO - too gimmicky, and especially if it added a premium to the price.<br /> 2. Not another accessory interface! Stick with one of the one's we've already got Nikon. Although I could understand losing the bulky 10-pin connector.<br /> 3. Remove some of the buttons and crap from the menus that would obviously be redundant for a mirrorless camera - like shutter delay, preview, MU, etc.<br /> 4. 4K video? Who knows if there'll be a market for that yet? It may turn out to be the Blu-Ray, Videodisc or Betamax of this decade. 1080p still hasn't fully saturated the market and there are <em>still</em> "HD Ready" televisions being sold. People are soon going to say "enough is enough already".<br /> 5. No popup flash; except as an optional accessory. Go back to the cold-shoe and leave flash communication to radio triggering as above.<br /> 6. Not sure about sensor-based VR. It would have to be a bit more sophisticated than simple X-Y displacement to allow for lens distortions. Maybe a lens-mount based system? But that could be power-hungry.</p>

<p>I'm imagining something much slimmer than a D3300 thanks Ian. A rangefinder sized camera with a removable "snout" to take F-mount lenses. Basically an overgrown digital compact.</p>

<p>The mirrorless bill of goods is a complex one, a camera that needs to be all things to all people somehow and yet usually fails at one or two important things. It's a tough nut to solve.</p>

<p>For me, a camera comes down to something fairly simple. Does it facilitate my connection with the subject and composition in the immediacy of the moment? Because if it doesn't do that, it's worthless to me.</p>

<p>So this boils down to a few things. (1) Can I see every nuance of a portrait subject's facial expression in the viewfinder? (2) Can I manually focus the shot as instantaneously as possible? [And of course...(3) Can I get the shot within 40 msec of hitting the release? And (4) is the camera ergonomically appropriate for constant use?]</p>

<p>Satisfying (1) and (2) seem to be the hardest to achieve. </p>

<p>In the viewfinder, I want a top notch optical view port that is entirely free of aberrations corner-to-corner and no-compromise diopter corrections (D4 level viewfinder optics minimum). And I want a color-calibrated 4k EVF with 120Hz refresh.</p>

<p>I suspect Nikon is going to hesitate on IBIS since they're in the business of equipping and selling lenses with OIS. </p>

<p>Editing time has passed, but I've just thought of another want: Provision to use leaf-shuttered lenses.</p>

<p>Yes I know we've got Auto-FP synch and FP-enabled flash, but it's not the same. A leaf-shutter can provide much more efficient use of peak flash power and thus give better ambient light rejection than using a prolonged flash duration.</p>

<p>@ Luke "Can I see every nuance of a portrait subject's facial expression in the viewfinder?" - Well, if the camera is set on a tripod and it's a formal portrait or modelling session then IMO you shouldn't be looking through the viewfinder at all. Directly looking at the sitter and communicating with them is much better. I think that's why the WLF was once so popular with portraitists and the like. It's easy to look up from and talk to the sitter. Same would be true of a flipped up rear screen.</p>

<p>Another belated thought: Add not just face recognition and AF tracking, but eye recognition and tracking. Tough luck all you pet photographers though, it might be too much to ask of a recognition system to accommodate all types of eye shape and colour.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've just thought of another want: Provision to use leaf-shuttered lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very interesting, RJ! It wouldn't be that hard to do. One could get sync from the leaf shutter. The camera could have a generalized "external shutter" mode, which might be a bit more ambitious. </p>

<p>Big, bright optical VF, ideally something like the hybrid OF/EVF finders from the Fuji X series, with full shooting data displayed in OF mode.</p>

<p>Direct independent controls for aperture and shutter speed without a menu or mode switch. Could be command and sub-command dials like the modern SLRs, or traditional top plate and lens dials.</p>

<p>Quick access to ISO, focus point selection, AF mode and AE/AF lock without menus.</p>

<p>Leaf shutters? Nice, but it makes lenses more expensive. (Although so does AF-S and E-aperture, so maybe it's not prohibitive.) Not that there's a reason Nikon couldn't do this with the D810 (EFCS), if not other bodies.<br />

<br />

I'm obviously not going to be a fan of anything with Df ergonomics. The question for me is, why mirrorless? More information in the finder is nice, if it keeps up and has a lot of dynamic range (I like what the X100 series hybrid finder does, for what it's worth). But one reason you can shoot for hours with a DSLR is that it's not running an emissive display the whole time. And for some reason, EVFs don't seem to help the battery much compared with rear screens, on most cameras I've seen. I'd like Nikon to think about this only if they're sure it's better.<br />

