What would you want from a Nikon FX mirrorless?

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I really like the controls on Coolpix A.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>my comment was really more directed to the Nikon 1 line, but the Coolpix A in general was an underperformer because Nikon made it more of an enthusiast camera than a high-performance camera. it was also over priced for what it offered. Nikon 1 similarly didnt know what it wanted to be or who the market was at first, but the V3 and the J5 are much better than earlier offerings and both are more targeted at advanced users. i see nothing wrong with entry level, but mid- and advanced level cameras should have a clearly defined and iterated set of features which isnt counter-intuitive. i do believe there's a future for small-sensor cameras, but integrating user feedback into product design is key to their development.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see a 20 fps or 30 fps camera raising the bar for sports photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i think it could raise the bar for sports as well as wildlife, but fps alone does not a performance camera make. if the AF isnt also as capable, and the UI not geared for situations which may arise, it ends up being at cross-purposes. you also need appropriate lenses. there's a lot of potential with small sensor cameras with telephoto, for instance -- being able to travel and take a small kit is a boon because of weight restrictions. there are other useful applications as well. yet even though the CV 70-300 gets you out to almost 800mm at 5.6 with minimal weight, the AF is fast but not as versatile as some current mirrorless options and is more of an almost ready for prime time performer than a go-to in those situations. if you consider that the Nikon 1 line is more capable for sports in many ways than the D2 line, it does appear that progress has been made. so i guess if your target market is soccer moms, you dont need a super high-performance body, but if you also want travel, adventure, photojournalists, and sports/wildlife shooters, you do need a responsive, intuitive instrument.</p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>good point, but EVFs have come a long way in just the past 2-3 years. once you get past rolling shutter and blackout, they start to present some advantages OVF's dont have, when combined with touchscreen AF and things of that nature. what makes a pro a pro i dont think will change, but what could change entirely is the equipment we use. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you shoot sports/action/wildlife for your own pleasure, of course you can do whatever you want since you are your own sole "customer." However, if you shoot professionally selling your images, all of a sudden your competition at the same event will have a bunch of images that are in 0.03-sec increments apart (30 fps). The editors will have the option to pick the most perfect moment among a bunch of very similar images. Think about the 100-meter final at the Olympics. A 0.05-second difference could be huge.</p>

<p>Whether you like it or not, once you need to compete, you'll have no choice but to adapt to new technologies. That was exactly how Canon overtook Nikon as the #1 professional film SLR around 1990, as suddenly Canon had AF that worked. That transition took place almost overnight. Prior to that, Nikon was the clear #1 for 2, 3 decades after the introduction of the Nikon F.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>yeah, but the main reason for the failure wasnt design. it was the fact that it was priced to compete with the Fuji X100. meanwhile Ricoh put out a camera with almost-identical specs and a more customizable UI, the GR, which sold for hundreds less. that model is now in its second edition; the fuji X100 is now in its third iteration. So clearly, the problem isnt the concept of a large sensor mirrorless with a fixed-focal, the problem is that Nikon completely overpriced it and/or misread the market. <br>

<br>

I remain hopeful, because the Nikon 1 J1s were also priced high initially and had a fire sale. That didnt stop Nikon from continuing to put out new bodies and lenses for the CX line. If we're using equivalent logic, there's no reason Nikon would declare the Coolpix A a dodo but continue the Nikon 1 experiment which was given time to find its niche. i looked at the specs and some reviews for the J5 and although its a little pricey, it looks like a much better camera all around than the J1. and the V3 is also a favorite with wildlife shooters. there's definitely a market for a fixed-focal mirrorless, but if Nikon wont offer one, people who want that sort of thing will have to go elsewhere. in the meantime, you can still get lightly used or refurb Coolpix A for a steal. I also wouldnt be mad if Nikon reintroduced the Coolpix A with a different name, although i do like the idea of alphabet cameras with slightly different specs, like the sigma DP series ( which could have been a classic street/travel camera if it had had better AF).</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>

</blockquote>

<p>there is little doubt as to the accuracy of this comment. there's also the shutter slap of shooting a DSLR with a high frame rate which can induce vibration.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you shoot professionally selling your images, all of a sudden your competition at the same event will have a bunch of images that are in 0.03-sec increments apart (30 fps). The editors will have the option to pick the most perfect moment among a bunch of very similar images. Think about the 100-meter final at the Olympics. A 0.05-second difference could be huge.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Excellent point. along with this comes still extraction from 4k. Of course, you still need a very good wi-fi interface/app to get the images to the editor quickly, something nikon seems to have just recently figured out. </p>

[pete_s.]

