Should Nikon make a FF High End Mirrorless?

Wouter Willemse · June 11, 2014

True, Ilkka, it was the shutter - so well, question remains: what is so wrong about the mirror that it has to go? If a body has to remain large to accomodate larger lenses, then stuffing a mirror into it isn't the worst of things. It's simply that I cannot see an advantage to removing the mirror from this class of cameras.

I doubt very much that Nikon is trying to convince pros that mirrorless is the way to go...

</blockquote>

I fully agree, but the premise of this thread is people wishing a mirrorless D5. So, how does mirrorless come to be an advantage in a body that large, and how would Nikon convince professional users to switch to it? If the mirror isn't the biggest of problems, getting rid of it isn't solving a problem. So, why would I want a mirrorless pro-class Nikon? What would make that change worth it? I fail to see it.

Small full frame mirrorless seems a nice niche, much as Lex described. It actually would fit me quite well, but I like optical viewfinders too much. Personally, I think a cheaper alternative to Leica could possibly make sense - a real rangefinder, full frame, manual focus. Also a niche, but one proven to exist and with no affordable option available. A Nikon d-S3 instead?

Dieter Schaefer · June 11, 2014

Of course, with the right adapter, you could use a Leica or Voigtlander lens, but that isn't something that Nikon would normally promote.

</blockquote>

The camera would need to be designed with these lenses in mind in order for this to work. Sony missed the mark with the A7/A7R/A7S. Nikon would have the chance since they start a new lens system for that FF mirrorless anyway. And since it would take a few years to build up that new lens system (see Sony), there would be an incentive to make the camera suitable for adaptation of M-mount lenses. Aside from designing the camera properly, in-camera correction (as Leica has to do to make their own lenses behave on the digital M bodies) is also necessary - and Nikon (and Sony) likely will not want to spend the time and money to get it right. Non-retrofocus design can keep the lenses small - but there is a trade-off in form of vignetting, color cast and smearing in the corners (the latter reducable by using thinner glass in front of the sensor and having an exit pupil as far away from the sensor as possible).

I think Nikon should go back to producing advanced DX bodies and lenses that "advanced amateurs" want and are willing to pay for.

</blockquote>

Agreed, Nikon went out of their way to avoid making those cameras and lenses that they could have sold truckloads of. As already pointed out - the D7100 is fantastic with only one major flaw that Nikon introduced needlessly. In order to promote FX and CX, Nikon let DX wither and quite frankly, at this point I would not recommend a consumer-grade Nikon DSLR purchase to anyone (the same goes for Canon who similarly let their APS-C fall by the wayside). With the Sony A6000 there is now the first high-end mirrorless that can compete in the same price range (the likes of m4/3 OM-D and Fuji XT are twice the price). Personally, I will likely purchase another high-end DX body once Nikon gets around releasing one - but it will be mostly for use with the 80-400 (not something I would want to do with any mirrorless currently available). For the rest of my shooting, DX is out.

If Nikon made an FX mirrorless at the moment, they'd be in exactly the situation that Sony are in - no native lenses, quite expensive, not that small.

</blockquote>

The camera IS small, the zoom lenses aren't - out of necessity (Sony's 70-200/4 has no advantage in terms of size or weight over its Nikon, Canon, or Tokina counterpart; the 24-70/4 is slightly lighter than Canon's offering). There's a big difference between schlepping a D800E with 24-70/2.8 out hiking the backcountry and doing so with a A7R and the 24-70/4. What IS a problem with Sony is that even their Zeiss-branded lenses aren't all that great. With a shorter flange-to-sensor distance vignetting rears its (mostly) ugly head even more - and software correction thereof can entail the trading off darkness for noise. Soft corners, be it due to lens aberrations, field curvature, or too thick a glass stack in front of the sensor seem to be quite common too.

Should Nikon come out with an FX mirrorless - they likely will have to at one point and it will be a camera that competes with the "entry-level" FX DSLR bodies, not the high-end ones.. And I think that for the majority of FX users, that kind of FX mirrorless will be sufficient, lighter, and less costly. The heavy pro-body DSLR will become even more of niche product than they already are now.

