Mirrorless fans...

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>FF mirrorless lenses are not that much smaller than FF DSLRs so the savings in weight and bulk are not all that significant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you compare the flagship Nikon DSLRs with the top-of-the-line Sony A7Rii (or A7ii), there us a substantial difference in size and weight<br /> <br /> Nikon D2h v Sony A7Rii - Front<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18247381-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /><br /> <br /> One of my all time favorite Nikons is the F3, which is the same size as the original F with some refinements, including a token hand grip. It is actually smaller than a Leica M9 (which is the same as an M3, only 1/8" thicker), which in turn is the same size as a Sony A7Rii. While not "compact" or pocketable in the modern sense, I think we can all agree that the Leica M, Nikon F3 and Sony A7Rii are relatively small and easily handled. Zoom lenses, especially of the f/2.8 variety, are going to be large regardless of the application. That's why I used prime lenses in these comparisons. Leica is by far the most compact, while the Nikon and Sony/Zeiss lenses are similar in size but larger. (The 55/2.8 Micro is about 1/2" longer than my Nikon 50/1.4, which seems to be in hiding at present).<br /> <br /> This post is just for fun and (possibly) reference, when we start reminiscing about the good-old days of small cameras. Of course there are other reasons to buy a Leica over an F3, such as shutter noise. The F3 reminds me of a loose rail at a train crossing when it goes off. Things are better now.</p>

<p>You can see the complete set of these comparisons in my portfolio "Camera Sizes" (http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1091803). I will probably add to this folder from time to time.<br /> <br /> <br /> Nikon F3 v Sony A7Rii<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18247380-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /><br /> <br /> The 50 mm Nikon lens (55/2.8 Micro) is about the same size as a Zeiss Loxia 50/2 for the Sony, until you add the mirror box<br /> <br /> Nikon F3 v Sony A7Rii - top view<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18247379-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /><br /> <br /> Sony A7Rii v Leica M9 v Leica M3<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18247390-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>If I buy a mirrorless it would be a view camera as I think mirrorless technology is needed in a view camera and not as replacement for a DSLR.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Sinar makes a reflex (mirror) attachment for a 4"x5" back which some people find quite handy, especially if the camera is used at waist level or below. It also eliminates the need for a darkcloth when used outside, and a loupe for focusing.</p>

<p>My Sinar weighs 8.5 pounds and folds to a compact 15" x 8" x 4", perfect for travel and street ;) It remains mirrorless, however.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>If you compare the flagship Nikon DSLRs with the top-of-the-line Sony A7Rii (or A7ii), there us a substantial difference in size and weight<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>the comment was about full frame lenses, not bodies. in any event a D2H isn't a full-frame camera, so i'm not sure why we need a picture of it. and the lenses <em>are</em> similarly-sized, anyway. what happens when we compare a Leica SL + 24-90 to a Nikon d600 +24-85? or a Sony 70-200/2.8 GM with a Canon 70-200/2.8 USM?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Perhaps a better launching point would have been a quote from Robin Smith...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I remember the days when SLRs were the same size as the Sony A7s of today, and yet small size became unfashionable and cameras trended to the size we saw in the late 1980s and 1990s and have stayed similar ever since.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are only minor differences in size and weight between my D3, which is currently unavailable (in my son's possession), and the D2H. I stipulated that f/2.8 zoom lenses are large, whether for mirrorless or SLR cameras. Why you need to reiterate the obvious is, well, typically "Eric." Parse-quibble-parse-quibble. You manage to turn every discourse into a p...g match.</p>

<p>I don't disguise the fact that prime lens size is similar between Sony and Nikon, but the Sony/Zeiss/Leica lenses are much more sophisticated. Nikon's forte for most of this millennium has been hulking, f/2.8 zoom lenses, well adapted to cameras with 6 to 20 MP sensors and bodies the size of dinner plates. I can only illustrate the cameras I own, which agree with Robin's observation. If you want to see a more comprehensive set of comparisons, I invite you to peruse this link from Steve Huff's website.</p>

<p>http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/08/18/camera-size-sony-a7rii-size-compared/</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>even if we swap the new D5 for the D2h, that comparison with the A7RII seems highly inequivalent. Im not sure who would consider the two bodies equivalent in terms of features and performance, since the D5 is a $6500 sports camera, and the Sony is a $3000 landscape/portrait camera. A more apt comparison would be the D810, but that body doesnt have an integrated vertical grip. There are some size/weight savings vs. Nikon's FF line, but i dont think they need to be exaggerated by making misleading comparisons. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The comparison was to illustrate a top of the line Nikon v top of the line Sony. The imbalance is indeed evident, but I digress. The bulk of my post was to reinforce the comparison between Sony, Leica, and the original Nikons, which shows, in effect, how we are returning to our origins. I had forgotten just how petite the F3 was. I do remember finding ways to balance the back of an F, which removed completely for loading. Hiding the battery and memory card under the base plate of the M9 is about as much tradition as I care to manage. At least it fits in a shirt pocket.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>On close examination of this illustration, the Nikon D810 is reproduced at a smaller scale than the Sony, as evident in the sensor size and lens mount. You would have no difficulty telling them apart in the dark ;)</p>

