What would you want from a Nikon FX mirrorless?

rodeo_joe1 · September 24, 2015

Andrew: Using the golden ratio or mean as a guide to aspect ratio is complete BS I'm afraid. It was used as a spurious argument by the 16:9 commission to foist letterbox format televisions onto a gullible public. 16:9 (1.778:1) is a fair bit longer than the golden ratio of 1.618:1 anyway.

Even if you accept the ancient Greek's hypothesis of mathematics governing aesthetics, it's use as a format ratio is fallacious. I'd rather it was called the golden mean, since it's original purpose was as a divisor for the diagonal of any format in order to place the subject at the most pleasing point within the frame. That's how the approximation to the "rule" of thirds was derived.

If you look at the many works of art produced since ancient Greek times, you'll see that almost none of them have an aspect ratio anywhere near to "golden". A quick straw poll of the canvas sizes displayed on online galleries shows that the mode of classical painting canvases is much closer to square than it is to even the awkward 3:2 ratio of a 35mm frame. And those old masters had no restriction to off-the-shelf sizes like we do.

There might be some good argument for the use of a root2:1 ratio as per ISO paper sizes, but that's as far as I'd want to go personally, and 4:3 looks pretty good to me. That aspect ratio would get my vote, making the "full-frame" format size something like 27mm x 36mm. If you start nibbling away at the long side it's a slippery slope back to DX!

rodeo_joe1 · September 24, 2015

WRT >100% viewfinder coverage. A great tip that I once heard and took notice of was to keep both eyes open when using an eyelevel viewfinder. This gives you awareness of what's happening outside the frame to a greater degree than an oversized finder, and obviates the need for one and its consequent inner gridlines.

This tip has saved me from pushing the button just before someone or something unwanted stepped into frame countless times. It's also saved me from minor injury on a couple of occasions when something unexpected came towards me and my camera. Last time it was a b****y seagull aiming at my head!

chip_chipowski · September 24, 2015

I agree with Ilkka - I think Nikon would be foolish to abandon the F mount. I am not at all anti-mirrorless but I do not think it is inevitable mirrorless will replace DSLR. I understand the point Shun made about frame rate, and I think that would be a cool option for a lot of photographers and there are probably nice video advantages too.

When talking about the FX format, is there really going to be a huge size difference between a Nikon DSLR and Nikon mirrorless? FX lenses are still FX size, right? We have had threads about the size difference of a Sony A7 kit and a Nikon FX kit and it ain't necessarily a big Sony advantage.

I do appreciate those who want a return to form factor like a Nikon FM or similar. What about a duel FX line of cameras? One is FX DSLR and the other is like FX rangefinder. I think Nikon could approach these hypothetical lines with completely different philosophies. Right now, I would say Nikon FX DSLR is mostly about performance, with size/weight being secondary considerations. For a compact FX rangefinder, I would want pancake lenses and smaller f/3.5 and f/4 designs where possible. Sony seems to have both options with its A7 line, some small lenses and some big boys. Anyways, lots of great cameras for everyone :)

eric_arnold · September 24, 2015

a higher-end camera that is stuck with just one focal length is a silly idea.

</blockquote>

you mean like the Leica Q? lol. actually, there's lots of evidence that this is not the case, otherwise the Fuji X100 would not have been a success and would not have kicked off the whole retro craze which not only led them to design and release the XPro, XT1, etc., but also led Nikon to attempt to capitalize on the trend with the Df. The x100 was not only an innovative product, but it was recognized as such by the industry. You can see a list of the X100's numerous awards <a href="http://www.finepix-x100.com/en/reviews/press/all">here</a>. As i pointed out earlier, the X100 is now in its third iteration and the Ricoh GR now in its second. The GR is actually a continuation of earlier models, which had good reputations among pros and advanced enthusiasts, but with a larger sensor. So if Nikon whiffed on this, it wasn't due to the fact that the camera was poorly-designed; as i said it was overpriced compared to the GR and under-featured compared to the X100 (which has a faster lens, hybrid VF, and leaf shutter). IMO, Nikon waited too long to lower the price to reasonable levels and didnt seem to put a lot of effort into marketing the camera.

if you normally shoot 28mm or 35mm as your preferred focal length, as many street photographers do, the idea of a body with an integrated lens is not so silly at all. And if i may invoke Henri Cartier-Bresson, the majority of his famous photographs were shot at a single focal length. The argument that such cameras should be low-end doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me, since a serious photographic instrument in a small package has many practical applications. even when im shooting with my big FX kit and pro zooms, i sometimes carry the x100 for candid shots. the advantages here are ease of use and inobtrusiveness, not to mention the leaf shutter and 1/2000 x-sync, which makes the x100 markedly better than cameras with 1/200 or 1/250 x-sync for daytime fill flash. if you look at Ming Thein's page, he writes extensively about using the GR and Q cameras precisely because they have a single focal length and are high-end instruments.

