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

[Andrew Garrard]

I'll see what I can do!

 

(Um. I've remembered that airline security don't have a sense of humour. Don't worry, I'll be on my best behaviour.)

[BeBu Lamar]

Oh yeah, I always fly coach and I know if you sit about 1/3 of the wing from the their leading edge to trailing edge and in the center of the plane then the turbulence is the least. First class turbulence is pretty bad but not so much for the 787 which has wing mounted engine. It's worst with tail mounted engines because the wing is much further back of the fuselage and first class would be way ahead of the wings.

[Andrew Garrard]

I tend to sit as far back as I can, on the basis that if they run out of cabin baggage, I'd rather have got mine in early. Also the end of a central aisle because the cabin baggage bins are slightly bigger and if there's a couple next to you, they can disturb each other to get out without trapping you. I have a plan.

 

Normally I've worked out how to lift the aisle arm rests, too, but I'm not sure it was possible on the last 787 I flew. That normally helps significantly when you're chubby and prone to leg cramps.

 

Desperately dredging this back on topic, mirrorless as a backup body would be helpful on flights. The thinner the better. (The fold-flat hinged grip is another thing I've been advocating...)

[RaymondC]

I see this as the more modern way :) It has been said to be FX, if I recall correctly. It's more that pro market, maybe in future AF etc ... will all be improved and in 5yrs we might be able to tell better if the F mount will receive the same focus as Z mount.

 

The more compact travel and everyday everybody photography might not be Nikon's target market. That seems to be the 1" and M4/3 and APS-C.

 

Perhaps the D5 would still be the focus with dSLR and then the lesser AF market would be the mirrorless. I heard someone that went from Canon to Sony he really like the eye focus and the live viewfinder - shooting with models on location. It was more the different way of using the camera that appealed to him. I also went to a seminar who did work in London and here in NZ as a Architecture Photographer and he switched also from Canon to Sony and continue to use his tilt shift Canon lenses.

[2Oceans]

Shun,

I remember all the black lenses at the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and the feeling that Nikon had finally turned the corner.

I had stayed with Nikon clutching my D2X and gripped D200 because of the durability of the equipment and was happy with the change in direction to full frame

systems for fast pro level DSLRs and better Dx cameras that have continued to evolved. Mirrorless is another thing all together.

I am not sure it will make my image making any better but I am interested if not excited in what is to come because that will mean that Nikon is competing if not keeping up.

First class flights in CONUS and the Caribbean are relatively affordable and offer generous baggage allowances and overhead compared coach.

I fly that way if I am traveling solely for photography and especially so if I am dragging around a big lens or pelican cases with underwater strobes and a housing with a dome port. I doubt that mirror less cameras will obviate that. First class international to Europe is travel for its own sake. I have a friend who is a wine connoisseur who loads up in Italy and/or Germany once a year with expensive vintages but his first class flight cost the price of a new 85mm Otus. I would rather have the lens. I pick seats in the middle of the aircraft or boat for that matter, avoid countries that have strict weight limits on carry ons and have become pretty good a jockeying for position within my boarding class/zone. My wife doesn't understand me.

[mike_halliwell]

Sigma seems to break a lot of optical molds with some of it's newer Art series. 18-35mm 1.8 DX, 50-100mm 1.8 DX and 24-35mm 2 FX

 

There is, of course, the old Tamron 28-105mm 2.8 chunk of glass. You'd think with modern design and glass, you could stretch that speed to 120mm.

 

I wonder if something like that's mounted on the front?

 

I always try and sit at the back; when did you ever hear of a plane reversing into a mountain.....?:D

[Andrew Garrard]

24-120: well, we can hope. :-)

 

Planes: reversing into a mountain, no. Striking the runway (or improvised landing area) or getting hit by other planes, probably less rare. But these things are relative - if I'm a nervous flier at all, it's about anything happening to my baggage. I just like being prepared (hence asking airline staff awkward questions about the capacity of floating slides).