<br />

On-sensor AF is another matter entirely. Accuracy of PDAF is a known issue. Of course, if Nikon would put in focus bracketing (which Olympus seem to have added recently) and would pay whoever I suspect has the patent on automatic lens calibration by comparing PDAF with CDAF in-camera (because I can't think of another reason we don't have it), the situation would be better. A few more cross sensors wouldn't hurt, either.<br />

<br />

As for pixels... 8K displays are starting to appear (more). Proper oversampling of 4K is not a bad thing. UHDTVs are no longer exotic. Canikon are behind the game here, and they'll have to get on it soon. Stupid pixel counts make things worse because you're using less of the sensor, or sampling unevenly; ideally, you probably want something close to 7680x5120 (which isn't much more than a D8x0) or 8192x5462 (which gives you cinema 8K, rather than FUHD. The A7R II can do this with a bit of wasted slack around the outside, so frankly I'd probably say they should just take the A7RII sensor and stick it in a D850, and I'll buy one the moment I get around to caring enough about video. (I'll be interested to see whether Sony's A7R II sensor scores at DxO improve when they've got the firmware that doesn't mandate lossy raw compression. DPReview seem to be on it.)<br />

<br />

Sony over-charging for the A7R-II? Compared with what? As a brand new camera, it's barely more than the D810 and less than the 5DS R; I would trust it'll drop once the market settles. Sony have always been competitive in pricing for the A7 range. The original is now ridiculously cheap (compared with, say, a D610). Sony do charge silly money for their lenses, of course...<br />

<br />

If Nikon make a mirrorless for under £2000, I suspect it'd be an A7-II clone. Without tying into their F mount legacy - and doing so does raise a question of why you bothered to go mirrorless (doens't it, <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/slrs/pentax_k01">Pentax</a>?) - I'm not sure why Nikon would benefit from going mirrorless with full frame. They don't seem to be putting much focus on making the camera pocketable, and no full-frame camera is going to be exactly small as is. I've stated my personal suggestion of a DSLR with a collapsible lens mount (fold the mirror up, then allow the rear lens elements to be stored inside the mirror box; bonus marks for a collapsible pentamirror) on this forum before; although I'm not going to assert the idea is free of technical challenges, I think that would be a more interesting way to achieve a less bulky full-frame Nikon.<br />

<br />

But I have a grand history of being terrible at predicting what Nikon will do next. I'd not be surprised if the D5 (when and if there is one) contains something novel, maybe increasing the frame rate by making the mechanical mirror optional (like the 1-series), maybe PDAF on-sensor. I'd be disappointed if it's still multicam-3500-based. But going fully mirrorless would surprise me. My experience with the finder on an NX-1 was good, but not <i>that</i> good.</p>

<p>I have no particular interest in an F-mont mirrorless. Before that would be enticing, Nikon would need to develop a line of compact F-mount lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DF style controls (this is a personal one).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a complete non-starter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have no particular interest in an F-mont mirrorless. Before that would be enticing, Nikon would need to develop a line of compact F-mount lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We need to keep in mind that the F mount is not merely the shape of the mechanical connection and the electronic contacts; it is also the flange-to-sensor distance. After you remove the mirror, keeping the same distance is kind of silly and will create a lot of front-heavy set ups; Sony is having such problems to some degree. (For teles, it probably doesn't matter as they will be front heavy regardless.)</p>

<p>I think it would be wise for Nikon to design a new mirrorless mount for the 21st century and provide good adapters for people to mount those close-to-100M existing F-mount lenses out there. There is no reason for Nikon to be hindered by a mount designed back in 1959 with a mirror in mind. However, I would be the first to point out that it is much easier said than done. It is relatively easy to design something totally new from scratch; once you need to consider backward compatibility, it gets tough. That is why the F mount has been under a continuous evolution and there has been on-going new compromises for over half a century.</p>

<p>Likewise, it would be silly to be hindered by Df-style controls from the last century.</p>

<p>However, that line of compact F-mount lenses is already available. We now have f1.8 AF-S lenses in 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. None of them is E, though such that some kind of mechanical aperture control will still be necessary.</p>

<ul>

<li>a real F-mount</li>

<li>light and small (body less than 1/2 lbs, battery included)</li>

<li>real controls like a dslrs, not tiny buttons like a compact</li>

<li>seamless integration with phones, tablets, computers (it's 2015, not 1995)</li>

</ul>

 

<p>+1 Pete's list<br>

I would also like to have a swivel LCD </p>

1. Smaller and lighter than Df

 

2. Retain full functionality with existing FX lens

 

