DX Mirrorless?

[Dieter Schaefer]

but that it could have had a phone battery or something embedded in it to supplement the camera power.

I suggested something along those lines above.

the WT-7 is over £1000

"Only" $750 here. But there's a difference - that's an accessory few actually need. The grip extensions are a cludge to get around a design failure.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Dieter Schaefer

[Andrew Garrard]

I suggested something along those lines above.

 

Oops - sorry, I read too much into your "preferably built in" comment and didn't realise you were talking extensions. Agreed, anyway. I'm pretty sure that at least some phone batteries are even the right shape.

 

"Only" $750 here. But there's a difference - that's an accessory few actually need. The grip extensions are a cludge to get around a design failure.

 

I'd have been a lot more interested in it if it weren't £1000! Thom Hogan has been complaining about Nikon's (and others') connectivity issues for years; SnapBridge is finally improving a bit, and I've actually used it on my D850 to message an image to my wife, but this really shouldn't be a poorly-designed and overpriced afterthought. I'd claim they're also a cludge around a design failure!

 

There have been cameras with a range of grips available to appeal to the user - the 1 V3 for a start, but the EM-D E-5 had an accessory, and there was something that I'm now struggling to find where the integral grip could be swapped out. I'd not realised that these days the manufacturers were making such a pig's ear of it.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Mirrorless cameras should be large enough to come standard with batteries the size of the Nikon EN-EL18! Or two EN-EL15-size ones!

 

hom Hogan has been complaining about Nikon's (and others') connectivity issues for years; SnapBridge is finally improving a bit

I have all that turned off, having zero use for it. Hopefully in the right order so that it not clandestinely drains my cameras' batteries.

 

Ubiquitous smartphones can't be the only reason the ILC market is shrinking? I have no data but much like the (to me) unsustainable ever pricier iphone upgrade cycle, maybe the same is happening for the ILCs as well. Judging from my current point of view - the previous generation camera bodies are simply "good enough" for what I do and the quite substantial upgrade cost (not only the camera itself but often also additional, non-trivial costs for upgraded/new memory cards and batteries) is just not warranted. I already use DSLR and mirrorless in parallel but just simply can't make up my mind on either falling back to the old ways or moving full steam ahead with the new one; the result of the conundrum for me is to take a "wait and see" approach. I am aware that eventually, DSLR will be on the losing side and mirrorless will be winning - I am just not clear on the time frame. I could make the transition with Sony right now - on account that Sony has all the lenses I need. With Nikon mirrorless, the transition is at least 2 years away, probably longer. And there it does not only depend on the available lenses but also on what their next generation of mirrorless cameras looks like. And so far, I've only been talking about FX; DX adds another layer of complexity onto the issue as currently I don't see an (mirrorless) alternative for the D500.

[Andrew Garrard]

I also have snapbridge turned off, and the Eye-Fi card I bought for the purposes of transferring data off my D810 has yet to be used for that purpose (partly because it's so painfully slow compared with my faster cards that I don't really tend to have it in the camera on the occasions I've wanted to do it). Nonetheless, my wife learnt that I'd seen wolves in Yellowstone when I took a picture of the LCD on my D810 using the camera on my phone. I've barely used SnapBridge, but there have been a couple (possibly literally) of occasions on which I've thought "actually, I could transmit this". Most recently at an airport, where I could show my wife what I'd been doing that day (there were cheetah cubs). A laptop and card reader actually wouldn't have helped - I'm not a fan of airport public wifi sign-up details, and my phone's tethering doesn't work internationally. Like video, it's in the category of "I almost never use this, but that doesn't mean I'm ungrateful on the very rare occasions when I do". I'm not really one for social media (I'm not on Bookface, etc.) so I suspect I'm about as unlikely to use this feature as anyone. Except possibly BeBu. :-)

 

Agreed about Nikon not being there yet for mirrorless when it comes to switching. There are a few things that could be done with the finder that would interest me (including in an optical finder) - but I tend to feel that when I want a digital finder, there's always live view. When I want to spend hours in the cold scanning the horizon for the aforementioned wolves, it's nice that my dSLR batteries aren't draining appreciably while I stare at trees - and that there's no rolling shutter. I assume the bodies will improve (certainly the buffer should be an easy fix; that and the read-out/metering delay are the biggest issues I'd have coming from my D850). There may or may not be a killer feature that makes me switch; sufficiently good eye-tracking autofocus might do it. The bigger question for me is whether the lenses in mirrorless will improve enough over dSLR to justify a system switch. Currently I'm on the fence - the 50mm Z is very good, for example (and apparently a bit better than the 50mm Sigma Art) - but then the 40mm Sigma is a step-up as well.