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>No actually, I didn't know that, I thought they used the same mount. Thanks for pointing that out Shun. <br /> <br /> It doesn't make that much difference though. Take a Nikon EM for instance. It has a Nikon F-mount with mirror and everything. It's still overall a 1/4" thinner than Sonys latest A7R II according to specs. So as you say there are physical limitations but what I'm saying that it is still technically possible to make a small full frame F mount camera.</p>

<p>I used the EM just to show dimensions and how the mount is the thickest part of the camera but how it still works. <br /> https://madecine.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/nikon-em-slr-body/#jp-carousel-8939</p>

<p>Nikon EM overall size with lens:<br />

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I remain hopeful, because the Nikon 1 J1s were also priced high initially and had a fire sale. That didnt stop Nikon from continuing to put out new bodies and lenses for the CX line.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, I think you are looking at this backward. Nikon introduced the J1 and V1 in October 2011. A year later, they had the improved J2 and V2 such that Nikon had no choice but to dump the old models that were clearly inferior at deep discounts. On the other hand, Nikon just dumped the Coolpix A in a fire sale; now a few months later there is still no replacement.</p>

<p>IMO, I don't care whether the brand name is Fuji, Nikon, or whatever, a higher-end camera that is stuck with just one focal length is a silly idea.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Nikon should look at my Fuji XT1 -and I'm sure they will have already looked at the model - and improve on it without increasing the size and weight. They should produce lenses of Fuji quality at Fuji prices.</p>

<p>I might then go back to Nikon, which I recently left after 30 years.</p>

[branko_sreckovic]

<p>+1 for Mervyn<br>

I'd be waiting for 'better improved XT1', more or less the camera of similar size and weight, designed from scratch along with dedicated lens line. Quality and price of lenses should be Fuji style. Decent (allowed to be expensive) adapter for 'old' F lenses should be designed too with respect to above mentioned 'flange-to-sensor' distance. Remember Canon FD? No more mess with 2 sensor size...either cropped or full frame.<br>

No more 'Menus' adjustment for shutter speed, aperture, ISO, exposure compensation and AF area.<br>

And please no more video.<br>

I am shooting almost more than 40 years and these days I am pretty much annoyed by Nikon profitable strategy. It is oriented for them and them only...yet we are the people to provide funds for that strategy. Minimum compromise neh?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>FWIW, I'm with Shun - for a sports camera (especially where resolution might be limited by noise due to lighting limitations), shooting a high frame rate in 4K and picking the output frame is extremely valuable. Amateur Photographer in the UK made a point of sticking a still from a 4K video on the cover, pointing out that 8MP is plenty for most uses. To do that losslessly at the moment you need an expensive and unwieldy solution like a Shogun (and even then it's only 8bpp), but an on-camera buffer using "best shot" and letting the user select from the past second's worth of frames is pretty appealing. It works better if the sensor can actually do 4K properly without smudging it, which suggests either aiming low and near to UHD resolution (like the A7s) or aiming higher and supporting FUHD (like the A7R-II). Shame Nikon have prioritised "best shot" on the 1-series, which have faster sensor read-out but don't have the low-light handling to support professional sports shooting.<br />

<br />

The trick, of course, is to make the autofocus keep up. I'm curious as to how different Canon's STM lenses are from their USM ones, and whether Nikon have any inherent performance problems stored up in the AF-S line if used with fast live view. The autofocus on the A7R-II seems to be getting good reviews, though.</p>

[pieter_wolters]

