Nikon New Camera Teaser, FX Mirrorless to be Announced on 23 August, 2018

[mike_halliwell]

Why have we got to buy new lenses? The adapter 'could' be perfect.....;)

 

It doesn't need any glass in it, so shouldn't really ruin IQ much.

[Ed_Ingold]

Why have we got to buy new lenses? The adapter 'could' be perfect.....;)

With adapters, you don't HAVE to buy new lenses to adopt a mirrorless body. However you do need new lenses to make full use of the cameras' capabilities. More important, Nikon needs new lenses to compete with Sony and Fuji. Legacy lenses designed for 12-20 MP cameras aren't going to get anyone excited. When your competition has wide angle lenses which are sharp from corner to corner, even wide open, you need to step up.

[ilkka_nissila]

Lenscore measures and ranks lenses based on optical quality using a 200 megapixel sensor (yes, two hundred). 8 out of the top 20 lenses in their scores are Nikkors. No other brand is represented better in the top 5, 10 or 20. Nikon do just fine. The best ranking Sony FE lens is in position 38.

 

I am very happy with my Nikon lenses and would choose then again, should something happen to my lenses.

 

For example, the 19mm PC maintains excellent sharpness even wide open at f/4, even with shift applied, which is an amazing achievement, though arguably the lens is very expensive. I would be happy to put it and the D850 to the test with any Sony or Zeiss wide angle in existence suitable for architectural or landscape photography. Obviously I will be using the movements to advantage.

Edited August 10, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[ShunCheung]

The first thing I noticed from teaser #2 is that this Nikon FX mirrorless has a wide mount. That means some really good and fast wide angle lenses are possible. However, this is optimized for FX. I assume Nikon will eventually have DX bodies and lenses for mirrorless, and the wide mount will make DX unnecessarily big.

[BeBu Lamar]

Introducing the new mount makes a lot of people think of incompatibility but it fact it would solve Nikon lens incompatibility with the F mount.

[mike_halliwell]

Ilkka, whilst what you say is absolutely true, it's interesting that ALL of those Nikon's in the top 20 are 200mm +

 

They have nothing remotely standard or wide. The first is at No. 40 with the 45mm PC-E.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the Nikon lenses I've got, :)

[BeBu Lamar]

The first thing I noticed from teaser #2 is that this Nikon FX mirrorless has a wide mount. That means some really good and fast wide angle lenses are possible. However, this is optimized for FX. I assume Nikon will eventually have DX bodies and lenses for mirrorless, and the wide mount will make DX unnecessarily big.

I much rather see Nikon use different mounts for different formats and also different lenses altogether. Solve another confusion. Get rid of all the crop factor.

[ilkka_nissila]

Ilkka, whilst what you say is absolutely true, it's interesting that ALL of those Nikon's in the top 20 are 200mm +

 

They have nothing remotely standard or wide.

 

While it is true that at the top are Nikon's supertele primes, there is a reason for that. Generally high pixel counts are used when the lens on the camera is not long enough, and so you need to crop a bit to get the image you want. This is more likely with your longest lens than with a shorter lens (where you'd switch to a longer lens before cropping). So there is less need for extreme sharpness with the shorter lenses.

 

The 105/1.4 is so sharp I routinely got moire in hair when shooting at f/1.4 with the D810. Thankfully the 45MP sensor in the D850 seems to largely solve that problem.

 

Let's take a look at it and see if it's sharp enough for Edward. D850, 105mm f/1.4 Nikkor at f/1.4, 1/800s, ISO 220. Full composition resampled first.

 

 

You can see the characteristic cat's eyes one the left this lens sometimes produces. Probably a wider mount would make it possible to reduce this effect but let's take a look at the 100% crop without sharpening. It's a moving-subject autofocused image; no special technique used. Lens wide open at f/1.4.

 

 

Personally I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that Nikkors can't take high-resolution sensors.

 

Wide angle lenses are not quite as sharp as the fast superteles or even the 105, but again this scale is ridiculously magnified when thinking about the typical display size of images shot for documentary or portrait photography purposes, and a lens doesn't need to be this sharp wide open to be suitable for the vast majority of practical purposes. No, zooming-in and oohing and aahing is not the kind of practical application I'm talking about. Most images are disseminated in relatively small size and in fact the typical viewing device has been getting smaller as people now use their phones to view photographs.

 

Lenscore seem to have stopped grading new lenses a couple of years ago and e.g. the 19 PC is missing from its listings. I believe that the 19 can take on any comparable lens. From my perspective it's just preposterously good. Those kinds of images may be displayed at large size and additional resolution of architectural or landscape photographs is a benefit, whereas in typical uses of f/1.4 lenses, it is not so necessary (documentary and portrait photography).