 

Nice of Nikon to let us be prepared for this camera. At the likely cost of a fair dip in their sales over the next month, if people are paying attention.

[BeBu Lamar]

24-120: well, we can hope. :)

 

Planes: reversing into a mountain, no. Striking the runway (or improvised landing area) or getting hit by other planes, probably less rare. But these things are relative - if I'm a nervous flier at all, it's about anything happening to my baggage. I just like being prepared (hence asking airline staff awkward questions about the capacity of floating slides).

 

Nice of Nikon to let us be prepared for this camera. At the likely cost of a fair dip in their sales over the next month, if people are paying attention.

 

When you talk about baggage you meant the checked baggage or your carry on? Generally if I lost the checked baggage it would be small problem for me. I have nothing valuable nor important for my trip in there. I do have my cameras, computer with me with the carry on.

[Andrew Garrard]

As much as I can, so do I. It's one reason to fly BA when I can - they have an unusually high limit on cabin baggage weight. A tripod, at least, usually ends up in the hold. I was trying to work out my expected load for my upcoming trip - D850, D810, d90, RX100, grip, batteries, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-500, possible prime or two, three laptops. Tricky when airlines try to impose low weight limits. I've offered to put a D800 and 200/2 round my neck as a "personal item" before. (The laptops will probably be that.) The "jacket full of lenses" theory doesn't really work when you carry big glass.

 

This time I probably need to bring an elderly rack mount system as well, so I might already be in second hold bag territory.

 

A mirrorless system would be a bit lighter - but then so would a pentamirror dSLR. :-)

[ilkka_nissila]

I was trying to work out my expected load for my upcoming trip - D850, D810, d90, RX100, grip, batteries, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-500, possible prime or two, three laptops.

 

I don't understand why you need so many cameras when traveling.

 

I usually take just one body unless it's a really critical trip and my plan is that if there is a camera body failure, I go to the nearest camera shop and pick up an inexpensive body (used or new). It hasn't happened though. If I travel to a major city this plan is perfecly viable, but if in the wilderness then a second camera may be needed. But four?

 

Since my Nikon cameras have never failed in a sense that I could not continue to take pictures, I am happier to limit my bag weight and take that small risk. I do, of course, carry a spare when I have responsibilities for other people regarding my photography but so far no one has offered to fund my travel photography. :rolleyes:

 

A mirrorless system would be a bit lighter - but then so would a pentamirror dSLR. :)

 

Yes, but if you want weight savings then you need new lenses purpose-made for the system, and it's not clear what size Nikon's lenses will be or what applications they design them for. There is talk of a 24-70/4 (ok, this should be portable) and a 35/1.2 and 50/0.9. I don't think the latter too will be saving any weight. I would guess it would take quite some time before weight savings can be realized without functionality loss compared to the kit you list above. The 24-70/4 does sound travel friendly and practical.

 

Yikes, a pentamirror. :eek: It's like one of those words which make me panic and think about quitting photography ...

 

The way I would go about cutting weight is reducing the aperture of the lenses, choosing lighter weight lenses instead of large aperture ones, and then leaving out the vertical grip of the camera body. I can also cut weight by simply packing fewer lenses. Of course it means that I can't shoot everything like I could when at home, but nonetheles this is how I can be happy while traveling and shooting. Recently my lenses have been getting heavier and I don't like that tendency, so I might have to pick up some f/1.8 prime or a lighter weight zoom. Thankfully Nikon have a lot of options now (for DSLR; in the future I am sure also for mirrorless).

 

I do realize that if the goal is wildlife photography, lightweight may no do the trick. Though that could change with the upcoming 500/5.6 PF.

[BeBu Lamar]

Although I feel that I should find interesting subjects around me to take pictures of it's often that on a trip there are more interesting subjects to be found. So if Andrew is like me or most of the people who mostly take pictures when travel then why wouldn't he bring all his cameras and lenses with him?