JDMvW · June 11, 2014

Someday, of course, the film-descended features of current cameras will be 'selected out' by market and technological forces, but I strongly doubt that the result will be a return to something that looks and works like a Leica 1. We don't see many steam powered balloons today as they were projected in the 1900s, either.

If anything other than a smart phone, it might look something like the camera in the film 2001:

bebu_lamar · June 11, 2014

So a mirrorless Df wouldn't shock me at all. In fact, I thoroughly expected the first version of the Df to be a mirrorless EVF dSLR-type body.

</blockquote>

This is the kind of comment that made me post the question. It seems that if the Df was a mirroless it is more welcomed than it is not.

cc_chang1 · June 11, 2014

The advantage of a mirrorless camera are:

1. Much smaller camera size — just look at SONY A7. The lenses can be a little smaller too.

2. Much cheaper to make — just look at SONY A7, which is selling at some places for around $1,100, brand new.

3. EVF/Live view/Video. Yes, I actually like an EVF for its ability to show you what exactly your sensor is seeing, all shooting parameters, level gauge, live histogram, guide lines, … you name it.

4. Shoot all MF lens with a simple cheap adapter.

However, judging from current Nikon's offers in live view AF technology, I worry that the Nikon's live view AF is going to be slow so this will not be a sports camera. However it could be ideal for landscape shooters. If Nikon, unlike SONY, can introduce it with a set of small, fast, and inexpensive primer lenses, this could be ideal for casual, social, street photography. Unlike SONY A7, please add a built-in flash.

eric_arnold · June 11, 2014

Before the Sony RX100, and then the Coolpix A and Ricoh GR (APS version), came out,

</blockquote>

i see where you're going with that, but you absolutely cannot overlook the X100/x100s, if we are talking about true market innovation. the X100 just lets you shoot, is reasonably configurable, and is a lot of camera in a small package. the new RX100 III has a 2.8 zoom and ISO performance on a par with DSLRs five years ago, which is remarkable for a small sensor camera. (it also raises questions as to why the 1" sensor in the Nikon 1's can't achieve similar results).

it's worth noting that both Fuji and Ricoh kept making their large sensor compacts better after release, while Nikon has seemingly abandoned the Coolpix A, of which they also left off a few features, and probably introduced it at too high a price point considering the competition, especially the GR, which now sells for below $700.

of course, being a market innovator isn't what nikon has been doing over the last 5 years. they've concentrated on entry-level bodies for the most part, a strategy which has been puzzling at times. which leads to faint praise like this:

Personally, I will likely purchase another high-end DX body once Nikon gets around releasing one - but it will be mostly for use with the 80-400 (not something I would want to do with any mirrorless currently available). For the rest of my shooting, DX is out.

</blockquote>

i'm not sure how much better nikon will do with a future DX DSLR than the d7100, since we seem to have reached peak resolution with the 24mp sensor. Meanwhile, Fuji and Sony have shown that APS-C sensors are viable in mirrorless cams, which questions the need for FX in the first place.

What IS a problem with Sony is that even their Zeiss-branded lenses aren't all that great. With a shorter flange-to-sensor distance vignetting rears its (mostly) ugly head even more - and software correction thereof can entail the trading off darkness for noise. Soft corners, be it due to lens aberrations, field curvature, or too thick a glass stack in front of the sensor seem to be quite common too.

</blockquote>

so there are inherent technical limitations in an FX mirrorless that aren't that easy to overcome. and the elephant in the room is, if Nikon did go there and make one, what lenses would you put on it? by that same token, what would make a nikon-branded FX fixed-focal camera any more compelling than a Sony RX1? Ashton Kutcher? seriously, though a fixed-focal compact FX camera would appeal to a lot of users, probably not at the RX1's current price point. most of us would settle for a 16mp APS-C Coolpix B with an f/2 lens and VR, at the current Coolpix A price point, or a smidgen less expensive, say, $1000. of course, if you sell a lot of those, you're training the consumer not to buy additional lenses and to decouple from the system approach to cameras which precedes the DSLR era. which has likely been Nikon's fear all along.

Andrew Garrard · June 11, 2014

It's certainly true that a mirrorless camera can be made with fewer moving parts, which tends to make them cheaper. Like the V3. (Oh, wait.) There's sometimes an issue that relying on live view introduces sensor noise, and it certainly affects power drain, but I don't deny that the design has advantages. At some point, I'll get myself a 5x4, which is, of course, mirrorless.