3. FX adaptor doesn't cost arm and leg

 

4. Eye level finder

<p>By the way, these threads are fun but they always make me more sympathetic to the difficult choices a manufacturer must make. </p>

<p>Chip, it is always easy to write something that may or may not make any sense and post to these threads, because you don't need to come through with the product you describe and it doesn't matter whether it will be profitable. That is exactly what a lot of bloggers are doing in these days.</p>

<p>As I said earlier, the F mount has a defined flange-to-sensor distance from 1959 that you can't shorten (otherwise your lens' minimum focusing distance will be farther). Therefore, having a true F mount has some implication on the thickness of your camera body. You can't arbitrarily make your mirrorless camera body thinner (smaller) while maintaining the F mount. One suggestion I have seen is that you have a thinner mirrorless body and then have an "extension tube" permanently built into the body to make up that flange-to-sensor distance to maintain the F mount. Personally, I don't think that is a very good idea.</p>

<p>Another issue is that with the mirror out of the way, you don't need need to make wide angles retrofocus to clear the space for the mirror. You still need to make them telecentric for digital sensors such that wideangles won't be as small as those old Leica M wide lenses. But I would like to see Nikon re-design the entire line of wide-angle lenses for mirrorless. That will take a while. In the mean time, we can use F mount wide angles with an adapter.</p>

<p>At the risk of pushing my "collapsible camera" argument again, I'm not sure what the merits of a small camera really are. I can see that having a camera that packs up small is useful, but when using it, the camera size doesn't bother me much (within reason). And for packing up small, I've seen 5x4 field cameras that are smaller and certainly lighter than my F5. Once I'm carrying some reasonably-sized lenses around, the camera doesn't make that much difference.<br />

<br />

My current strategy for portable full frame (when I'm not just carrying an RX100) is to stick an E-series 50mm f/1.8 on my D810. It barely sticks out more than the hand grip. A 45mm f/2.8 AI-P would probably be marginally smaller, but isn't worth the cost to me. Not that I can see why the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D or AF-S have the hugely indented front element that makes them so much longer.<br />

<br />

Getting any kind of useful telecentricity (given the hassles Leica went through trying to do this) from a wide angle that's not already in danger of clearing the mirror seems hard. If Nikon returned to F5-style permanent mirror lock-up, they could handle invasive lenses like the old fish-eyes, and also handle lenses that collapse inside the camera for storage (like the Leica collapsible 50mm summicron).<br />

<br />

I still have vague hopes that diffractive optics/fresnel lenses might make the physical size of lens elements small enough that we might start seeing more collapsible lenses. The kit lens on the 1-series is all very well, but the camera is still bigger than an RX100 even so - and on a V1, not significantly smaller than my GF2/14-42 PZ combination. The collapsible 18-55 on the D3300 is nice, but still not <i>that</i> small, and Nikon haven't made a full-frame equivalent. I envy Pentax their "limited" pancakes.<br />

<br />

The moment we're not talking small apertures and moderate wide-angles, a lens is a lens, and the only significant difference in bulk and weight between a D810 and an A7R system is the pentaprism (and the battery size); the pentamirror on the low-end DX cameras is much lighter, of course. Any kind of OVF adds substantially to the size of a camera - even an M3 is much bigger than I tend to think.</p>

<p>really good question. i would start by looking at current/recent Nikon mirrorless bodies (Coolpix A and Nikon 1 J5/V3) and see where they could be improved. </p>

<p>Both cameras could benefit from better UI and more enthusiast-oriented features. the Coolpix A concept could be replicated in different focal lengths, i.e. 20/28/35/50/75. also a fixed-zoom a la LX 100 could round out the line. would like to see on-chip PDAF for blazing AF, and more of a refinement of current features. i do think 4k video and in-body stabilization are useful features, but for fixed-lens cameras this could be lens-based if it saves weight/bulk. being able to use CLS with no restrictions is also a must.</p>

<p>The nikon 1 line needs more direct controls and a more advanced UI. there are some advantages like AF speed to the smaller sensor format but more control over AF points would be nice. you also need a full set of fast primes, because slow lenses + small sensors = no bueno. i'd also maybe like to see a fixed-lens N1 with a fast zoom.</p>