[ilkka_nissila]

Fair enough. I lifted something really heavy (130kg) at work in the spring and it was just a very bad idea. Now I have to avoid too heavy gear bags until I recover. I find that there are lenses which yield very good results but are comparatively lightweight.

 

I tend to use my fast lenses when I photograph people near where I live, or within driving distance away. I did bring the 70-200/2.8 on my previous London trip and I have to say that a bag that felt okayish at home started to weigh down on me after walking about several days in the city. I had six lenses and a laptop. I am definitely settling down to 3-4 lenses on trips in the near future. But if the trip is photographically really important, then you do what you have to do to get the results you need/want.

 

I used to also think that traveling is a great way to find interesting subjects but I've gotten to know where I live so well that I know where to go at different times of the year and can often wait for good weather conditions before heading out. I find it liberating not to have to worry about clothes, food, accommodation etc. which are all sources of stress when traveling.

Edited July 29, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[Andrew Garrard]

I don't understand why you need so many cameras when traveling.

 

To justify a little of my insanity: I'm whale watching, and I've been caught before trying to change lenses. Distance varies rapidly. One body with the 200-500 and the other with a 70-200 (and the 24-70 with me) seemed justified. If the Sigma 50-500 was remotely optically decent... Otherwise, yes, backup - the D810 is what I have. The D90 is IR converted. The RX100 is because I'm at a conference, and even I don't carry a dSLR everywhere.

 

Yikes, a pentamirror. :eek: It's like one of those words which make me panic and think about quitting photography ...

 

I've never really understood why. An FX pentamirror is a little dimmer than a pentaprism, but no worse than a DX pentaprism, surely? I don't recall objecting to my Eos 500 pentamirror, and the whole camera is half the weight of a D90. The combination of a crop sensor and a pentamirror is more limiting (although many D3x00 and D5x00 users seem to cope), but if you need an FX sensor, I don't see why the lump of glass is mandatory.

 

The way I would go about cutting weight is reducing the aperture of the lenses,

 

Sadly, dimly-kit conference - I need the aperture. I'm already hesitant about not taking the 85 f/1.4. I've recently thought a 120-300 would be the better "photograph presenters at conferences" lens, and I tried one against the new 70-200 - but the 70-200 was clearly the better purchase.

 

leaving out the vertical grip of the camera body

 

This is a new choice of torture for my back - but mostly whale watching again. It's made enough difference when shooting wildlife close to home that I want 9fps and the reduced blackout time.

 

I can also cut weight by simply packing fewer lenses.

 

This is fewer! Wildlife, landscape and some known low light drag in all the zooms from 14-500. I've used that whole range in a day in Yellowstone before, although bringing the 200/2 turned out to be redundant (but next time I'm planning to hire a big exotic). I don't usually carry them all with me, certainly not all day - but they do have to get on the plane.

 

Of course it means that I can't shoot everything like I could when at home, but nonetheles this is how I can be happy while traveling and shooting.

 

Perfectly reasonable - I just try to fit more than one kind of expedition into whatever I can tag on to the business trips my office pays for. I've been much more restrained when I've had less to do (although I was then asked to take photos of an event and didn't have my dSLR).

 

I'm sure everyone thinks this, but wildlife and landscape opportunities near to home are a bit limited. It's too urban here, and even getting variety for Nikon Wednesdays is challenging. So when I go places, so do the lenses.

 

I might have to pick up some f/1.8 prime or a lighter weight zoom.

 

I did look at the 20mm f/1.8, but generally I want the flexibility of a zoom in ultra wide, so I've constrained my NAS. The 24-70 is the most vulnerable to replacement - but (in Tamron form) it's the smallest of these lenses, and a decent 50mm (Art) is nearly as big, especially if I also take the 35. I've taken the (old, in my case) 300/4 and TC14 in the past as a "travel" version of the 200-500, but the zoom is just too useful, and my 300mm lacks VR.

