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

[Ed_Ingold]

The only lenses, to my recollection, which intruded into the mirror box were a 21/4 from the 60's and an early fisheye. They required complete mirror lockup, not just for a single exposure, but continuous until unlocked. That feature didn't survive past the F3.

 

How wide is wide? We haven't crossed the boundary, if one exists, beyond which a short focal length can't be achieved for a DSLR, much less mirrorless, with inverted-telephoto design. Nikon has an 8-15 mm fisheye lens for FX cameras.

 

Nikon made an f/1.1 lens for their rangefinder camera in the late 50's. I suspect it was because Canon had an f/0.95 lens, which held the lead until shared with the Leica f/0.95 Noctilux. I don't recall anyone bragging about the image quality, just the enormous aperture. Size mattered.

[Gary Naka]

Nikon made an f/1.1 lens for their rangefinder camera in the late 50's. I suspect it was because Canon had an f/0.95 lens, which held the lead until shared with the Leica f/0.95 Noctilux. I don't recall anyone bragging about the image quality, just the enormous aperture. Size mattered.

 

Marketing, bragging rights.

And it worked. It got people's attention, even if they did not by the SUPER FAST lens.

[Gary Naka]

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.

 

It is about yield and defects on the Si wafer.

• #1 how many sensors per wafer from a given size wafer. You will get less large sensors and more smaller sensors. This is simply based on the area of the wafer vs the sensor size. Example, in a 2x2 square, you can get four 1x1 sensors (2x2 array) or 16 1/2x1/2 sensors (4x4 array).
  
• # 2 is yield, or how many GOOD sensors do you get. There is always defects, so you will never get 100% yield
  
• Yield % and count, in sensor size is affected by defects. If you have 1 defect in 4 square inches (2x2), you may get 15 small 1/2x1/2 sensors (94%) without defects or 3 larger 1x1 sensors (75%).
  

Count me as one of the m4/3 people.

Going to m4/3 was a compromise of IQ to get smaller size and lower weight.

 

I shoot DX at home when hauling gear is not a significant issue or low light sports.

I shoot m4/3 for travel or when I do not want to haul gear.

[ilkka_nissila]

It is certainly the case that making short focal length DX lenses for a short flange distance mount will be easier and the short focal length lenses should be smaller and less expensive (possibly sharper as well) than for DSLRs. But, there is already Fuji, Sony and Canon in the APS-C mirrorless market; how many competitors can it sustain? The pixel density used to be an advantage with DX for telephoto users but now Nikon have taken a step back from 24MP to 20MP with the latest upper mid level and high end DX cameras. Will there be higher resolution DX sensors? Why the step back? Samsung had 28MP if I recall correctly but they cancelled the product line.

 

For most practical (utilitarian) uses of photography, DX is perfectly good enough, less expensive than FX and perhaps ideal for long telephoto users in daylight. It's the most pragmatic format in my opinion, for the majority of users. But for me personally FX is more suitable as I prefer the low light and shallow depth of field options, etc.

 

For Nikon the question is whether they can support so many camera and lens lines and if the DX mirrorless is profitable. For Canon with 49% of the total ILC market, they can offer cheap robot-built and tested cameras and lenses and make a profit due to volume and brand value. But can anyone else?

 

FX mirrorless is many forum posters' love interest and it has only two manufacturers prior to Nikon's upcoming entry. Fewer competitors, high prices, good possibilities for Nikon to make a profitable camera lineup.

 

I think APS-C / DX is the most popular size but underappreciated by many enthusiasts and professionals. I think the issue is that people are looking for "wow" from a technical quality perspective rather than "wow" from interesting subject matter. But from a manufacturer's perspective, "wow" from technical quality is preferable because they can provide it (for a price) whereas they can do little about the subject matter people photograph (well, they could arrange education). But users should see through this and realize that interesting subject matter and light are generally the most important ingredient to a successful photograph, not lens sharpness!

 

Of course, there is subject matter such as landscape printed at wall size where sharpness has some extra significance. But for most applications I think we are way beyond sufficient in that area.