I would say Nikon FX DSLR is mostly about performance, with size/weight being secondary considerations.

</blockquote>

The primary reason for a Nikon FX mirrorless would be to use current lenses on it. Otherwise, APS-C makes more sense overall because you can design smaller lenses in most cases and price them at a more competitive price point -- more people are likely to buy an XT1 than an A7rII just because the Sony costs more than twice as much. OTOH, if we're talking about potential uses, FX mirrorless could make sense for demanding users if you can attain faster FPS and engineer better performance in critical situations. We're not quite there yet but we're getting close. The ability to place an AF point anywhere in the frame is a clear advantage for mirrorless over DSLRs, but the hurdle to overcome is AF-C and AF tracking performance. The recent DPreview comparison between Nikon D5500 and Sony RX10, two similarly-priced bodies, illustrates this point clearly.

donbright · September 24, 2015

If Fuji goes FX with the XT-1 platform, its game over!

Andrew Garrard · September 24, 2015

<blockquote>Andrew: Using the golden ratio or mean as a guide to aspect ratio is complete BS I'm afraid. It was used as a spurious argument by the 16:9 commission to foist letterbox format televisions onto a gullible public. 16:9 (1.778:1) is a fair bit longer than the golden ratio of 1.618:1 anyway.</blockquote>

Oh absolutely - I did say "if that's any argument" (and I remain annoyed that computer monitors have gone from 16:10 to 16:9 - farther from the golden ratio and less useful, mostly so the manufacturers can offer "more inches" in less area). 16:9 was a horrible compromise between 2.35:1 and 4:3 content anyway (it's approximately the geometric mean of the two: sqrt(2.35 x 4/3)) - and then 14:9 appeared as yet another horrible compromise between 16:9 and 4:3. And the TV industry picked 1920x1080 (and 1280x720, and a vast combination of unnecessary frame and field rates) as a resolution so we end up with a half row of wasted luma blocks in most digital video standards (because 1080 is a stupid number), and we got 1366x768 displays which are worse (1366 is twice a prime and doesn't divide by anything, especially for a full-frame FFT), and just when we finally settled down on something, no matter how stupid the "something" was, we get people making 4096x3160 panels and bent displays because we've all forgotten that we wanted to hang the things on a wall, and frankly if I ever get to sit in a room with some TV standards people (and I might, given where I work) they're likely to come out with bruises. Where was I?

Oh yes. My argument was less that phi is all that popular than that I'm not convinced the majority of images are roughly square - and enough are not square by a large enough fraction that something a bit non-square is less wasteful of the sensor on your average image. I buy the logic of the sqrt(2) argument, except that we'd end up with horrible numbers from a software engineering perspective again (but hey, normal paper sizes, at least outside the US). Obviously the 3:2 ratio was itself a hack based on the convenience of abusing movie film stock, but I'd still prefer it to a square option; 4:3 wouldn't offend me hugely, though. Also, square ratio would mean a bigger mirror (not so relevant to this thread) and longer shutter travel distances, which might affect flash sync time, if not frame rate.

As you (RJ) say, cropping the long edge throws away more pixels than cropping the short edge. Is that not an argument for spending your money on silicon area with something that's already wider? Cropping 1.5:1 to 1:1 throws away 1/3 of the pixels. Cropping 1:1 to 1.5:1 is no better. If we're optimising based on lens coverage, 1:1 makes sense; if we're optimising based on sensor area, I value some asymmetry.

<blockquote>WRT >100% viewfinder coverage. A great tip that I once heard and took notice of was to keep both eyes open when using an eyelevel viewfinder.</blockquote>

Yes - I do this, which is one reason I object to Nikon putting things top-left of the camera (more so for the Df, which has useful things top-left). It's still handy to know exactly when someone is going to walk into the frame, though, so I quite like some surrounding area as well sometimes. And, since a falconry centre decided to let me stand in the way of an incoming bird recently, I'll see your seagull and raise you a hawk. :-) (Shame I couldn't get the autofocus to lock on in time, really!)

<blockquote>The recent DPreview comparison between Nikon D5500 and Sony RX10, two similarly-priced bodies, illustrates this point clearly.</blockquote>

True, but bear in mind the RX10 only has contrast-detect autofocus (and without the depth-from-defocus trick). It's not exactly state of the art for autofocus in mirrorless cameras. The same result or may not still be true with a phase-detect-on-sensor body, but I suspect it would be closer.