 

Though that could change with the upcoming 500/5.6 PF.

 

It could, though the zoom is awfully useful, and I think it'll be out of my price range for what it is. If it turns out to be 1.5kg and £2000 (I've forgotten what's rumoured and what's announced) then I'll save up, otherwise it's either a chunk of my budget for something more exotic, or has to compete with the Sigma 500/4.

 

If mirrorless made for a light 14-24 and 24-70, I'd at least pay attention, though.

[Dieter Schaefer]

If mirrorless made for a light 14-24 and 24-70, I'd at least pay attention, though.

As Sony demonstrates, it's hit or miss in that regard. Sony's made-for-mirrorless 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 have literally no size or weight advantage over their DSLR counterparts whereas the 16-35/2.8 is clearly a "lightweight" by comparison. Sony's 12-24/4 has a more than 50% weight advantage over the Sigma 12-24/4.

 

I gave up carrying f/2.8 when traveling after making a similar experience to the one Ilkka described above. Unfortunately, my Sigma 24-105/4 is quite a heavyweight - Nikon's 24-120 and Sony's 24-105 are almost at par in terms of weight though. But limiting myself to f/4 zooms certainly is beneficial in substantially lightening the load.

 

Whenever wildlife photograohy is involved, to me it automatically means that I have to carry a DX body along - it just doesn't sit well with me to carry an FX camera and a 200-500 when I could get almost the same reach with a DX body and a 70-300 or more reach with a 80-400 that's still 2 lbs less than the 200-500.

 

For an upcoming trip and despite the fact that I'll be driving my own vehicle, I want to limit myself to one bag and that means that the 200-500 and even the 80-400 will have to stay home; I'll most likely be taking the 300/4 PF VR and TC-14E along to deal with wildlife.

[ilkka_nissila]

To justify a little of my insanity: I'm whale watching, and I've been caught before trying to change lenses. Distance varies rapidly. One body with the 200-500 and the other with a 70-200 (and the 24-70 with me) seemed justified. If the Sigma 50-500 was remotely optically decent... Otherwise, yes, backup - the D810 is what I have. The D90 is IR converted. The RX100 is because I'm at a conference, and even I don't carry a dSLR everywhere.

 

I generally accept that I cannot materialize everything that I see into photographs, and in fact I usually end up with far too many pics. I try to cut down on the number I shoot and one way to achieve that is to limit the options. I realize this might seem counterproductive to the quality of the photographs but by limiting my options I'm often able to work with a clearer mind and make better use of what I have. If I have too many options, I tend to be indecisive and shoot too many variations. Then my hard drives fill up and slow down editing.

 

Use of a tripod also helps me focus and take only the best compositions whereas when hand-holding I feel less secure and do more variations. I'm much happier, in general with the results I get using the tripod based workflow, for subjects such as landscape. I do shoot moving subjects generally hand held.

 

I've never really understood why. An FX pentamirror is a little dimmer than a pentaprism, but no worse than a DX pentaprism, surely?

 

How much time have you spent shooting with a pentamirror viewfinder? I just found nothing quite clear when I used the D70 viewfinder. The D200 was a huge improvement. We have a couple of D3100's at work and while it can be used for photography I just enjoy the pentaprism experience much more. I guess it's possible that the problem is in part with dust accumulating on the surfaces of the pentamirror over time, or it could be just the optical quality of the viewfinder.

 

But then I felt the D3 viewfinder wasn't that good (I much preferred the F5 viewfinder and was able to focus even fast primes on the ground glass reliably which I couldn't do with the D3) and the first FX Nikon viewfinders which I felt gave a really good clarity of the viewfinder image were the Df, D850 and D5. I think the D3's problem was the LCD overlay which made the image less clear. Nikon subsequently improved coatings, reducing reflections and the D810 felt really nice in comparison. The D5 viewfinder is easier for me to see to the corners without vignetting than the D810/D800 but the clarity of the image is improved in the D810. I am quite happy with the D850 and D5 viewfinders now. The LCD overlay hasn't gone away as I would have wished, but they've managed to improve the optical quality in other ways.