Edited August 11, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

I think where high resolution is often inspected at over 100% is macro.

 

People naturally seem to look more closely at, say, a butterfly, printed at 20 x 30", but stand back from a landscape printed the same size.

 

I'm guessing the D850 feature of semi-automatic Focus-Stacking will be available in the upcoming FX MILC. Very precise lens control is needed. What's interesting is that lens design for stacking needs is very different from normal shooting. Having a very 'peaky' lens with ultra-high res possible at just one aperture, It's wide open res is not relevant and diffraction is not an issue.

[Dieter Schaefer]

For Nikon the question is whether they can support so many camera and lens lines and if the DX mirrorless is profitable.

Looking again at Sony (who started E-mount cameras with APS-C), the answer seems to be NO and there's little reason to believe it would be different for Nikon. Sony's last APS-C camera release was in December 2016, and since 2014, there have been only two APS-C E-mount lenses (one of which is for cine). The situation is no different for the A-mount: last camera release was 2016 and last lens release 2015; though this may just indicate Sony's unwillingness to support that line anymore.

 

Whatever the main reason behind Nikon's decision to never fill the DX lens line was, one may very well have been insufficient capacity to design/produce them in view of the abundance of FX lenses they felt were necessary to release over the years.

[ilkka_nissila]

One comprehensive system with a broad variety of lenses (both general and special purpose) is what I want and not multiple incomplete systems where one can never do all the things one would want to do and a use may have to own incompatible products (which I find is really annoying). But in the current situation I suppose Nikon have no choice but to introduce a new mount. Personally I find it just such a waste of money (and an inconvenience) to own multiple systems where not all the parts are cross-compatible. However, others are happy to use multiple systems. Edited August 11, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[Mary Doo]

One comprehensive system with a broad variety of lenses (both general and special purpose) is what I want

Agree. Make the best cameras, lenses and accessories for the key system rather than diverting resources all over the place to compete in mediocrity with other companies.

[ShunCheung]

Whatever the main reason behind Nikon's decision to never fill the DX lens line was, one may very well have been insufficient capacity to design/produce them in view of the abundance of FX lenses they felt were necessary to release over the years.

For DSLRs, it was very clear that after introducing the D3 in 2007, high end would be all FX. That was why there was never any D400 and the D500 was totally unexpected, as Nikon themselves were calling the D7100 and D7200 their "flagship" DX bodies.

 

It inherently made no sense to make a lot of wide-angle DX lenses that still have to clear the registration distance for the F mount. Optically those DX wide lenses will always be unnecessarily inferior. People are much better off using FX wide angles lenses. For telephotos, people can always use FX teles on DX and take advantage of the crop factor. I do that on a regularly basis.

 

If Nikon gets into mirrorless DX, it will also likely for amateurs and consumers. However, DX mirrorless lenses will not have the registration distance issue SLR lenses have.

 

Whether Nikon will maintain full DSLR and mirrorless lines depends on how well each line sells. If DSLRs no longer sell very well 5, 10 years down the road, I am sure Nikon will phase them out, as they have pretty much phased out all film SLRs. For now, Nikon is still introducing high-end F-mount lenses. The 180-400mm/f4 just came out and we know that a 500mm/f5.6 PF is coming soon. I also expect more DSLR bodies coming.

[ben_hutcherson]

The only lenses, to my recollection, which intruded into the mirror box were a 21/4 from the 60's and an early fisheye. They required complete mirror lockup, not just for a single exposure, but continuous until unlocked. That feature didn't survive past the F3.

 

IX-Nikkor for the Pronia cameras. Please excuse my poor quality cell phone photo.

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

IX-Nikkor

That's not what Ed meant - he was referring to Nikon lenses that protrude so much into the mirror chamber that the mirror has to be locked up before the lens is mounted. IIRC, the 21/4 mentioned was actually a rangefinder lens. The rear of that 24-70 IX sure does intrude a lot into the mirror chamber - but I suppose it does not require mirror lock-up to be mounted and used.

 

That was why there was never any D400 and the D500 was totally unexpected, as Nikon themselves were calling the D7100 and D7200 their "flagship" DX bodies.