<p>While not as slick, my illustrations were photographed side by side.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Wasn't too long ago, the conversation was all about getting camera's to lose weight. Well, now we have light, compact, well built, portable, go anywhere camera's at our disposal, and the price tags found reason compared to that high priced character, and they take great pictures, sharp, nice color fidelity and again built well. For awhile there mechanical build was limited to just a couple of manufacturers. As a new XT-1 owner, operator, I can willingly admit, I'm happy! The threads sent the call and we got the goods, be Happy!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> The bulk of my post was to reinforce the comparison between Sony, Leica, and the original Nikons, which shows, in effect, how we are returning to our origins. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>are we? i dont know about that. certainly the retro trend has been in effect since the X100 and digital PEN models landed, but it would be difficult to mistake the Sony bodies as anything other than the latest technology in a compact package. The Nikon Df was supposed to be a return to the FM3A days, but the Leica SL and some of the recent Panasonics have gone away from the smaller ethos. Lenses are creeping up in size, too. I think Don's point is well-taken, that the current market is saturated with choices for just about anyone. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Some choices matter more than others. The differences between SLR and mirrorless technology are revolutionary, not incremental.</p>

<p>For starters, the Nikon D5 has phenomenal focusing accuracy and speed. However they have added an automatic fine tuning mechanism for focusing. That's like getting a side reaction from a drug, and having the doctor prescribe another drug to take care of it (which happens all too often). The D5 is lauded for its ability to shoot 15 fps almost without limit, yet video cameras shoot 30 fps to 120 fps (or faster) without a hiccup, for hours on end. One difference is the elimination of an elaborate reciprocating mechanism, coupled with faster image processing and data transfer. Image size is limited by video conventions. Yet you can easily extract 8 MP images from a 4K stream, and that size will increase to 23 MP with 8K video, which is right around the corner.</p>

<p>Among the inherent advantages of mirrorless technology ...</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Focusing sensors can be embedded directly in the sensor. No calibration is needed to reconcile manufacturing tolerance in the placement of external sensors.</li>

<li>As a corollary to the first point, there is almost no limit to the number and coverage of embedded sensors, which push 90% coverage in some mirrorless cameras, compared to 50% or less in most DSLRs, including the Nikon D5 (30%).</li>

<li>With greater coverage, focus tracking is limited by only software and processing speed.</li>

<li>Live view can be used through the viewfinder, approaching continuous coverage. What you see is what you get.</li>

<li>Electronic viewfinders can also display a wide variety of useful data, in an heads-up fashion rather than on the back screen or in the margins of the finder.</li>

<li>Elimination of a reciprocating mirror and/or mechanical shutter allows completely silent, vibration-free operation.</li>

<li>As a corollary, continuous shooting speed is limited by data processing and transfer, not by a mechanical mechanism.</li>

<li>Lens design is less restricted, especially for short focal lengths, by a reduction in the mandatory back focus clearance.</li>

</ul>

<p>This may result in larger bodies, approaching the size of present day, flagship DSLRs (but half as thick). This, in turn, will allow permanent vertical grips and controls, and space for a larger battery. You can get only so much out of a 1000 mAh battery in a small camera (a D5 battery is nearly 2-1/2x as large). A quicker wake-up time, comparable to a DSLR, would allow better power management and longer charge life. Focus speed and tracking are largely limited by software design, not hardware. None of this is science fiction.</p>

[donbright]

<p>If the grip area of the new XT-2 was larger to accommodate a larger battery, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Although in my view the size and weight characteristic of the present day mirrorless camera's are the point. Size and weight of these camera's are its selling point. This may sound redundant, but I'm hoping getting back to growth isn't in the cards for this genre. The size of the XT-1 is genius. It seems all predicated, or formed around the screen. This including the viewfinder as it is, well surly its not by accident. I hope the XT-2 stays in its present XT-1 profile with all of the new, or XPRO-2 features. We see success messed with in so many other examples. I presume Fuji considers the XT-1 a great success and that they will honor that.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The current assortment of MIL cameras demonstrates that you can pack a lot of power into a fairly small package. If less is demanded from a camera, they can be smaller yet, as witnessed by the most popular mirrorless camera of all, the smart phone.</p>