<blockquote>If Fuji goes FX with the XT-1 platform, its game over!</blockquote>

Absolutely. They'll have no lenses, and they'll be competing with Sony and the established DSLR crowd. It would, as you suggest, bankrupt them. (That was what you meant, yes? :-) )

eric_arnold · September 24, 2015

If Fuji goes FX with the XT-1 platform, its game over!

</blockquote>

Andrew is right. Fuji doesn't need to do this. they've been able to extract higher performance from their sensors due to a different color array and no anti-aliasing filter compared to Bayer sensors. all their eggs are in the APS-C basket, which means not only are they not competing directly with Canon/Nikon/Sony full frame, but they're also not competing with themselves. the fact that Nikon large-sensor mirrorless would compete with the current product line is no doubt a factor in why they've been slow to market. ultimately, though, mirrorless has lower production costs, so an eventual market shift seems inevitable.

btw, since we are are providing Nikon with free market research, the least they could do is give everyone who's commented on this thread a tester model when the mirrorless cams finally do roll out.

Andrew Garrard · September 25, 2015

<blockquote>btw, since we are are providing Nikon with free market research, the least they could do is give everyone who's commented on this thread a tester model when the mirrorless cams finally do roll out.</blockquote>

Well, I'd settle for a D5, whatever and whenever that may turn out to be. I'm still planning to do a control interface survey at some point, for which I fully intend to share the (anonymised) data with Nikon. I'll see what I can do at the weekend.

ilkka_nissila · September 25, 2015

Andrew, I would have thought you'd want at least a D5 with the 400/2.8E as modest compensation for your efforts. ;-)

I like the Df interface actually, but only for use with small to medium sized lenses. For telephotos I prefer a proper vertical grip and the Df doesn't have that, also the user interface isn't easily amenable for use with the vertical grip even if it were supplied. So in practice I use the D810 with and without vertical grip, depending on the situation. I think Nikon's interface is relatively fluid to use but perhaps two decades of use has shaped my perceptions. After all, humans are highly adaptable. I don't think I would have any problem adapting to other cameras' user interface but some things I'm particular about, e.g. the AF point selection must be possible without having to press a button to activate a special mode to allow the point to be moved about.

Andrew Garrard · September 25, 2015

I'm warming to the previous version of the 400 f/2.8, especially after DxO compared them. I've heard nobody say the new one is a huge step forward optically. Other than carriability, I'm not sure there's much difference - and I've tried one, and I can hand-hold it. E doesn't affect me much - I'm in no hurry to try to shoot video with a 400mm. So I'm reasonable, see?

I've also warmed to the Df interface, in its place (and now the price has dropped a bit). If we think of an FX mirrorless camera as a special case for shorter lenses (basically when you'd use a rangefinder), my only objection to a Df-style interface, preferably tweaked a bit, is that there's a tendency to block the left eye with the dials on top left. For longer lenses, I neither see such an advantage to mirrorless (at least in size) nor think the Df's interface is appropriate. As a compromise, I'd sooner have the standard DSLR interface. If Nikon decide to run a parallel FX mirrorless line alongside the DSLRs with no pretentions of universality, I'd object less to Df-style controls. It might even be an interesting way to differentiate them. Interesting enough to actually make a profit is another question.

Incidentally, as I mentioned, the relative thickness of a DSLR compared with a film camera is partly the sensor stack, but significantly the screen on the back (although given how thin mobile phones are - don't forget how thick the battery is - it can't be huge). You could shave off a few mm by having only an EVF and no rear screen. Of course, you'd still have a finder bump (modulo the RX100-III's approach, and - for an SLR - ignoring the weirdness that Olympus tried on the EVOLT E-300), and it's a lot of faff to go to if you're going to make the camera/lens combination thinner by roughly the distance that the user will add on when they stick a UV filter on the lens... but it's an option. Just thought I'd bring it up.

chip_chipowski · September 25, 2015

Andrew, we all know you and the DF are destined to be together :)

ilkka_nissila · September 25, 2015

www.lenscore.org do note an increase in resolution with the 400/2.8E vs. G. They test with a very high resolution (200MP) sensor so it can see details that are missed in dxomark's tests made with commercially available cameras (e.g. 36MP). Also it is likely the TC performance is improved as a result of the increased resolution. However, either lens is regarded excellent in real world image quality, and I very much like the images that I've seen from the G version (subjectively). The E version is said to be much easier to handle due to the different distribution of weight (the G version is more front heavy). The tripod mount of the E version is reinforced. However the price increase is rather formidable. I am not saying you shouldn't buy the G version but it's good to look at all the facts before making the decision. Personally I don't think the 400/2.8 in any of its versions is in the cards for me.