I'm wary of comparing a low aperture zoom with a fast lens and claiming that the difference is the mirror. I do think there's little benefit to mirrorless at the telephoto end (where there's no benefit to having a retrofocal system that would otherwise hit the mirror - although sensors that benefit from telecentricity counter this somewhat). Honestly, I don't know how much a shorter camera helps when it's in use - a shorter camera in stored configuration is another matter, but I've been arguing for a while that Nikon might like to think about lenses that collapse into the mirror box (and have the camera store the mirror up). Obviously, not every lens would fit, but having recently seen a "collapsable" 18-55 Nikkor, it was hardly "small" in the style of my Panasonic 14-42 PZ. Pentax's limited range, on the other hand, are actually small. I've been vaguely hoping that someone will implement diffractive optics in a collapsible lens to make the result thinner...

For shooting wide angles, mirrorless does matter for size, but - again allowing for telecentricity - I'm not sure how much. I'm not going to deny that my LSM Voigtlander 35mm f/2 is tiny, but I doubt it would perform well on a digital sensor. On the other hand, I'm not sure that a big sensor is so necessary for a wide angle - at least, a wide aperture may not be. Maybe the biggest disadvantage would be limits to dynamic range. Still, maybe the way forward is really tiny cameras, for wide-angle. GoPro, anyone?

I see the RX100 as a really big argument against the 1 series, but they're still limited by their sensor size. The lens actually doesn't test all that well either (though neither do 1-series lenses), according to DxO. Fingers crossed the lens from the RX100 III will be a step up. DPReview's samples make it quite tempting, next time (if ever) I have disposable income. The "large sensor compact" argument is probably less convincing as the cost of the sensor and lens go up - the RX1 is a very much harder sell than the D800.

lwg · June 11, 2014

I would buy a Nikon version of the A7R, assuming it had the following:

<ul>

<li>nice selection of light weight slower prime lenses from wide to short tele 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm f/2.8 type lenses that are excellent wide open,</li>

<li>it has an adapter to use the existing F mount lenses,</li>

<li>a very fast EVF with excellent manual focus capability,</li>

<li>buffer at least as good as the D800E</li>

</ul>

donbright · June 11, 2014

The viewfinder of the Df is one of its few greatest assets. So glad the Df didn't go the way of mirrorless. Again, until EV viewfinders improve with great leaps, I can't entertain the thought. The entire existence of the SLR concept is for providing the clearest, brightest view for focusing, ascertaining the image, and inspiring the Photographer. It's the image! What I see is what I want to get. I won't go the way of shelling out more dough for another technical experiment.

Dieter Schaefer · June 11, 2014

i'm not sure how much better nikon will do with a future DX DSLR than the d7100

</blockquote>

I'm easy - just add more buffer and a (dedicated) AF-ON button in the correct place. Would prefer a more robust D300-style body but that ship likely has sailed. Some more small things, but they are all firmware related. 24MP is definitely "enough".

so there are inherent technical limitations in an FX mirrorless that aren't that easy to overcome. and the elephant in the room is, if Nikon did go there and make one, what lenses would you put on it?

</blockquote>

The FE 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 for the A7 series show that it's possible to overcome the issues - with vignetting left for the software to take care of. Rangefinder lenses "left over" from the film era will have problem (unless telecentric by design) - the main issue is that they are designed with the assumption that there is only air between the lens and the film, not a stack of glass that can be anywhere from less than 1mm (Leica) to 4mm thick. Edge smearing is nothing but the effect of light that focus on one sensor elements being spread over an entire group of them. This was already demonstrated almost 7 years ago right here: http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00M5ag (just wished I had "remembered"). I haven't looked at all the Leica lenses - particularly the ones designed in the "digital era" - but Leica certainly needs the software corrections to make the older ones "behave". What lenses? I would settle for a few primes between 16/18mm and 135/180mm. Pretty much the same range as rangefinder lenses. Most Leica lenses aren't exactly small (or light for that matter - they are metal). Longer teles or zooms negate the advantage of having a small camera body - as if this would need mentioning again ;-)