 

I don't recall objecting to my Eos 500 pentamirror, and the whole camera is half the weight of a D90.

 

I guess people's vision is very individual and also the things that they are looking for in the viewfinder. A friend of mine had a pentamirror Pentax for a while and when he managed to upgrade to a pentaprism one he said that he was happy, now he could focus manual focus lenses which he hadn't been able to, using the pentamirror.

 

Sadly, dimly-kit conference - I need the aperture. I'm already hesitant about not taking the 85 f/1.4. I've recently thought a 120-300 would be the better "photograph presenters at conferences" lens, and I tried one against the new 70-200 - but the 70-200 was clearly the better purchase.

 

If you want to photograph a broad variety of subjects, I can see how this could lead to a heavy bag.

 

I'm sure everyone thinks this, but wildlife and landscape opportunities near to home are a bit limited. It's too urban here, and even getting variety for Nikon Wednesdays is challenging. So when I go places, so do the lenses.

 

I live in a bit smaller city (Helsinki metropolitan area has about 1.5 million people) and there is surprisingly quite a lot of wildlife within about 20-40km distance. Also people with long lenses seem to happily and successfully photograph birds in the Helsinki coastal areas. But I can see that in much larger cities things could be different.

 

I did look at the 20mm f/1.8, but generally I want the flexibility of a zoom in ultra wide, so I've constrained my NAS.

 

The 20/1.8 and 300 PF do save a lot of weight compared to e.g. 14-24 and 300/2.8 or 200-500.

 

It could, though the zoom is awfully useful, and I think it'll be out of my price range for what it is.

 

If you need the zoom, then there is no weight to be saved on that front.

 

If it turns out to be 1.5kg and £2000 (I've forgotten what's rumoured and what's announced) then I'll save up, otherwise it's either a chunk of my budget for something more exotic, or has to compete with the Sigma 500/4.

 

Do you really expect to travel and add a Sigma 500/4 along with a suitable tripod (which would be around 4.5kg with gimbal or fluid head I think; I tried the Nikon 500/4 VR with a gimbal and Gitzo 3-series legs and while the rig worked well with VR in TRIPOD mode, the legs did seem under the requirements of rigidity for vibration free use of a 500mm lens)?

 

I can understand that if an f/4 can be purchased for a price that is only a bit more than the f/5.6, this creates a dilemma, but a 500/4 in my opinion requires quite a bit of planning and preparation to use and is not something I'd travel on a plane with or hike with (obviously some photographers do, and certainly professonal wildlife photographers). I see the AF and image quality would be better with the f/4, but if the opportunities to use one require travel then how will it lead to the photos? If you're on a whale watching trip then I would think a hand holdable prime would be easier to work with than one which is not hand-holdable.

 

I admit this is a bit speculative since I haven't seen the 500/5.6 PF or shot with it. My past experiences with f/5.6 long zooms haven't been encouraging, so perhaps a 500/4 is indeed the better choice. I think we should find out soon enough when the 500 PF is released and gets some reviews, what it's good for and what it isn't.

 

If mirrorless made for a light 14-24 and 24-70, I'd at least pay attention, though.

 

Yeah, but then that's another camera in the bag.

 

I am happier to give up on lens aperture and diversity of focal lengths on a trip than viewfinder quality. But I do understand that every photographer has to work this out for themselves according to their needs and priorities.

[Andrew Garrard]

Currently I'm balancing "hard to carry all this stuff" against "I really need the exercise". I've been known to feel the 200-500 after an hour or two, and I had a bit of hand tremor after testing a 120-300 for a while, but fortunately I'm holding up so far. Or, more specifically, it's negligible compared with my own mass.