<p>If they really want to launch a kick-ass mirrorless system they should have the guts to ditch all legacy stuff and use all current technology available to create something great. Maybe even forget about the 102 year old 36x24mm format. <br>

My ideal (Nikon) camera would be:<br>

- square sensor (>36x36mm, so you don't have to turn your camera for portrait or landscape and you can crop in post-processing to whatever you want.<br>

- small, light weight (note that e.g. an Olympus OM10 was only a few millimetres wider than the OM-D E-M10, and it offered full frame images; it will be an engineering challenge, but it is not impossible for fit a large sensor in a small camera)<br>

- optionally the possibility to use older lenses, but for me that wouldn't be a deal breaker if that' not possible<br>

- And the most important: best in class IQ</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>they should have the guts to ditch all legacy stuff</em></p>

<p>Well the thing is that Nikon's primary asset is their existing lens base and what you're proposing would almost certainly lead to bankruptcy since Nikon's red line has been for decades their continuing support of old lenses on new bodies and starting out a new mount with lenses would take decades before they'd reach parity with brands that started their mirrorless systems a few years ago. They have gone into great lengths to ensure that mid and high end bodies support most lenses made since Ai (and many pre-Ai lenses could / can be converted to Ai), and this is what many of Nikon's DSLR customers expect. Some brands have cut off compatibility to the past in the form of a new mount and the customers using those brands are fine with that but others switched brands when the compatibility was breached.</p>

<p>For myself, the high quality optical viewfinder is an essential feature for the way I use a camera and I would not be interested in an EVF camera. I will continue to use DSLRs (and possibly other cameras with optical viewfinders, such as Leica or Fuji) as long as I practice photography. If Nikon were to compromise compatibility of existing lenses in their new bodies I would likely abandon the company's products for life, or quit photography.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Well the thing is that Nikon's primary asset is their existing lens base and what you're proposing would almost certainly lead to bankruptcy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, you have made that claim a couple of times. However, if you look at what Canon did around 1987, it totally contradicts your claim.</p>

<p>Back then, Canon abandoned the FD line (and alienated many of their then loyal customers) and introduced EOS AF film SLRs that are completely incompatible with FD. Canon invested a lot of money to quickly build up a new set of EOS EF-mount lenses. Suddenly most professional news, sports ... photographers realized AF was a must have and moved over from Nikon to Canon in huge numbers. Meanwhile, Nikon was slow to respond to the AF challenge and took them until 1992 to introduce a few AF-I lenses and 1996 to start adding AF-S lenses. As I posted earlier, Nikon went from a clear front runner for pro film SLR to a very distant second rapidly. Fast forward a quarter century, while Nikon has finally closed the gap in recent years with the D3 and its successors, Canon has not relinquished their #1 position in about 25 years.</p>

<p>If you have a technology that can totally disrupt the status quo, it is not necessarily a bad strategy to abandon backward compatibility that can sometimes hinder progress.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm seeing a lot of emotional reaction and not a lot of logical argument against going mirrorless here.</p>

<p>Surely the point of a viewfinder is that it should present a preview of the image <em>as it will be captured</em>? And that's with similar colour-rendering and tonality, in 2 dimensions and with a true representation of depth-of-field. An optical ground-glass image (or plastic equivalent) doesn't do that by a long shot. The granularity of the "grind" means you don't even see the full image detail - you're looking at a tiny 24mm x 36mm screen through a magnifying glass for goodness sake! How much detail can you expect to see? I certainly can't see all the fine detail through an SLR screen that I can clearly see with the naked eye ... or aided eye in my case, since I wear spectacles. That's using a normal to short tele lens on full-frame; on DX or with a wideangle there's no way I can see all the detail that the lens will capture. Live View with it's larger image and magnifying ability is an entirely different story, and can show me <em>exactly</em> what the focus point and D-o-F will look like. Right down to the the pixel-peeping level.</p>