 

I find that other characteristics of the image that can be seen even at small sizes are in my opinion more important for fast primes than resolution of lenses that are not your longest lens. In the longest lens it is valuable to have the best possible resolution because you may need to crop those images and/or shoot subjects at longer distances where you may have atmospheric degradation working against you, so it's best to start with a good lens that can counteract that to some extent.

Edited August 10, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[Dieter Schaefer]

Lenscore measures and ranks lenses

Lots of lenses missing since the last update was 1 1/2 years ago.

Nikon needs new lenses to compete with Sony and Fuji. Legacy lenses designed for 12-20 MP cameras aren't going to get anyone excited

I don't think any lens Nikon has released since 2010 or certainly 2012 has been designed with 10-12MP sensors in mind. And there's no indication that what has been released has to hide behind Sony's offerings.

[ShunCheung]

I don't think any lens Nikon has released since 2010 or certainly 2012 has been designed with 10-12MP sensors in mind. And there's no indication that what has been released has to hide behind Sony's offerings.

Nikon introduced the 24MP D3X in December 2008, and they were nice enough to loan me a test sample in April 2009. Based on that I wrote the following review:

Nikon D3X Review

 

In early 2012, Nikon followed up with the 36MP D800/D800E duo and later on the 24MP D600. By the end of 2012, 24MP was no longer that expensive.

 

Even back in 2009, some of the older lenses such as the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S were a bit weak on the wide end on those high-pixel cameras, but most tele and macros were fine.

 

Going to mirrorless, a new mount with a shorter flange-to-sensor distance than a mount designed for SLRs with a mirror is pretty much a must to design better wide-angle lenses.

[Gary Naka]

"To succeed, does it have to be able to accept Nikon FX G and E lenses (via an adapter)?"

...it should be kept the F mount bayonet, have excellent low light capabilities and the best AF in the market.

Instead they give us a new Z mount and we have to sell an arm and a leg to buy a new line of lenses...

...the chances for me to buy a Nikon mirrorless are down to 66% :)

 

Paul,

 

The so called backwards compatible F mount has been backwards compatible only in the physical mount itself.

The lens to body coupling has changed enough times, and often enough, that you NEED to use a compatibility chart when you wants to buy a new lens, to make sure that the lens will work with your camera.

pre AI, AI, AIS, G, E

AF, AF-D, AF-S, AF-P

Example, I was thinking of an AF-P ultra-wide, then discovered that it is "partially" compatible with my 1-generation old D7200. I cannot turn off the VR, to use it on a tripod. So I cannot use that lens.

 

A new mount and lens/body coupling, if done correctly, gives Nikon a chance to start from a clean board, and design for the future.

 

Change will hurt during the change over, but hopefully the change will be worth it in the long term.

 

The adapter will help us bridge the gap until we completely switch to native lenses.

Or we can choose to keep using our F lenses via the adapter.

 

In the end, the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" is just talk.

The lens mount has changed, so all of us, like it or not, have to accept it.

[Gary Naka]

I much rather see Nikon use different mounts for different formats and also different lenses altogether. Solve another confusion. Get rid of all the crop factor.

 

That would solve one problem and introduce another.

 

If I shoot DX and want to use a particular focal length only available in FX lens,

With the current setup, I can and do put FX lenses on my DX camera. And I have the option of using a FX camera for those lenses, IF I want to.

 

With a separate DX and FX mounts, I would not be able to just put the mirrorless FX lens on my mirrorless DX camera, as I can with the current FX lenses. So Nikon would have to have two completely different lens lines, and the current DX vs FX lenses lines will be even more differentiated. Example, there isn't a current DX lens longer than the 70-300, and there is no DX wide angle prime lens. So the DX line would HAVE to be expanded, at more cost. Or the DX consumer vs FX pro lines will be separated into 2 completely different systems, with the associated problem of migration.

[BeBu Lamar]

That would solve one problem and introduce another.

 

If I shoot DX and want to use a particular focal length only available in FX lens,

With the current setup, I can and do put FX lenses on my DX camera. And I have the option of using a FX camera for those lenses, IF I want to.

 

With a separate DX and FX mounts, I would not be able to just put the mirrorless FX lens on my mirrorless DX camera, as I can with the current FX lenses. So Nikon would have to have two completely different lens lines, and the current DX vs FX lenses lines will be even more differentiated. Example, there isn't a current DX lens longer than the 70-300, and there is no DX wide angle prime lens. So the DX line would HAVE to be expanded, at more cost. Or the DX consumer vs FX pro lines will be separated into 2 completely different systems, with the associated problem of migration.

I have problem with migration concept. Each should have its own lens line optimized for the format. The size of the FX and DX are close but if they are any more different then using FX lens on DX is a bad idea. Putting the sharpest Zeiss lens from a Hassy wouldn't be as sharp as a decent Nikkor because lenses designed for the larger format must cover the larger format but doesn't need the resolution of the small format.