Andrew Garrard · September 25, 2015

Hmm. Thanks, Ilkka. So they do (by more than I expected). I've confirmed that I can hold a G 400 f/2.8 (unless I lose weight and stop being able to prop my elbow on my belly) - I can't do this with my 500 f/4 AI-P because my arm is completely unsupported in a suitable position to focus the lens; I appreciate the new one is better in weight, but I'm not so worried by this. At the moment I'm in no position to afford either; when I can, I guess I'll have to make a decision about how much I'd rather have money. (And also worry about the 200-500 vs the Sigma 150-600 and the 135mm Samyang...)

Still, desperately staying on-topic, 3.8kg would obviously balance much better on a mirrorless camera than 4.6kg. :-)

luke_kaven · September 25, 2015

@ 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.

</blockquote>

If I didn't make this clear earlier, my primary concern is being able to discern details of facial expressions on any subject, regardless of setup. I'm looking for the telling moment, and I need to be able to see it. If I can't do that, then the camera is worthless to me.

By way of comparison, most APS-c DSLRs are complete failures at this. The D800 is not good enough. The D4 is pretty good. The F3 is very good.

kivivuori · September 25, 2015

I really hope that Nikon has studied carefully features found in Leica Q and how they were executed. They should have because in real life the Q is so good.

michael_bradtke · September 25, 2015

Shun

After a weekend of shooting I may have as many as 10,000 images to go through now. I really have no interest in raising the number exponentially. I have to have my files on line and rough edited as fast as possible. Not going to happen if I shoot that much more. And if I where to dump that many files on the editor for some of the companies I work for that would be the last time I worked for them. More is not always better.

ilkka_nissila · September 25, 2015

discern details of facial expressions on any subject, regardless of setup. I'm looking for the telling moment, and I need to be able to see it. If I can't do that, then the camera is worthless to me.

This is precisely one of the main problems I have with EVFs; I need to be able to discern subtle emotional clues in the human face, even if it is a whole body portrait, and I need to monitor the overall composition at the same time. Bypassing the viewfinder gives a different vantage point and perspective to the subject and the recorded image is from the camera's vantage point so it gives a different impression than what I would see by looking past the camera. This is not acceptable to me and the real time, detailed image that the FX OVF gives is central to the way I make images of people. Otherwise I might as well close my eyes and shoot blind, or as I mentioned before, quit photography since there wouldn't be anything for me without this connection to the subject.

The second problem is the nausea that I feel when turning the camera to follow a subject moving past myself (such as in a precession, or e.g. figure skating); the human brain controls the movement of the eyes as the head is turned and if the image seen by the eyes does not behave in a logical way (because of the delay in updating the EVF from the moment the image was captured the EVF image does not behave like the normal image seen by the eyes without the camera) it causes a feeling of illness in my body.

The third problem is the additional substantial delays in updating the EVF image in rapid shooting; the delay depends on the frame rate (can be increased by 100x by using high fps) so it is difficult to frame a moving subject correctly in a consistent fashion across different shooting rates. These three points make the EVF a total non-starter for my photography. I realize that not everyone uses the viewfinder in the same way I do, where the decision to fire the shutter is often based on minute clues and changes in the human expression. I just notice that using the EVF, I don't capture the images that reflect my intentions; the shots appear not at all the kind of images that I would capture with a device that shows a real time view.

bebu_lamar · September 25, 2015

If I accept the fact that I won't do any manual focusing then the mirrorless is ok. For right now I don't want one because size and weight doesn't bother me. When I want a small camera I want it's pocketable and I don't think Nikon can make an FX pocketable.

ShunCheung · September 25, 2015

Shun After a weekend of shooting I may have as many as 10,000 images to go through now. I really have no interest in raising the number exponentially. I have to have my files on line and rough edited as fast as possible. Not going to happen if I shoot that much more. And if I where to dump that many files on the editor for some of the companies I work for that would be the last time I worked for them. More is not always better.

</blockquote>

I don't see it will be a problem at all. It will only be the one or two very special moments where a "perfect" image is needed for magazine or book publication that you'll need to go through a lot of similar images to find the best one. Most of the others will be quickly discarded.

eric_arnold · September 25, 2015

one advantage of EVFs is WYSIWYG images, which means you can see real-time changes to exposure before taking the shot.