 

I find it odd that both the Sony 400mm f/2.8 and the Fuji 200mm f/2 seems to be appreciably lighter than their dSLR equivalents (unless I'm confused). I wouldn't have expected any difference in a lens that long.

 

I don't really buy the "take a DX body for reach" argument - I can get just as much reach as a D500 by cropping from a D850. If I had a D5, then sure. Sadly my non-PF 300mm is a bit chubbier, and I can't really justify swapping it for the PF version.

[Andrew Garrard]

I usually end up with far too many pics.

 

I've been having way more problems with this since I got the D850 - I think the burst shooting rate got to the stage where I can track a moving subject, where I'd have shot single images with the D810. I'm trying to restrain myself, similarly to think better. And I'm trying to triage more in-camera.

 

Use of a tripod also helps me focus (...) I do shoot moving subjects generally hand held.

 

It depends how many tourists I'm in the way of, but I do often take a tripod with me. But it goes in my suitcase, so I don't panic so much about weight.

 

How much time have you spent shooting with a pentamirror viewfinder? I just found nothing quite clear when I used the D70 viewfinder.

 

Quite a bit with the 300D, but obviously that's quite dim indoors, especially with an f/5.6 lens. But it's also even more of a crop than DX. Not as much with the Eos 500, but it's surely not losing half the light like DX does. DX combined with a pentamirror and a slow lens is a perfect storm.

 

If you want to photograph a broad variety of subjects, I can see how this could lead to a heavy bag.

 

Sadly, yes. But only when in flight - not during the day. (Well, as much.)

 

I live in a bit smaller city (Helsinki metropolitan area has about 1.5 million people) and there is surprisingly quite a lot of wildlife within about 20-40km distance. Also people with long lenses seem to happily and successfully photograph birds in the Helsinki coastal areas. But I can see that in much larger cities things could be different.

 

I'm lucky that I get a reasonable number of birds and plants, and I'm near parks that have deer. But there are only so many photos you can take of the same subjects. And they're not exactly bears or lions.

 

If you need the zoom, then there is no weight to be saved on that front.

 

For whale watching, I don't dare be without the zoom. More generally the 300mm + TC14 is a viable substitute.

 

Do you really expect to travel and add a Sigma 500/4 along with a suitable tripod (which would be around 4.5kg with gimbal or fluid head I think; I tried the Nikon 500/4 VR with a gimbal and Gitzo 3-series legs and while the rig worked well with VR in TRIPOD mode, the legs did seem under the requirements of rigidity for vibration free use of a 500mm lens)?

 

Travelling with a 500 f/4 is more troublesome - but it would be more appealing at home. For trips I might be able to hire - hiring an 800mm for Yellowstone seems more viable than transporting it even if I owned one. Legs don't bother me so much - I've already got a TVC-34L and it's not that difficult to put in a suitcase. Hiking would be harder, but then I don't really do that anyway. At home, I really need light gathering more than reach, hence the 400 f/2.8 lust. And I definitely don't expect this kind of thing to be useful for whales.

 

(mirrorless)

 

Yeah, but then that's another camera in the bag.

 

That was supposed to be instead of my D810. :-)

[mike_halliwell]

Does Mirrorless usually show the stopped down view in the EVF and/or back screen?

[Ed_Ingold]

The key to traveling light with a mirrorless camera probably lies with the availability of small, fast primes and high performance f/4 zoom lenses with comparable image quality. I don't think f/2.8 zooms are needed, except historically only fast zoom lenses have delivered the best image quality. Nikon was slow to introduce good f/4 lenses, which have been a staple with Canon for a dozen years or more. Sony has a nice 16-35/4 in conjunction with Zeiss, but dropped the ball in the Sony/Zeiss 24-70/4. Sony is makeup up lost ground with the new, long-back-ordered 24-105/4.

 

Zoom lenses have been the Nikon tradition since the F3. I suspect they will open with some interesting mirrorless choices.

[Andrew Garrard]

Does Mirrorless usually show the stopped down view in the EVF and/or back screen?