[Ed_Ingold]

One must exercise judgement when considering reviews and scoring of products. The Lenscore results for Nikon are dominated by super-telephotos and specialty lenses such as PC models. Sony results are dominated by older lenses inherited from Minolta (ZA), none of the latest GM version, nor those by Zeiss specifically for A7/A9 cameras. Furthermore, scoring is based on weighted values for many parameters besides resolution and freedom from CA. It is similar to scores by DXOMark and Consumer Reports. This is not necessarily bad, but you must determine for yourself whether their priorities align with your own. You also have to know how the component values were measured, and how they are weighted in the overall score. DXO ratings, for example, are made in-camera, and expressed as values relative the picture height. You can't compare values measured with different cameras, because they depend on the size and resolution of the camera used in the evaluation. At least DXO gives values for various locations in the image, whereas Lenscore doesn't say.

 

For example, corner-to-corner resolution and freedom from CA are desirable for landscapes, whereas distortion and fall-off (vignetting) mean very little. Physical size may be important for street photography, where agility and discretion is more important than image quality. Diffr'nt strokes ;)

 

Don't forget, you can do a direct A/B comparison between lenses on a mirrorless camera, which renders one-sided surveys obsolete.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

[Ed_Ingold]

I've seen several references to mount diameter to facilitate fast, wide-angle lenses. I doubt that is the case. Light gathering power is a function of the entrance pupil, not the exit pupil. Wide angle lenses for mirrorless cameras work best when designed to minimize the angle of incidence at the sensor, e.g., for tele-centricity, typically with an inverted-telephoto design. That takes more elements than the traditional WA lenses used for rangefinders. The best fast wide angle lenses are consequently rather large and complex, yet work nicely on existing mounts.

[ShunCheung]

There is nothing wrong at all using FX telephoto lenses on DX bodies. Once you are over like 70mm or so, there is zero advantage for making them DX. The front element will be just as big and so is the lens barrel.

 

The problem is wide angles. For FX, few people would need wider than 17, 18mm. Most of us can probably live with 20mm or even 24mm. There are the occasional fisheye shots or maybe some 14mm super wides.

 

However, for DX, it is common to go down to 12mm or so. If you want to make a 12mm that can cover the far corners of the FX sensor, it will either be very expensive and big or edge quality will be horrible. Hence making a 12mm DX wide or a zoom that covers that range makes a lot of sense. You don't want separate FX vs. DX mounts because you want to share telephoto lenses.

 

Needless to say there are compromises in many directions. The new Nikon mirrorless mount seems to be designed for FX, such that on DX it seems needlessly big. But there are already quite a few players in mirrorless DX, and Micro 4/3 is somewhat close to DX. FX seems to be the area that will be more profitable for Nikon.

[paul_b.1]

Gary, that was my initial thought...,but I feel that Nikon is twisting my arm, somehow. I am in a desperate need of a very good mirrorless , preferable Nikon, in order to be able to use my entire F mount pro lenses collection . The mirrorless advantages are obvious to me since I use weekly a XT2+50-140/2,8 at different events, but only in well light scenes due to AF limitations

And the new camera and the lens ...it does look like another P1000...I have doubts about Nikon intention to provide this mirrorless and Z lenses for professionals. I hope that I'm wrong .

[ShunCheung]

When Canon introduced the then new EOS system in 1987, they added a super fast 50mm/f1 lens shortly after (in 1989):

• EF50mm f/1.0L USM - Canon Camera Museum
   
  
• Canon EF 50mm lens - Wikipedia
  

Optically it wasn't a particularly great lens, and it was heavy and sold for like $2000 to $3000 (from memory). I recall that it was in production for over a decade but Canon eventually replaced it with a much-more-reasonable 50mm/f1.2. And the 50mm/f1.4 and f1.8 were more practical, optically better 50mm lenses.

 

Back then some people called the 50mm/f1 a "statement lens." I.e. it wasn't particularly good, but Canon wanted to make it clear that f1 was possible due to the larger EOS EF mount, while Nikon couldn't introduce any f1 lens due to the smaller F mount. It also established the fact that Canon was serious about the then new EF mount and more exotic lenses were forthcoming.

 

Now the table has turned, and apparently Nikon is the brand with a larger mount, which has its pros but also some cons (e.g. on DX bodies).

[ShunCheung]

I have doubts about Nikon intention to provide this mirrorless and Z lenses for professionals. I hope that I'm wrong .

Don't worry about it. Nikon's new mirrorless cameras are definitely for pros and serious amateurs, initially, although I expect some DX/APS-C models are also forthcoming, maybe in 2019.

 

Mirrorless has its advantages, and I won't comment until I get to try the new Nikon myself, but so far I still prefer an optical viewfinder.