<p>Beside that, composition is composition and it shouldn't matter if the image is presented in a Monet-esque blur as long as the elements of shape and colour are all in the right place. I'll fully admit that some of my better composed pictures have been taken with a little Bridge or Compact camera through an EVF. Simply because the portability allowed me to follow the "f/8 and be there" rule when I came across a good picture or the lighting was momentarily spectacular. In fact the use of an EVF may well have improved my composition through its more realistic preview of the captured image. So IMO there's nothing wrong with an EVF of good quality at all, and the facilities it offers, such as magnified Picture-In-Picture and histogram, far outweigh any disadvantages. A button to quickly switch between such a display and clutter-free viewing would be another essential for me though. I'd advise all the critics of EVFs to actually <em>use one</em> before bleating about them not being good enough.</p>

<p>WRT non-retrofocus lenses: I'm also not convinced that telecentricity, or lack of, is the major stumbling block that Leica have made it out to be. I'd go so far as to say there are <strong>no</strong> truly telecentric interchangeable lenses shorter than 200mm on the market today for any camera make, and not many that come even close. For a start the rear element would have to be at least the same diameter as the image-circle - 43mm in the case of Full-Frame - and there are very few lenses of any focal length with rear glass that big. In fact the only lens design I know of that comes anywhere near to true telecentricity is the old Ernemann Ernostar, and that was a gigantic brute of a lens for its FL and aperture. Nobody makes lenses like that today.<br>

No, the answer to the issue lies in sensor design to accommodate a steeper incident angle. By repositioning or reformulating the micro-lens layer, or even by using a micro-Fresnel or some other design of field-flattener plate over the sensor assembly.</p>

<p>As for seeing no advantage to the full-frame format - where are all the f/1 lenses that'll give the same shallow depth-of-field on smaller formats as an f/2 lens gives on full-frame? And where are the small sensors that'll give practically noise-free images at 3200 ISO?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Canon was able to abandon their manual focus system because they had superior autofocus technology available (USM lenses etc.) which put them far above the competition for many years. Nikon has no such technology regarding mirrorless cameras, in fact the Coolpix A's extremely slow AF (the same is true of the Coolpix line in general in my perception but it's particularly evident in the A) suggests they don't have what it takes to make a competitive large sensor mirrorless camera at all. The Nikon 1 is a different case as it has a very small sensor (and Nikon explained their choice of sensor size in that system was because they couldn't achieve that kind of performance in a large sensor system, which the Coolpix A perfectly illustrates). Nikon's DSLR AF is competitive with other DSLRs, however (although there are fewer cross type points I recently was shooting some portraits in a low light dungeon and a user of the 5D III was struggling with AF whereas i was able to focus with ease using my D810, so it really depends on what one is doing, which camera has the better AF system). I do not see Nikon having the technology that would make it able to produce a camera competitive with the A7 R II, and so in my opinion they are better off focusing on DSLR where they are in an excellent position.</p>

<p>Furthermore there is no mirrorless system currently which is competitive with DSLRs for telephoto action photography, so what you seem to be craving for (mirrorless system for wildlife action with very high fps) may not be possible at all. The way I have understood it, PDAF on the main sensor has a limited range of distances where it gives useful data and if the subject is too far from being focus, the system has to resort to exhaustive search, whereas DSLR PDAF can correctly see the adjustment that needs to be made even if the subject is far from being in focus. I am happy to be proven wrong but the fact that dpreview in their article touting the A7R II AF system used 35/1.4 lenses as examples instead of showing the system with a 300/2.8 or 500/4 (through AF supporting adapters Canon or Sony lenses could be used), but no such demonstration anywhere that I've been able to find suggests that the result would not be to the liking of the reviewers.</p>