Yep, and I fell for what they were stating and got a D810 about 8 months before the D500 was announced. Had I known, I may not have made that move; it's hard to say now and water under the bridge anyway. I could certainly lighten my load now by replacing the D500/D810 combo with a D850. Almost no loss of performance (9fps vs 10fps - if I get the battery grip and the larger battery - which unfortunately adds substantially to the cost). I rather prefer the two body-solution though as I am putting way more clicks on the D500 than on the D810 and hence have to possibly replace the "cheaper" body earlier than the more expensive one. And for my FX needs, the D850 offers nothing over the D810 that I really need.

 

That works for film

With some lenses that intrude into the body one would need to be careful if they are to be used on a Leica M5 - due to the moving metering cell that may collide with it.

[Ed_Ingold]

Looking through my collection, I see that the Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 and 28/2.8 ZM lenses for Leica protrude into the body. That works for film, but not as well for an MILC, even an M9. It increases the angle of incidence at the edges and corners of the sensor, dramatically reducing sharpness and often causing a purple hue. If you must have an f/1.0 lens, details like "image quality" probably don't matter as much as bragging rights.

 

A Summilux 35/1.4 is a fairly compact lens, which protrudes slightly into the body, whereas a Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM is nearly 3" long, but does not intrude. The corresponding lens for a Sony is 4" long and weighs 1-1/4 pounds.

[ben_hutcherson]

The rear of that 24-70 IX sure does intrude a lot into the mirror chamber - but I suppose it does not require mirror lock-up to be mounted and used.

 

You are correct that it can be used with the mirror down, but it can be used ONLY on a Pronea series SLR.

 

As I said, though, I'm a bit surprised that Nikon never took advantage of being able to do this with DX DSLRs-without setting them side-by-side I'd guess that a D40 mirror is smaller than one for APS. An APS frame is about one millimeter taller than a DX frame, and it's about 2mm wider(remember that APS-H has a 4:7 aspect ratio, and regardless of how the camera is set all APS frames are captured in the APS-H format).

 

BTW, Nikon kept real full-time MLU on the F4 and F5. The F6 is the first(and only) flagship SLR without it. Of course, it went away on the "consumer" cameras with the end of the Nikkormat type camera(I think the Nikon EL2 was the last).

[BeBu Lamar]

You are correct that it can be used with the mirror down, but it can be used ONLY on a Pronea series SLR.

 

As I said, though, I'm a bit surprised that Nikon never took advantage of being able to do this with DX DSLRs-without setting them side-by-side I'd guess that a D40 mirror is smaller than one for APS. An APS frame is about one millimeter taller than a DX frame, and it's about 2mm wider(remember that APS-H has a 4:7 aspect ratio, and regardless of how the camera is set all APS frames are captured in the APS-H format).

 

BTW, Nikon kept real full-time MLU on the F4 and F5. The F6 is the first(and only) flagship SLR without it. Of course, it went away on the "consumer" cameras with the end of the Nikkormat type camera(I think the Nikon EL2 was the last).

If they did that then the DX lenses can not be used on FX cameras as in the case of Canon.

[ilkka_nissila]

I didn't think the D500 came from left field, the signs could be read in the preceding year. In the UK Nikon Owner magazine, there was an interview of a senior manager for Nikon UK who had previously worked at Nikon Japan and was apparently on the "inside" said that they know that there are a lot of customers that prefer the narrower angle of view of the DX format and that they had not forgotten them. In other interviews Nikon had stated that they are developing all product lines (when pressed about whether there would never be a pro DX again). They stated clearly that they currently have no top level DX like Canon 7D II. This broke away from the line that the D7100 is the flagship. In fact while the D7100 was advertised as the DX-format flagship:

 

Superior Clarity and Nimble Precision: The DX-Format Nikon D7100 Embraces The Advanced Enthusiast With Intuitive Engineering

 

the D7200 was not advertised with such terminology, antipating the launch of the D500 to take the flagship position:

 

Nikon's New DX-Format D7200 DSLR Will Help Passionate Photographers Conquer Their Next Challenge with Incredible Speed and Image Quality

 

The reason for this change in policy is that there are users who wanted high end DX and could not be persuaded to be satisfied with FX only. Policies are not set in stone, the companies listen to what the users are saying even if sometimes it takes a long time to respond.