<p>as far as an entirely-new nikon mirrorless line, Fuji and Sony have provided roadmaps for that in both APS-C and FX formats. manual dials are nice for direct control, but we are in a touchscreen age now. i'd like to see a full iteration of bodies, i.e. entry-level/enthusiast/prosumer, with appropriate features across the entire line. but the lenses are where it gets tricky. you'd need a new mount and also the ability to take adapted lenses. but you'd also have to have some kind of innovation to distinguish nikon bodies from the fuji and sony lines which are now well established. the only thing stopping me from getting an XT1 (besides disposable income) right now is the not-quite-there yet AF. so a new Nikon APS-C mirrorless would have to be better in that regard then what's already out there. Ditto with an FX mirrorless. it would be pointless to have an amazing low-light sensor without AF which works as good as current FX bodies and fast lenses to take advantage of that. Sony's F/4 zooms are a potential dealbreaker for event/concert shooters, since you give back some of what you gain from the sensor. i dont know that there's a solution to this without physically large lenses. i also think you need a really good EVF to be competitive, as LCD-only options are a real limiting factor in actual use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As I said earlier, the F mount has a defined flange-to-sensor distance from 1959 that you can't shorten (otherwise your lens' minimum focusing distance will be farther). Therefore, having a true F mount has some implication on the thickness of your camera body. You can't arbitrarily make your mirrorless camera body thinner (smaller) while maintaining the F mount.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That distance is 46.50mm or about 1 3/4" for the metrically challenged. Todays dSLRs are a lot fatter than older film cameras and they had the same distance. Also that distance only have to be maintained over the lens mount - it doesn't mean that the grips on the body need to be as fat.<br /> <br /> What you are saying is that Nikon should make a full frame Nikon 1 camera. And then you need a large adapter to put F-mount lenses on it, just like the FT1. No thanks. You'll get much better mechanical and slightly better optical performance by having the real mount in the body from the beginning. And if I need all new lenses why stick to Nikon when there are others that can deliver - today? I think Nikon should just do what Sony is doing - mirrorless FX with F mount. <br /> <br /> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Coolpix A] could benefit from better UI and more enthusiast-oriented features</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really like the controls on Coolpix A. For such a small camera, I find it very easy to use. It is definitely a 2 hand operation for many settings, which I think is fine because it would be hard to one handed adjustments anyways. I use the "i" button for quick adjustments and I would be happy with a similar set-up on a MILC Nikon. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think Nikon should just do what Sony is doing - mirrorless FX with F mount.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pete, are you aware that Sony DSLRs/SLTs use the A (Alpha) mount inherited from Minolta while the Sony mirrorless cameras use the E mount for their interchangeable lenses? Of course the mirrorless E mount has a much shorter flange-to-sensor distance.</p>

<p>There are adapters to bridge A lenses to the E mount. See how thick that adapter is: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008165-REG/sony_laea3_a_mount_to_e_mount_lens.html</p>

<p>I'm not interested in an FX version. I want something smaller, more like M43. The reason I've been closely watching Olympus is I want a smaller, lighter camera system. FX format is nothing special.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

I feel like a dumb @ss .. because I just appreciate

what my D800 does for me: instananeous (sp?)

reaction and feedback to what I'm doing. What

does a mirrorloes need to do? Exactly that.

Without technical and optical compromises.

 

I'll guesss I just have to pick up another D800 ..

the new 200-500 .. and wait 'til the dust has

settled. Don't wait for me!

<p>Good news, Kent: Nikon already has a whole line of small, light, interchangeable lens cameras. Unless you meant you literally want a M43 sensor size.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What does a mirrorloes need to do? Exactly that. Without technical and optical compromises.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, the mirror is the main hindrance for high frame rate. With 20 fps, 30 fps or perhaps more, it will raise the bar for action and sports photography.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I don't think an electronic viewfinder will ever be as good as an optical viewfinder. It is like watching something on TV will never be the same. Therefore, I think I'll still be using DSLRs for years to come, but mirrorless can be a supplement in certain situations.</p>

<p>BTW, concerning the Coolpix A, I think Nikon has figured out that it was a major failure and that was why the remaining ones were on fire sale at a fraction of the original cost. I really doubt that Nikon will go down that path again.</p>

<p>I don't see a 20 fps or 30 fps camera raising the bar for sports photography. Shooting sports has a lot more to it then just mashing the shutter button. Will it make it easier for the Soccer moms? Sure but for the professionals no not really. There are very few times when I use my D4 on full rock and roll. Usually it is on single and I am timing my shots.</p>

<p>I also think it will be a while before an electronic viewfinder is going to be as responsive as a sports photographer is going to need.</p>

<p>So for me I would not want a mirrorless camera</p>

Frankly, I have no interest in mirrorless. Looking at a pre-rendered version of the scene in front of me on a tiny TV screen has no appeal.

As long as they keep making DSLRs with optical viewfinders, I'll be happy.