<p>If Nikon had good technology for large sensor mirrorless, they would have pioneered such cameras. They didn't and likely don't (which they've partially admitted). As years go by, Sony and others gain a stronger foothold in the mirrorless large sensor market, every year it becomes more difficult for Nikon to enter it. Thus even if I wanted such a camera I would not buy it from Nikon since it's extremely unlikely that they would gain a strong position in this market, and the only motivation to choose it from Nikon is existing lens compatibility (which you and some others seem to advocate against). The way I see it the DSLR has significant advantages still over mirrorless cameras and I suspect these will continue to exist for many years or even decades. It is possible that I am wrong and mirrorless may also capture the telephoto action photography market but it seems no one is presenting products in this segment, which suggests they don't know how to make it work. The high fps features in some cameras (Sony, Samsung etc.) are coupled with a profusely extended viewfinder lag that is not present in single shot photography. Until solutions to these problems are presented I see no reason to be interested in such cameras. After that, it may be necessary for those who what such systems to start building their camera system from scratch. Building from scratch, it is best to choose the system which is in a prominent posiition in that market and not some manufacturer who is good in a different market (DSLRs) since old lens support will be likely limited and clumsy, irrespective of which brand you choose.</p>

<p>For me, current A7 series EVF make me feel nausea and so at present I'd rather choose to stop photography if the only choice was an EVF. Thankfully technology that doesn't cause me such problems exist and is readily available (DSLRs) so I'm relatively happy with the current situation which offers products for just about everyone depending on their needs or preferences. Well, not quite, the said telephoto action photography with mirrorless seems to elude manufacturers so far. (And no, I'm not talking about f/infinity lenses but top of the line fast teles with shallow depth of field and fast AF). I'm not saying it can never be made, it may well be the problems are solved at which point the market will change. Until then I am not really interested in spending money on a technology which is very unpleasant for me to use.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Shun. Let's not lose sight of the fact that amateur and enthusiast purchases subsidise professional users. If Nikon were aiming at (or could afford to aim at) a purely pro market then I would agree that they should abandon all backward compatibility. To a professional, upgrading a tool is simply a tax offsetable asset and they can afford to have the latest and best equipment for the job.</p>

<p>Amateurs and enthusiasts are much more cost-conscious and will only upgrade if they can see some must-have benefit. If buying a new camera body means ditching all your hard-won accessories and lenses, then that ain't gonna happen in a hurry. Likewise for start-up pros that haven't yet got an established business and enough income to cover large outgoings.</p>

<p>I know from experience that switching systems is an expensive business; far beyond just buying a new camera body. Should Nikon's almost inevitable full-frame mirrorless offering be incompatible with anything previous, then I won't be buying it.</p>

<p>Ilkka: Is your EVF nausea a physical or psychological reaction? For example, is it the frame-rate flicker or just that you don't like what you see?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Mirrorless switcher here.<br /><br />I switched from Nikon DX to µ43 mirrorless a year ago because I wanted small and light and portable. I'm happy as a clam.<br /><br />FX mirrorless would be none of those things. If I wanted FX from Nikon, I'd very much want a normal FX with a mirror and viewfinder, not a mirrorless at all. Something like the Canon offerings only with a viewfinder and reasonable price.<br /><br />I think Sony's success is interesting, but I don't think Nikon can copy them to be successful. I wish they had done their mirrorless offering with a DX size in a nearly-as-small-as-µ43 form factor. If so, they would have kept me.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>In photography life's commentary of the A7 R II, they note "That’s [referring to the AF system] a big change, but does it make the A7R II suitable for sports and wildlife photography? And should one even consider this camera for such needs? Sadly, that’s where the mirrorless technology struggles quite a bit at the moment and DSLRs still reign. So if you primarily shoot fast action, the A7R II would not be suitable for this reason alone. Another reason is shutter delay and blackouts, which make it incredibly difficult to fire the shutter at the time you really need it."</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ilkka,<br /><br />Yup. I don't shoot action (my kid is into music, not sports) and there's NO way I'd shoot anything except probably a Nikon 7200 or Canon 7D Mk II for sports action. Crop sensor plus fast AF. total win.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Another reason is shutter delay and blackouts, which make it incredibly difficult to fire the shutter at the time you really need it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Err, a DSLR also blacks out for slightly longer than the shutter time. And the technology is there to make shutter delay a non-issue. All that's needed is to clear the sensor of its preview image (or even not), and then close and re-open the shutter for the exposure time, which can be done in milliseconds. Otherwise a frame rate of tens of frames a second would never be possible. It's only like using Live-View on a DSLR.</p>