 

As for the DSLR vs. mirrorless, to me these are just categories of cameras and one does not replace the other. It was different with film vs. digital as film requires quite a bit of infrastructure and volume to be viable as a day-to-day medium for photography (with perhaps the exception of black and white film). When the good labs closed shop I just didn't want to deal with the labs whom I had previously rejected for poor quality processing. Mirrorless and DSLR are both digital cameras and neither requires some special infrastructure.

[ilkka_nissila]

I could certainly lighten my load now by replacing the D500/D810 combo with a D850. Almost no loss of performance (9fps vs 10fps - if I get the battery grip and the larger battery - which unfortunately adds substantially to the cost). I rather prefer the two body-solution though as I am putting way more clicks on the D500 than on the D810 and hence have to possibly replace the "cheaper" body earlier than the more expensive one. And for my FX needs, the D850 offers nothing over the D810 that I really need.

 

As a D850 user my opinion is that it doesn't quite do what a D500, or even D7200 does. The D500 has better burst capabilities than the D850 (which only seems to reach its specified buffer capacity if putting a cap on the lens) and of course the DX model is quieter as well (than D850 with grip running at 9fps). The D7200 is still quieter than the D500. If this is a factor (i.e. if the noise from the camera affects your subjects significantly) then I would select the less loud camera. With the D850 the sound is a bit quieter if using it without the EN-EL18 series battery (max 7fps), and of course there are the Q/Qc modes. Furthermore the magnification of the D500 viewfinder is much greater than that of the D850 so if you're cropping enough to shoot with DX, you can see the subject better using the DX camera viewfinder. I would not disregard these factors.

 

The D850 has a couple of advantages for this type of use as well: if you're cropping (i.e. if your subject doesn't fill the frame) you can in many cases use the center AF point(s) and position them on the eye of the subject and then you get the sharpest part of the lens always at the most critical part of the image. You can then crop the image asymmetrically to come up with the final composition. With a DX camera you would have to further crop the image to have this liberty of using always the center of the image. I.e. with the D850 you can choose where to crop that DX area from, whereas with a DX sensored camera you cannot move it within the image circle. A second advantage is the 9-point dynamic area mode which is absent from the D500. A third advantage is that the D850 is the first Nikon which permits the use of EFCS in viewfinder shooting (in Q/Qc modes). This I find to be helpful in hand held shooting at certain speeds (the 300 PF comes to mind) but because of the slightly slower shutter delay, the subject should probably not be fast-moving in this case.

 

I would not consider the number of shots you put it through a factor to choose a less expensive model - the shutter replacement cost is only a few hundred dollars/euros so the camera doesn't need to be replaced because of a high number of clicks, you just take it to service and out it comes with replaced/serviced parts, good to go for another few hundred thousand photos.

[Dieter Schaefer]

As a D850 user my opinion is that it doesn't quite do what a D500...I would not disregard these factors.

Thanks Ilkka. Of the ones listed in your 1st paragraph, I had only considered the viewfinder magnification as mostly advantageous (and possibly achievable with the D850 through the use of a magnifying eyepiece - preferably built-in and easily moved in and out). Especially when using long teles, there's an advantage in having the wider FOV of the D850 finder too (in addition to the ones mentioned in your 2nd paragraph) - makes it easier to find and track a moving subject like a bird in flight.

 

A second advantage is the 9-point dynamic area mode which is absent from the D500.

Indeed. Something Nikon could remedy in an instant with a firmware upgrade for the D500. But I guess they rather want me to purchase a D500s to get that feature.

A third advantage is that the D850 is the first Nikon which permits the use of EFCS in viewfinder shooting (in Q/Qc modes).

Wasn't aware of that implementation - though due to the restriction to Q/Qc modes, it appears to be not that useful in my applications.