Re: manual focus with EVF. I have used only the EVF in the NEX 6 and A7. Focus peaking is certainly not selective enough to pinpoint the plane of focus. Easy access to a magnified view, however, makes manual focusing rather convenient and certainly easier (for me) than focusing on the screen of my D700 (or trying to use the green dot for confirmation). Of course, having to switch between magnified and normal view isn't very convenient particulaly when your subject is moving. I don't have a Df, but if someone sends one my way, I'll be happy to report back whether I think focusing is better on its viewfinder or the one in the A7.

eric_arnold · June 11, 2014

I'm easy - just add more buffer and a (dedicated) AF-ON button in the correct place. Would prefer a more robust D300-style body but that ship likely has sailed. Some more small things, but they are all firmware related. 24MP is definitely "enough".

</blockquote>

Nikon's recent history suggest they have a mental block against doing the thing which makes the msot sense, i.e. updating the d700 and d300. But unless they find a way to really increase functionality, it's looking more and more like DSLRs have hit a wall. OTOH, mirrorless continues to innovate and experiment and is beginning to hit the mark with regularity, which i suspect is the draw for aficionados -- along with the physical realities of lighter, more compact gear (a huge benefit in and of itself).

As Thom Hogan pointed out, though, mirrorless isn't quite there in terms of surpassing DSLR functionality. Sure the E-M1 and XT1 are perhaps the best efforts yet from Olympus and Fuji, and the technical quality of the Sony A7 is drool-worthy. But as it stands now, there's no do-it-all camera like the d300 and d700 were. What we're seeing is the compartmentalization of the camera market. Different niches for different tasks. As well as a big push for more compactness, which is driving market innovation right now.

In all actuality, mirrorless will continue to bleed users away from Nikon/Canon until they change their market strategy from protecting their market share--even at the risk of undermining their own products--to leading with innovation, and not just competing with each other while pretending other companies don't exist. It's pretty surprising Nikon has not put out a Coolpix P series with a 1" sensor and a (fast) fixed zoom to compete with the RX100, which is now on its third iteration, yet.

I actually think the future for Nikon does lie in the 1 series, which is a better UI, better sensor performance, and a few fast primes and constant-aperture zooms away from being eminently usable. Nikon also needs to be more consistent and not cannibalize features on compacts with a high-end price tag. But one could see an iterated product line which goes like this: Nikon 1/ DX/ FX and includes sensible decisions which check off the right boxes in the niche market.It's a bit maddening that Nikon 1 gives you the best AF ever in a compact camera but undercuts it with sluggish (or overpriced) lenses and a menu-based UI, as opposed to manual controls. It's irksome that the Coolpix A doesnt have a faster lens or VR and isn't available in other focal lengths a la Sigma's DP series. It's a head scratcher that the D7000 didn't have better AF, and the d7100 has too shallow of a buffer. it's sad that 3rd party lensmakers now offer the best options for prosumer DX. And it's worrisome that Nikon's FX lineup doesnt follow a sensible upgrade path -- there's no sports/action option with the d600/610 sensor, the d600/610 have worse AF than the d7100, and to get the d4 sensor in a smaller package, you have to get the Df, even if that's not what you want. the d800 is a great camera for IQ, but not everyone needs that much resolution for everyday shooting. All of which is to say that Nikon needs to straighten out its product line first before something like a mirrorless FF body would begin to make sense.

ty_mickan · June 11, 2014

The ability for Nikon to build normal lenses as opposed to retro focus lenses would have to be the single biggest

afvantage to an EVIL camera. This would mean a new set of lenses for owners.

Manual focus is a superior way of focusing, if implemented correctly, for MOST types of shooting. It was suggested above

that Nikon should make a cheaper variant of the Leica but why would one assume that the Nikon would be cheaper. The

Pricing of their Dx series of cameras would indicate that pricing would be similar or more.

So enjoy your DLSR's, they do a great job for their intended purpose, nothing drastic needs to change. Leica already

make the best rangefinder, no need to re invent the wheel there, and there are plenty of large sensor EVIL cameras

already available. Am I missing something here, or is this just want for wants sake?

john_hinkey · June 11, 2014

Yes, yes they should - Sony sort of did it with the A7, A7R, and now A7S.