<p>Recognize, however, that size is not the only need, and that some uses commend themselves to larger cameras. The most significant need is probably that of longer battery (i.e., charge) life, which means larger batteries. Professional applications, including sports and fashion, gravitate toward larger, faster lenses, and possibly larger sensors. If your tool is a 300 mm, f/2.8 lens, the size of the camera is a secondary consideration. That's true even for fast zoom lenses, which are the staple for journalists.</p>

<p>If Nikon and Canon stick with small, mirrorless cameras, it is precisely because they do <strong>not</strong> serve the applications of their flagship DSLRs.</p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<blockquote>

<p>If your tool is a 300 mm, f/2.8 lens, the size of the camera is a secondary consideration. That's true even for fast zoom lenses, which are the staple for journalists.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're talking about pros, I think you're correct. My point is that a pro can afford to spend a lot of money on tools, because he makes a living out of them, so he can even pick different systems, etc... This is not necessarily true for a serious amateur who doesn't want to spend a lot of money. I mean: I've completed my Sony setup with the Sigma 150-600mm C plus Sigma MC-11. Together with the a6000, it's basically the same size and weight of my old Nikon D7000 + AF-S 300mm f/4. I use long focals for landscapes too, but this is a typical wildlife/birding combo. So we can say that in this area - similar to the sport segment you referred above - there are no size/weight advantages.<br /> But the same E-mount system allows me to go much more lightweight in shorter focal combinations and for me it's a value to have a single system rather than different ones. And while I'm losing something in AF at the moment, I suspect I'll be more or less at the same level when I will upgrade to the a6300. Plus, I'll be enjoying the EVF.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I totally agree with your assessment. I suspect that more "pro" cameras are i the hands of dilettantes than on the job with professionals. There's another reason for that. Nikon has always put more thought into these cameras and lenses, and made their features more accessible. There are good alternatives to the single-digit Nikons now. but they're lagging the industry on MIL cameras.</p>

<p>One of the frustrating thing about P&S cameras, even extending into the "pro-sumer" range is the confusion of features and poor ergonomics. What, exactly, does "Closeup," "portrait" or "landscape" picture mode entail (and I'm not talking about which way to hold the camera)? Just finding a manual mode on a P&S can be a challenge, only to have it revert to some automatic default when you turn the power off and on again. There's something comforting and familiar about dials for shutter speed, aperture and focus. I'm okay with thumbwheels if that's all there is and they're consistent. As far as the mode dial on my Sony, "A, S or M" is all I care about.</p>

<p>I would be happy with an f/4 mid-range zoom. Unfortunately Sony/Zeiss dropped the ball on quality with the Vario-Tessar version. Sony went all out with the f/2.8 GM versions, much like Nikon did with their f/2.8 zooms. If you want prime (or near prime) quality, you put up with the size and weight.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I have long hoped Nikon would come out with a high end mirrorless camera, but I gave up waiting about 2 years ago and have slowing been transitioning over to the Sony a7 series. The a7RII, in terms of image quality and performance, readily competes with the best of Nikon (with the caveat there are functional capabilities that Sony does not match Nikon) at least for my needs. Not sure what Nikon could offer that would attract me back.<br>

Off camera lighting limitations with Sony was a major deficit, but solutions and options are improving. <br>

On my most desired list are 24-70 and 70-200 f4 lens that match the reported quality of the new G series lenses. I have moved almost entirely over to Sony primes as the current f4 24-70 and 70-200 zooms fall noticeably short with the higher pixel resolution sensors. </p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>who's excited?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nobody should be! Nikon has been great in making cameras, especially SLRs. But there is no evidence they can make any MILC that is better than the Sony's. Well, maybe Nikon lenses are better but Sony MILC can use Nikon lenses too. As a mirrorless fan, one should not choose Nikon, even if you already have a lot of Nikon lenses. I see clearly that Nikon can never catch up with Sony in MILC, unless Sony quits eventually.<br>

So the question is not to see Nikon goes deep into MILC business but only the hope of some of us (and of Sony) to see Nikon stops developing their DSLRs, because MILC still can not replace the top DSLRs, unless Nikon and Canon stop making them</p>

<p> </p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>What's better is different for everybody, but I don't see any reason the preeminent camera maker in the world wouldn't be able to make a competitive mirror-less. The reason I like Nikon is primarily for IQ, so couldn't they bring those chops to their mirror-less.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Nikon made great cameras with great shutters and great reflex viewfinder but a great mirrorless doesn't depend on these.<br>