<p>If you're not anticipating the shot and relying on human reaction time, then that's a real non-starter. DSLR or otherwise.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Stating the obvious, mirrorless uses the sensor for exposure and autofocus, two important functions where reflex cameras have a clear advantage. Particularly autofocus. I'm not aware of any mirrorless camera that doesn't suffer in the autofocus department.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Joe, the shutter blackout with mirrorless is different than with an SLR. I use an a6000 and a D5200. The D5200 still lets you track the subject in between shots, as the mirror flips up and down. With a mirrorless camera, not only are you technically seeing what's already happened as opposed to what is happening (even if it's just a matter of milliseconds), but until you stop shooting, the display is completely black, with no intermittent capability to see the subject. The sensor is either outputting to the screen/viewfinder or to the memory card.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>At the risk of picking on Pieter...</p>

 

<blockquote>If they really want to launch a kick-ass mirrorless system they should have the guts to ditch all legacy stuff and use all current technology available to create something great. Maybe even forget about the 102 year old 36x24mm format.</blockquote>

 

<p>They did that. It was the 1-series...</p>

 

<blockquote>My ideal (Nikon) camera would be:<br />

- square sensor (>36x36mm, so you don't have to turn your camera for portrait or landscape and you can crop in post-processing to whatever you want.</blockquote>

 

<p>Except on systems for which the sensor area is not a significant contributor to the cost of the device, I would argue this isn't going to happen. A 3:2 sensor gives you two native aspect ratios: 2:3 portrait and 3:2 landscape. If you want 1:1, you lose a third of the image; less if you want something between the two, like 5:4. If you want a more panoramic crop, you reduce the amount you're going to lose compared with 1:1. A 1:1 sensor is good for taking 1:1 photos and for thinking about cropping in post - but very few photos are actually presented as 1:1. The golden ratio, if that's any argument, is actually farther from square than normal sensors - 1:1.6(ish) rather than 1:1.5. You could potentially argue for a flippable sensor and shutter system, but basically it would be rotating the grip around the camera. There are too many places on the camera that need to be accessible for battery, grip and tripod for this to seem practical to me - though I have nothing against the Pentax 645 strategy of putting an extra tripod mount on the side.</p>

 

<blockquote>- small, light weight (note that e.g. an Olympus OM10 was only a few millimetres wider than the OM-D E-M10, and it offered full frame images; it will be an engineering challenge, but it is not impossible for fit a large sensor in a small camera)</blockquote>

 

<p>The sensor stack and LCD are not infinitely thin, despite efforts on this. (Leaving the LCD out does make for a thinner camera, but not a popular one.) The OM10 has no autofocus (needing space below the mirror box on a DSLR) and a tiny battery, because winding is manual. Is it thin without a grip? Yes. Does the lack of grip make it any thinner if you have a lens mounted? No. Does it make it harder to hold? Yes.</p>

 

<blockquote>- optionally the possibility to use older lenses, but for me that wouldn't be a deal breaker if that' not possible</blockquote>

 

<p>Not with a 36x36mm sensor. 24x24, maybe (if you don't want to use DX sensors). Probably even 30mmx30mm if you don't mind some of the hoods getting in the way. And of course the flange distance dictates the depth of the camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>- And the most important: best in class IQ</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, at least Nikon have that one down. :-) (Though I'd still be interested to see what they could do with the A7R-II's BSI sensor.)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>the Nikon 1 series was SO what I was NOT looking for (under-featured, over-priced, too small a sensor, stupid form factor --imho--, clunky lens handling) that it did, in fact, push me to another brand. Your other points are spot-on.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Surely the point of a viewfinder is that it should present a preview of the image as it will be captured?</blockquote>

 