See my thread at: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1299958

I want a FF mirrorless for:

- Smaller, lighter body

- No more AF fine tune BS

- Accurate DOF preview with fast glass

- Accurate focusing either in AF or MF modes

With my photo $$ I bought a Sony A7R to accomplish the points above that my Nikon D800 cannot.

If Nikon can come out with the (IMHO) silly DF, then they ought to be able to come out with a decent FX mirrorless for the crowd that don't need huge FPS or killer continuous AF.

My m43 gear is really great except when I need really low DOF and higher ISO low noise . . .

clive_murray_white · June 11, 2014

Time to go back to the drawing board and start again, I have D800 and Fuji X100 both drive me nuts sometimes and my mind wanders towards thinking about what I'd really like in a device that takes photos - I think I'd enjoy the opportunity to enter an aspirational design competition that encourages participants to take a very fresh look at all the elements that have evolved into our current SLR or Rangefinder based offerings.

I have a sneaking suspicion that some clues to creating a better camera system can be found in phones/pads that bypass viewfinders altogether and give a reasonable view of the actual picture you may be trying to take. The fact that these devices are held in a completely different way to a "normal" camera may also have quite a bearing on new camera design.

So instead of just thinking of a copycat Nikon mirror-less lets go for something truly innovative.

Dieter Schaefer · June 11, 2014

i really think the mount issue is what's stopped Nikon from innovating more in the mirrorless realm. you can't just abandon the F-mount to build a new system -- or can you? and if you could, would you want to? so good backwards compatibility (posing no limitations in use of older gear) should be extremely high on the agenda. So high, you might just end up using the F-mount. With only AF-S and Ai/AiS properly supported?

</blockquote>

I think this hits at the crux of the problem - users will demand compatibility with every Nikon lens already out there. So non-Ai, Ai/Ai-S, screw-driver AF, AF-S, VR - the new camera mount needs to have all that functionality to feed through one or a set of different adapters - in addition to whatever the new lens system would require on its own. Certainly possible - but at what cost? Only support AF-S and VR? One can certainly still mount all the manual focus lenses - there just won't be an automatic diaphragm. The OP is also asking for such a camera in the "D800 class" - so something akin to the Sony A7R? Or A7S (is that the "Df class"?). Given that the price would be $2500+, I am fairly certain that I wouldn't be interested. I expected the Df to come in below the D600/D610 price point and I would certainly expect the same from a Nikon FX mirrorless. Should Nikon come out with such a camera? I think it's a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" ;-)

So instead of just thinking of a copycat Nikon mirror-less lets go for something truly innovative.

</blockquote>

I like seeing people taking pictures with their ipads. In order to see things more clearly (aka pixel peep at the 100% level without the need to zoom in), a ~10-inch display can't possibly be large enough. Given that an ipad with a 2048x1536 resolution weighs about a pound, it should be possible to come up with a 7,360 × 4,912 resolution 20-inch 2-lbs contraption that somehow allows to mount lenses. Along these lines http://fishxpressions.wordpress.com/tag/dslr-rig/ maybe?

eric_arnold · June 11, 2014

The OP is also asking for such a camera in the "D800 class" -

</blockquote>

meaning what, exactly? 36 mp sensor? multicam 3500 AF module? 4k video? on-chip beverage dispenser? since we're speculating, let's base our speculations on sensible notions. a compact FX mirrorless camera doesnt need 36 or even 24 MP. it just has to be able to use legacy glass at native length with weight/bulk savings and enough sensor resolution for acuity w/out introducing diffraction/focus errors/ AF issues. based on available research, that sweet spot is 12-18mp, folks. you probably do need video and wi-fi at this point as well. plus at least 5fps. priced just under a d610, it would do well. priced over, and the sales would be considerably less. right now there's a price point gap between the d7100 and d610. that's where my target would be, if i was a nikon exec. unfortunately the stripped-down, chromed-up, overhyped Df kind of messes things up in FX-land, although to be fair, the d610 has more features than the Df and is priced less.