 

Personally I prefer native lenses, and more than Sigma's attempt of modifying the mount for their Art lenses and extend the barrel for the Sony E mount. For telephotos, that is fine, but for wide angles, I prefer lenses specifically designed for mirrorless. But as a bridge, Nikon will provide a good adapter to mount F lenses during the transition. Most likely we'll also see various third-party adapters to mount F lenses and other lenses onto Nikon mirrorless.

[rodeo_joe1]

"You can see the characteristic cat's eyes one the left this lens sometimes produces. Probably a wider mount would make it possible to reduce this effect.."

 

- I'm not sure where this link between iris vignetting and mount size comes from. They're totally unrelated. The 'cat's eye' OOF blobs are simply an artefact of the elliptical shape caused by interaction of the distorted circular iris with the barrel of the lens. You can easily see this shape just by looking through the rear of practically any lens at an oblique angle. Opening the mount would do absolutely nothing to alter it.

 

Does nobody here use shift lenses? Because the real usefulness of a shorter and wider mount would be in allowing a greater degree of shift.

 

Sony have clearly not considered this in the tight-to-the-sensor design of their E-mount. It's a shortcoming that's prevented me already committing to their inherently limited system. Had they simply kept their A mount with a shorter register, it would have been a better design decision IMO.

[Dieter Schaefer]

none of the latest GM version, nor those by Zeiss specifically for A7/A9 cameras.

2 Loxia, 2 Batis, 2 GM lenses in the Lenscore database.

[BeBu Lamar]

How much is the cost of the sensor today? I think the saving in making the DX camera vs FX is no longer significant.

[Sandy Vongries]

Thing is, I have 3 relatively current systems of both types, not counting Nikon and Leica film, can't think of a single reason to buy in on this, even if it is the "best thing since sliced bread".

[ShunCheung]

How much is the cost of the sensor today? I think the saving in making the DX camera vs FX is no longer significant.

A decade ago, an FX sensor would cost 10 times as much as DX. The ratio maybe a bit different today, and everything is likely cheaper, but I don't think the different is insignificant.

 

However, cost is merely one of the factors. DX and other smaller formats such as Micro 4/3 have a size advantage. A friend of mine is around 80 years old. He used to have an extensive Nikon system and travelled with it all over the world, but switched to Micro 4/3 a few years ago. I believe the main reason is smaller and lighter equipment. His images are great from either system, but he is not shooting sports and low-light stuffs.

 

I regularly use a D500 with super teles to take advantage of the crop factor, although I also have 4 FX bodies. Every format has its pros and cons. One thing about Nikon DX mirrorless is that it will no longer be limited by the old flange-to-sensor distance for the F mount, designed for FX. Nikon DX DSLRs (other than the earliest few) have a smaller mirror, but due to the F mount, Nikon is unable to move the lenses closer so that it is difficult to make DX wide lenses for DSLRs. That limitation will finally be gone with DX mirrorless.

[ben_hutcherson]

Nikon DX DSLRs (other than the earliest few) have a smaller mirror, but due to the F mount, Nikon is unable to move the lenses closer so that it is difficult to make DX wide lenses for DSLRs. That limitation will finally be gone with DX mirrorless.

 

I find it a bit interesting that Nikon didn't revisit the IX-Nikkor design after DX digital had a significant market share.

 

I don't know if Nikon even made two different IX-NIkkor lenses. The one I have is a slowish, thoroughly consumer quality zoom. Interestingly enough, it's also(AFAIK) the first "G" lens, although not designated as such, and also screwdriver focusing.

 

In any case, an APS lens has to cover a larger area than a DX lens(30.2x16.7mm vs. ~23.7mmx~15.5 for DX) and a Pronia 6i is a larger camera than something like a D40. BTW, when I take a notion to use my Pronia, I typically use DX lenses including my 35mm f/1.8, 12-24mm f/4, and 18-200mm. They all work perfectly(aside from having to remember to turn off VR on the 18-200, as it doesn't work but will drain the batteries), and don't vignette.

 

Where I'm going with my rambling, though, is that Canon makes distinct EF-S lenses that set the rear element back further and can cause problems on full frame/film cameras. The IX-Nikkor lens(es) do the same. The only EF-S lens I ever owned was the kit lens on my now-sold Digital Rebel, but the rear element on my IX-Nikkor lens sticks out a lot further than I remember that lens sticking out.

 

On one hand, it's nice to be able to use DX lenses on FX/film cameras, especially since some are at least partially usable at certain focal lengths plus you can toggle DX crop mode if you want. As I see it, the D70 and the D2 series were the first "ground up" DSLRs and have DX-sized mirrors, as you mentioned, so perhaps Nikon's reluctance to go this route was because the early cameras couldn't have a recessed element. The Pronia series was a bit of a different story since it was an APS camera from the ground up, but was exclusively consumer-oriented cameras and I don't think Nikon ever intended anything otherwise.