<p>Not necessarily. A viewfinder has two tasks: to show what's going on that you might want to capture, and to show what the resulting image will be when you capture it. It's why a greater-than-100-percent finder can be useful (as Leica or anyone using a crop mode on a Nikon FX body knows). I do think it's useful to know what the camera will do with my image, but it's also useful to be able to adapt to the dynamic range of the scene without adjusting things on the camera. I do a lot of dynamic range post-processing to my images anyway, so the camera's stab at mapping the scene dynamic range to that of the finder is likely to be a bit limiting, unless we actually have a 14-bit finder - but I'd still claim both are useful. A good reason for an X100-style hybrid finder.</p>

 

<blockquote>No, the answer to the issue lies in sensor design to accommodate a steeper incident angle. By repositioning or reformulating the micro-lens layer, or even by using a micro-Fresnel or some other design of field-flattener plate over the sensor assembly.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm sure this is under consideration, but offsetting microlenses to allow for a short rear-focus distance then starts to give you a sensor that works less well for longer lenses. Which is why Leica have lens-dependent correction - and they don't have any very long lenses to worry about!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sorry for consecutive posts, had to split a post that was rejected for unknown reasons...</p>

 

<blockquote>As for seeing no advantage to the full-frame format - where are all the f/1 lenses that'll give the same shallow depth-of-field on smaller formats as an f/2 lens gives on full-frame?</blockquote>

 

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6078353668/rokinon-introduces-new-50mm-f-1-2-and-21mm-f-1-4-mirrorless-camera-lenses">Here</a> and <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3803989017/f-0-95-mitakon-speedmaster-25mm-compact-lens-announced-for-micro-four-thirds-system">here</a>? But I'd likely take the quality of the f/2 FX lens in preference, and there aren't many lenses for smaller formats that can do what a 200 f/2 can do on FX.</p>

 

<blockquote>With a mirrorless camera, not only are you technically seeing what's already happened as opposed to what is happening (even if it's just a matter of milliseconds), but until you stop shooting, the display is completely black, with no intermittent capability to see the subject. The sensor is either outputting to the screen/viewfinder or to the memory card.</blockquote>

 

<p>That's a limitation with a particular implementation (maybe, I admit, several), not something inherent to mirrorless cameras.<br />

<br />

I'm sympathetic that Nikon will be very late to mirrorless if they try to start there with a new system now - as we can tell by how well the 1-series aren't selling. I don't buy that mirrorless is inherently advantageous for size when it comes to professional FX lenses, except for some wide-angles, nor do I buy that size is critical to all users (which is why I have an F5). If size matters to you, I'm not sure that starting with an FX sensor is the way (or that interchangeable lenses are the right solution at all, speaking as an RX100 owner). Are Nikon losing some sales to Sony, Fuji, the micro-4/3 consortium and Samsung? Yes. But DSLRs still have most of the market, and all these manufacturers failed to compete with Canikon(tax) in the DSLR segment.<br />

<br />

I think "will Nikon produce a (large sensor) mirrorless camera?" is very different to "will Nikon replace their DSLR line with mirrorless?" And I'm not holding my breath for either - nor am I convinced that Nikon would produce a hugely compelling solution in this direction if they tried. But I know nothing.<br />

<br />

And Peter: Yes, I agree with all your comments about the 1-series, especially the earlier (eventually affordable) ones. I have a V1 for the 1200fps mode, though I'd like to try it with an adaptor, but it's a pain to use and I'd never have got it as a primary camera. I gather the V3 has better handling, but I'm not spending the asking rate (more than a new D7100) on one.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>In Photography Life's commentary of the A7 R II, they note "...does it make the A7R II suitable for sports and wildlife photography?"</blockquote>

 

<p>DPReview seemed reasonably impressed, given equally fast lenses (which is not what's typically available on those cameras). I'd not be surprised to find there's some disadvantage to the amount of sensor area devoted to PDAF on a mirrorless camera, but it also tends to give you more area coverage than a DSLR, and avoids accuracy issues. In a brief play with a NX-1, I found autofocus to be fast, but not hugely accurate (in variable light) - but with a big, fast lens. I've struggled even with a 70-200 on a D810 with some subjects, though; no system is perfect, especially in my hands.</p>