I expected the Df to come in below the D600/D610 price point

</blockquote>

at $1500, i might have swooped one up. at it's current selling price, i'd rather have a d800 or a d610 + a lens or two. that's the other part of the problem -- Nikon's pricing only makes sense if you are a Kardashian. $1100 for a Coolpix A? $1300 for the V3? $1700 for the 58/1.4? almost $3000 for the Df? let's be serious here. when i can get a competent mirrorless body for $500, suddenly spending $2000+ on a bigger body doesnt seem all that appealing any more.

john_hinkey · June 12, 2014

Why does a compact mirrorless Nikon body have to have a low MP count? My A7R can use all of those 36 non-AA MPs with legacy Nikon glass just fine. I certainly would want the 36MP option in my Nikon mirrorless camera when using my 70-200/4VR and other Nikkors.

I think Sony has the right idea with the A7, A7R, and A7S variation in the MP count - though they are a bit rough around the edges as implemented. The prices are reasonable as well for what you get. Smaller physical size does not need to correlate with price.

Andrew Garrard · June 12, 2014

I was, obviously, surprised by the appearance of the Df. I would have been much more surprised by an attempt to do retro full-frame mirrorless from Nikon - at least there are lots of "old-style" Nikon SLR users out there (e.g. <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cdpE">here</a>), whereas Nikon's S-mount range aren't exactly ubiquitous. Besides, Leica have already gone there. Mirrorless + old manual lenses is probably not so useful, especially - as Dieter says - with the sensor cover issues that have recently been covered on LensRentals.

If Nikon do produce a full-frame (or at least, larger than CX) mirrorless camera, I'd be very surprised if they made it bigger by going "retro" with it. And I speak as someone who'd quite like to own an X100s.

ilkka_nissila · June 12, 2014

let's base our speculations on sensible notions. a compact FX mirrorless camera doesnt need 36 or even 24 MP. it just has to be able to use legacy glass at native length with weight/bulk savings and enough sensor resolution for acuity w/out introducing diffraction/focus errors/ AF issues. based on available research, that sweet spot is 12-18mp, folks.

I would put the sweet spot around 24MP for FX. The 36MP high resolution sensor doesn't introduce AF or diffraction issues though it may reveal more clearly what issues exist (it does make it easier to correct them since it's not possible to fix what you can't see). 24MP for DX is a little on the high side though the dynamic range improvement at base ISO is beneficial.

lex_jenkins · June 12, 2014

"Why does a compact mirrorless Nikon body have to have a low MP count? My A7R can use all of those 36 non-AA MPs with legacy Nikon glass just fine. "

</blockquote>

True, but Sony's new low light champ is only 12-16 megapickles, if I'm rcealling correctly. That's still a factor for low noise, high ISO performance.

My use for this hypothetical Nikon would be handheld low light stuff, mostly candids. I'd rather compromise file size than high ISO performance. And 16 megapickle raw files are about all my modest PCs can handle quickly anyway, and that's good enough for the largest prints I'd want.

While I'm more of a skeptic than cynic, I wouldn't mind terribly if Nikon made a full frame version of the V1. There would be so much whining online about an FX format V1 that within a year or two Nikon would drop the price from $2,500 to $500, at which point I'd buy two. It would be a terrible business decision for Nikon, but at least I could afford it.

Semi-seriously, an FX version of the S-series rangefinders, geared for outstanding low light performance, with a hybrid optical/EVF, and an adapter for some compatibility with existing F mount Nikkors, could be pretty sweet.

ilkka_nissila · June 12, 2014

True, but Sony's new low light champ is only 12-16 megapickles, if I'm rcealling correctly. That's still a factor for low noise, high ISO performance.

It is low MP in order to achieve high SNR in video at high ISO, but still image quality is likely not significantly improved by the low pixel count, I suspect (there is simply not a lot that can be improved). The reason video SNR benefits from a low pixel count is that the camera can read all the photosites at the video fps rate without skipping lines as the D800 etc. do and without the sensor heating up too much (though this is as yet uncertain, whether the heat generation is managed well). The D800 video and live view are low quality because most of the pixels in the image are dumped before the 2MP HD video is generated, reducing the amount of information in the image vs. what would be captured by reading the whole 36MP and then resampling it to 2MP for HD. I recall that Sony very clearly state the A7s is 12MP for the purposes of achieving high quality video, not stills. On their website it says "12.2MP sensor optimized for 4k and low light video".