 

I would not consider the number of shots you put it through a factor to choose a less expensive model - the shutter replacement cost is only a few hundred dollars/euros so the camera doesn't need to be replaced because of a high number of clicks, you just take it to service and out it comes with replaced/serviced parts, good to go for another few hundred thousand photos.

Certainly a valid point. But there are other reasons I prefer the two body solution. My D500 with MB-D17 is permanently attached to the 200-500; in most other usages I prefer a camera body without an external battery grip. There's also the advantage of having two lenses ready to be deployed on two camera bodies at the same time - particularly at air shows as there would be no time to switch lenses on a single body (of course, except for the additional cost, nothing says that those two bodies couldn't be two D850 instead of a D500/D810 (or D850) combo).

[Ed_Ingold]

Are you sure DX would be a big selling point for a pro-level Nikon MILC? My impression of the D500 is that it offered high performance in a package that didn't compete with the D5. Size? I used three generations of single-digit DX Nikons which were no smaller than the F5 nor the DSLRs that followed.

 

The DX format presents significant challenges to achieving wide and super-wide FOV's, hence to the vast majority of users for whom a MILC is attractive. You couldn't throw a rock (paper cup, if you're a PC literalist) at a photo-op without hitting someone with a 24-70 or 16-35.

 

A D850, cropped to DX format, leaves 21 MP, essentially the same as the 20.1 MP of a D500.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

[Dieter Schaefer]

Are you sure DX would be a big selling point for a pro-level Nikon MILC?

I don't (ignoring the likely substantial difference in price to an FX model). The viewfinder-related issues mentioned above are readily solved with an EVF. Judging by the A9 performance, a higher-MP sensor (40-50MP) could achieve 10fps or perhaps even more (certainly when used in crop mode).

The DX format presents significant challenges to achieving wide and super-wide FOV's

Which can be overcome - as Sigma shows with the 8-16 DX lens. Or Sony with its APS-C 10-18. Nikon and Sigma have a 10-20 and both Nikon and Tamron have a 10-24. All significantly cheaper than FX alternatives with similar FOV. Optically maybe not quite up to par - quite likely a result of an otherwise too-high price point for the usual DX user. Other than the Sigma 8-16, all DX superwides allow the use of conventional filters as they are lacking the bulging front element that most FX lens seem to require.

[rodeo_joe1]

I'm getting too old for this teaser garbage. Wake me up when there's an actual camera and hard specifications I can look at, and put a price on!

[ilkka_nissila]

EFCS with Qc is useful if you have slowly moving or static subject and you're shooting at those shutter speeds which can lead to shutter induced vibration. Sometimes subjects are not moving :) If your subject is active then it makes sense to not use this feature, and switch to another drive mode (S/CL/CH). But then you probably are using a faster shutter speed as well, unless you are intentionally showing movement blur (and in the latter case the shutter induced vibration is not likely a problem). Edited August 12, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

Maybe they'll introduce the equivalent of a D3S and a D3X?

 

One 'low'-res for great high ISO and fast 4K video, and a high res for great studio and tripod/landscape.

 

Still not sure about DX mirrorless. I think Nikon might not bother.

[Ed_Ingold]

I don't (ignoring the likely substantial difference in price to an FX model). The viewfinder-related issues mentioned above are readily solved with an EVF. Judging by the A9 performance, a higher-MP sensor (40-50MP) could achieve 10fps or perhaps even more (certainly when used in crop mode).

That ship has sailed. The A7Riii does 42 MP, FX images at 10 fps. High resolution mode? With pixel-shifting, tripod or studio, the resolution is doubled, for the equivalent of 160 MP.

[Dieter Schaefer]

That ship has sailed.

If I am not mistaken, then it doesn't update the viewfinder image at that frame rate - how can I follow a moving subject in that case?

[ShunCheung]

I'm getting too old for this teaser garbage. Wake me up when there's an actual camera and hard specifications I can look at, and put a price on!

Not sure age has anything to do with it, but this has dragged on for way too long and various information (and mis-information) has already been leaked.