A great mirrorless should have a fully electronic shutter, great on sensor AF and a great EVF. Nikon or Sony who is better to develop these?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The reason I like Nikon is primarily for IQ, so couldn't they bring those chops to their mirror-less.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the reality is that the majority of Nikon bodies use Sony sensors. In some cases, they have gotten better performance out of these chips than Sony's bodies, but Nikon's issue here isn't IQ, you can get that from the D8xx series. What Sony has done is bring a lot of proprietary technology to their mirrorless cams which go over and beyond just IQ. things like the on-chip AF, in-body stabilization, etc. Nikon would essentially have to change their entire design philosophy just to catch up with Sony in mirrorless. that's a tall order for a company which prides itself on having a defined identity. It's probably more likely that they will wait to see how Canon is going to make a move on mirrorless before jumping in wholly. All this talk about Sony going for the jugular and what-not, but their market gains have been incremental, suggesting they are just treading water at the end of the day, at least in the current market. That's why all the chatter about a mirrorless revolution seems somewhat rhetorical and/or overhyped, and will continue to be as long as mirrorless bodies represent such a small portion of all camera sales. <br>

<br>

I keep pointing this out, but Nikon has attempted mirrorless lines at least twice before, and whiffed both times. They never had an idea of what the Nikon 1 should be, or delivered a feature set which maximized the format's potential. And they not only overestimated the value of the Coolpix A, but also undercut its performance, just as they did with the Df. Their latest attempt at a mirrorless line, the DL series, isnt even commercially available yet in the US. That being the case, any talk of future mirrorless Nikons is way premature IMO. They may have plans and patents of potential ML models, but they aren't going to rush those out before the DL cameras have even had a chance to create their own niche. </p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Well I see what you're saying, but I guess it depends on what you hold to be important. For example, I couldn't care less about in body stabilization. To me it's just something that makes cleaning the sensor a stressful exercise in not damaging the camera. You can get all that in the lens. Most of the features that many are infatuated with do nothing for me. What I like most is what Nikon does with it's Sony sensors, and I can't imagine I'm alone, maybe in a minority, but not alone.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I couldn't care less about in body stabilization. To me it's just something that makes cleaning the sensor a stressful exercise in not damaging the camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i think legacy lens users and video shooters might disagree here. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I like most is what Nikon does with it's Sony sensors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not just Nikon that uses Sony sensors, though. Pentax, Ricoh and Canon have also used them. Nikon has done well with them in their DSLRs, which perhaps explains some of the impetus behind Sony developing a mirrorless full frame line up where they could emphasize tricked-out features DSLRs dont have. Sony seems to have worked out <em>some</em> of the bugs in its UI, but the Nikons overall tend to have better ergonomics.<br>

<br>

Ultimately, i think mirrorless development is gonna hinge on two things: AF and EVF. if they can engineer these things to surpass DSLR performance, then there would be no reason, other than battery life and perhaps lens compatibility, to have a DSLR. But as it stands now, there are entry-level DSLRs which are better for action and sports than $3000 mirrorless bodies. Though there's a declining number of photojournalists, being able to capture action is still a thing PJs need to be able to do. </p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Part and parcel of the IBIS system is a self-cleaning operation. It executes briefly each time you power up, and for about 3 seconds if you select the cleaning cycle in the menu. Furthermore the cover glass is treated to eliminate static, which goes a long way toward keeping the sensor clean. I have only resorted to wet cleaning twice in the last year, which is easy because the shutter is open while the camera is at rest.</p>

<p>The M9 is not hard to clean either. The sensor is normally covered by the shutter, but open during a cleaning cycle. I see in my "overview" example above that there is a chunk in the center of the screen. That will probably come off by blowing or using a Visible Dust microfiber brush.</p>

<p>In both cases, the sensor is relatively close to the flange, not deeply buried like in a DSLR. My D3 seems to have two modes - (1) cleaning the sensor and (2) shooting with a dirty sensor. I don't recall, exactly, the last time I cleaned the Sony - maybe early February. I used a tripod for the test shots, also an unusual occurrence.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>I haven't seen any other camera company that can get out of a sensor what Nikon does regardless of the sensor maker. Toshiba, and Sony both make sensors for Nikon, and yet Nikon gets better dynamic range, and noise out of the sensors then the makers of the sensors do typically. You've made excellent points about the legacy glass, but not everyone is in that boat, and I still find cleaning the Sony sensor nerve racking with ibis, being that it must be very delicate, and jiggles around.<br>

In any event I don't see Nikon having any insurmountable issues to overcome if they want to make a competitive mirror-less. I hope they're in the process, because I'm afraid that any company that isn't is toast in the not to distant future.</p>