Of course, it is possible that the A7s has an advantage for stills image quality at high ISO as well, but in many cases it has been that those sensors that are optimized for video are not the best for stills and vice versa. For example Nikon D800/D4(s) etc. have excellent dynamic range and color sensitivity but the video image quality is not as good as with Canon sensors that show compromises at low ISO dynamic range in stills in particular but excel e.g. in the LV display with less noise than Nikons. My guess is that the different companies set the design priorities differently and result in somewhat different technologies for the sensor and associated electronics to achieve their goals. A full frame 4K camera at the price of the Sony A7s will no doubt gather widespread interest in the filmmaker community.

cc_chang1 · June 12, 2014

meaning what, exactly? 36 mp sensor? multicam 3500 AF module? 4k video

</blockquote>

I hope not, I just don't think the AF and the EVF in the mirrorless systems are good enough as a D800 replacement. What I and many others want is a simpler FF mirrorless for "casual" street use where size and cost of the system are critical, and we already have the technology to make such a camera. I feel that the SONY A7 missed the bar by not including a built-in flash, which many find useful for a carry-around camera. They also fail to deliver a set of good and inexpensive lenses. They just could not do it or they tried to protect the sale of RX1? Since so far there is only one player in this market, it would be easier for Nikon with a broader user base to compete. I will not buy a Coolpix type of camera b/c my Olympus EP-L5 + the 20/1.7 lens seems to work even better. I would love to spend more to get a FF compact, but not at the $2800 that SONY is asking for the RX1. The key is for Nikon to make a very focused product and priced it properly. This unfortunately has not been seen lately from Nikon.

john_hinkey · June 12, 2014

let's base our speculations on sensible notions. a compact FX mirrorless camera doesnt need 36 or even 24 MP. it just has to be able to use legacy glass at native length with weight/bulk savings and enough sensor resolution for acuity w/out introducing diffraction/focus errors/ AF issues. based on available research, that sweet spot is 12-18mp, folks.

I would put the sweet spot around 24MP for FX. The 36MP high resolution sensor doesn't introduce AF or diffraction issues though it may reveal more clearly what issues exist (it does make it easier to correct them since it's not possible to fix what you can't see). 24MP for DX is a little on the high side though the dynamic range improvement at base ISO is beneficial.

</blockquote>

I submit there is no "sweet spot" from a technical standpoint. Mirrorless + compact has no necessary defacto connection to the number of MP on the sensor. A lot of my legacy glass can take the 36MP of my D800 quite easily (some of my AF glass cannot). I'll say it again - Sony I think got it right by having essentially the same body with 3 different sensors. Pick which one you want for your application.

clive_murray_white · June 12, 2014

As this unfolds I find myself thinking that we are making several big mistakes by concentrating too much on the OP's "Should Nikon make a high end Mirrorless?" question and after thinking about it bit I'd now emphatically say "No". Nikon would do a lot better by looking very carefully at the evolution of image capturing in the last few years.

Our business had its annual "party" on the week end, always an event that people feel compelled to document and post on Facebook etc, this year there were only 2 cameras (both high end Nikon DSLRs) the rest were phones, some of which are taking pretty remarkable pics.

Similarly several colleagues are currently travelling in the Northern Hemisphere with just their phones to document their trips - the lesson here is very simple Nikon should make a seriously good super "Phone" or go into partnership with one of the phone manufacturers.

The other "market" that seems to have changed beyond recognition is in journalism, a typical example of this is with our national broadcaster and it's web presence, a single journalist now is photographer, film cameraman, director and interviewer all at the same time - they all make do with fairly highend Nikons and Canons but often complain bitterly that they are frustrated, particularly with the video, with these cameras. I've never seen a mirrorless or a Sony of any kind being used in this context.

I could go on but to me the "no brainer" is for Nikon to go for top end phone followed by most usable tool for current day journalism.

dan_brown4 · June 12, 2014

Only if they introduce a corresponding line of compact and lightweight lenses, with neat little hoods, to go with such a body.

The idea of using a compact little mirrorless body with the current range of bulky Nikon lenses is not appealing.

Sign In

Should Nikon make a FF High End Mirrorless?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in