</blockquote>

luke_kaven · September 26, 2015

Well said, Ilkka! You are right about the fact that the EVF messes with your vestibular system as well as your visual system. It's akin to what's called "simulator sickness", which was noted first in flight simulators as nausea induced by incongruous physical/visual/vestibular cues. That's been extended into the idea of "virtual reality sickness".

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality_sickness">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality_sickness</a>

scott_murphy5 · September 27, 2015

Honestly, what is the point? EFV's are a PITA. Battery hungry with low resolution. They are fine if you are a point and shooter, but for serious photography? Hardly. The ones I have looked are little more than amateurish toys. Use your I-Phone

Ian Rance · September 28, 2015

Thanks for the good input. I do feel that Nikon will have some interesting announcement soon as they are fully aware of market trends, however whether it will be what we hope for is another thing. I have been looking at the Sony A7R ii quite closely, however I really don't like the cheaply made lens adaptors that are proving so popular with everyone to use on this premium camera. They don't have any internal flocking and they look and are cheaply made. I understand Sony not making them, however it is the seamless use of my Nikon lenses and bodies that I really do like - no flakey adaptors needed.

Of course using direct fit lenses is the best way, but that means buying a whole new system.

Ed_Ingold · September 28, 2015

Having been "converted" to cameras which are both mirrorless and with an EVF, and a long time Nikon user, my thoughts are as follows. Given the more serious flavor of Photo.net, we should probably limit our discourse to cameras which appeal to professional photographers and advanced amateurs. What features do people prefer in Nikon DSLRs, and how could those needs be met with a mirrorless lineup. Nikon is probably too late to compete with Sony, Fuji and others mano-a-mano, and should instead build on its strengths.

<ul>

<li>Nikon has an comprehensive list of lenses, and a history of reverse compatibility with older bodies for some and at least several years for nearly all of them. Most of us have more money invested in lenses than bodies, and lenses tend to have a much longer economic life. Compatibility means larger bodies with a longer flange spacing, even if the mirror is no longer present. </li>

<li>Larger bodies mean more room for larger batteries, a persistent complaint amongst users of interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras. </li>

<li>Vertical grips are highly desirable, especially with duplicated controls. Built in grips are more rugged than add-ons, and make room for even larger batteries and other features. Nikon now has smaller bodies with optional grips. Build on this philosophy. </li>

<li>Mirrorless cameras are best equipped with electronic viewfinders. Hybrid optical/electronic finders have not been well accepted, nor have pellicle mirrors (which have been all but abandoned by Sony). Larger cameras have room for larger LED finders with more resolution. Lag and update issues have largely been solved, but speed and clarity should be a priority. </li>

<li>Rear screens, especially with articulation, are useful. However emphasis should be placed on eye-level finders. Heavy prisms are not needed with EVFs, but housing EVFs in a similar fashion makes sense, perhaps with a slimmer profile. </li>

<li>Nikon DSLRs sleep to conserve power, but wake up almost instantly when needed, also on power-up. Sony A7s are annoyingly slow in this regard, a feature which pros demand. </li>

<li>Built-in image stabilization is an important feature, and makes legacy lenses even more valuable. With stabilization, lower ISO values can be used (less noise) and lenses can be smaller and lighter if IS is not needed. F/4 may be the new "normal" rather than f/2.8. Put the development into lighter weight, better image quality to keep up with more resolution, and a smaller profile. </li>

<li>Electronic shutters offer less vibration, or even completely silent operation, but may suffer from blooming or rolling shutter effects. Hybrid shutters address these issues, and give the user a choice depending on the application. </li>

<li>Like it or not, video is here to stay, and 4K video is the new "normal", with 8K on the horizon. 12 MP images at 60 or more frames per second may prove necessary to remain competitive for action events, along with lower resolution for reportage. Make unlimited clip length (subject to memory) an extra-cost option, if not a standard feature. </li>

<li>Build focusing detectors into the sensor. Phase detection in the focal plane eliminates calibration issues pursuant to sensors located in the finder housing. Other features like face detection or eye tracking* would be easier to incorporate. Focusing speed and low light tracking are already on a par with DSLRs (the new Sony A7Sii focuses at -4 EV, a level too dim to see the camera controls).</li>

</ul>

* My Sony A7Rii has "eye tracking." Once you focus on the subject's face and enable eye tracking (function key programming only), AF automatically locates even one eye on the subject in single or continous mode. It's great for performances and portraits, especially of children. Center the face you wish to select, and it will be tracked even if other faces are in the frame.