 

I'd expect it to open up when focussing (if PDoS is going to work) and stop down to show DoF. IIRC something (the D700?) stopped down, but only so far, in case it didn't have enough light to offer a live view image. I hope there's some configuration.

 

When Nikon get to a crop sensor mirrorless, what are the odds the first few lenses are 18-xxx zooms? :-)

[mike_halliwell]

Ah, that's what I was remembering. The amount it closed down was unknown.

 

I guess it also needs the extra diaphragm motor to move the blades dynamically.

 

So how does Focus Peaking work on a non-stopped down image?

 

AFAIK, there's no benefit either way to AF-P lenses on mirrorless is there?

 

Those odds are the closest to a dead cert. that you're gonna find...........;)

Edited July 30, 2018 by mike_halliwell

[ilkka_nissila]

AF-P lenses should autofocus just as well as native mirrorless lenses on a Nikon mirrorless. They do very good LV AF even on a DSLR.

 

I would expect that Nikon see the benefits of focusing wide open (DSLRs focus wide open in viewfinder use, but stopped down in LV) but there is conflict between sensitivity (best wide open) and avoiding bias due to focus shift (lowest at shooting aperture). This choice should be offered to the user.

 

I don't know if it makes sense to introduce both DX and FX in a new system today. There was always the complaint that Nikon weren't making enough DX lenses suitable for enthusiast use and by starting two new lens lines afresh seems like a lot of baggage.

[mike_halliwell]

I'm guessing native FX or DX lenses for mirrorless won't be usable on mirrored Nikon DSLRs? Completely incompatible flange distances.

 

..... or more simply, you'll never fit a Nikon Z-Mount lens onto an Nikon F-Mount body!

[Dieter Schaefer]

I don't really buy the "take a DX body for reach" argument - I can get just as much reach as a D500 by cropping from a D850.

Yes, we have indeed reached parity between the D500 and D850; the argument still holds for my D810/D500 combo though. What does remain is the higher subject magnification in the viewfinder of the DX camera (since it shows less surrounding area than the FX finder) - something that'll become a moot point on mirrorless though.

Does Mirrorless usually show the stopped down view in the EVF and/or back screen?

I'd expect it to open up when focussing (if PDoS is going to work) and stop down to show DoF.

On the Sony, it depends on which setting you choose "Settings Effect ON or OFF". Unless the aperture is slower than f/9 (I believe), it'll do even phase-detect AF at the stopped-down value if the "Settings Effect" is ON (and at open aperture when it's set to OFF). Since I don't shoot action much with my Sonys, I have yet to investigate the effect that parameter settings has on AF performance but expect that it'll be negligible (by now, many Nikon DSLRs can do auto-focusing with lenses as slow as f/8).

So how does Focus Peaking work on a non-stopped down image?

At least in my experience on the Sony, focus peaking isn't good enough to allow critical focusing. Obviously, it should be at its best when the lens is wide open and get progressively worse as one stops down and DOF increases.

 

I don't know if it makes sense to introduce both DX and FX in a new system today.

I was thinking exactly the same thing just yesterday - but Nikon would then give up a large market segment completely. Sony hasn't exactly shown much love for their APS-C-sensored E-mount line in recent years either though.

[ShunCheung]

I was thinking exactly the same thing just yesterday - but Nikon would then give up a large market segment completely. Sony hasn't exactly shown much love for their APS-C-sensored E-mount line in recent years either though.

I thought that without a second teaser with a little more new information, threads like this one would lose steam after a week. But apparently that is not yet the case here and on other forums.

 

I am quite sure that Nikon will have both FX and DX mirrorless cameras, but DX mirrorless is a more crowded market with Sony, Fuji and Canon already in the game, and Micro 4/3 is not that different. FX seems to be the better entry point initially because for now, Sony is the only head-to-head competition, although I fully expect Canon to get into the (FX mirrorless) game soon, perhaps even before the September Photokina starts.