 

The D850 fills most of the few gaps from the D810 for me. The D810 (and with a few frustrations the D800e before it) was already an extremely good camera in decent light and if the subject isn't moving too fast; its "quiet" (PDAF) mode is arguably better than the D850's in terms of noise output, and I'll be taking mine shooting tomorrow partly for that reason. (Yes, I could use a Z7 for this if I had infinite funds.) The D850 is mostly faster - I can shoot action with it, especially with the grip, way more easily than with the D810. I do have a list of niggles I'd like fixed, and which I'd give Nikon some money to sort for me (and I'm way more likely to cough up £400 for a firmware upgrade - assuming Nikon aren't going to do it for free - than pay £3000 for a camera that isn't universally an improvement over what I already have) - but very few need a new body, let alone a new system.

 

So I guess, yes, I'm somewhat in "good enough" territory for the body. I even delayed getting the D850 for quite a while. I'm sure market saturation is a problem for the camera companies - especially since so many older bodies got pushed on dealers; it doesn't help that the step up from, say, a D3200 to D3500 is relatively small, depending on what you're doing. Some camera makers get some cash by people sampling new systems, and I guess Fuji and Sony have done better out of this than others - people may come back to Nikon, but I doubt many Fuji or Sony shooters are thinking "I should try this technology that was already mature when I decided on the system I've got in case it solves my problems", where I'm sure a lot of dSLR shooters are thinking "huh, that platform might be better than what I've been using, and it's actually new". Maturity doesn't always help.

 

If I wanted a smaller system... well, that'd be to complement what I've got, not replace it. FX has been the sweet spot of being able to get good, fast lenses semi-affordably; you really have to try to get a larger relative aperture than an FX body in another format (the 150mm f/2.8 for 5x4 is one of the few options). Medium format digital could outperform it, but at a lot of cost, and the market isn't full of f/1.4 medium format glass. I already have a micro 4/3 body, but rarely use it - it's too big, and so are the lenses, for what it delivers (there's a basic amount of space taken up by just being a camera). If I wanted a smaller system, I'd be looking at Fuji, who've actually bet the farm on this form factor and aren't getting so distracted by full frame - but I can't really justify two active systems in my life. Nikon, even with Sigma's help, haven't really made DX a convincing system, and the D500 - much as I enjoyed using it for its speed compared with a D810 - isn't any smaller than the D8x0 bodies; I never would have bought a D500, but I'm glad the D850 can be 90% of one. Arguably the D500 and D850 are less portable than my D810, because I'm way more paranoid about something happening to the touch screen without a hard protector over it.

 

Olympus and Fuji, in as much as I've been following, do have some interesting iterations on smaller sensors for action - they probably don't quite match the D500, but they're quite good (although the Olympus is huge). But I'm back to the old single-digit Nikon argument here: despite my assertion earlier today that I sometimes shoot 9fps in bright sunlight, if I want to spend money on a body that works well on fast-moving subjects, it also needs to handle low light. And that means full-frame. But it probably wouldn't if I were a dedicated hummingbird shooter like Shun!

[BeBu Lamar]

Alright Andrew! I don't think I am the only want who hates to have video on my still camera. I am not a bird shooter (Oops should try to avoid the word "Shoot" when talking about birds) and I wonder someone like Shun can get the humming bird to pose for him?

[Andrew Garrard]

No, BeBu, I think it's just you. :-P

 

I guess Shun could take some very nice pictures of stuffed hummingbirds with a contrast-detect medium format Fuji GFX 50R. I've seen perhaps two hummingbirds in person (in the US - they're not exactly native to the UK); in one case I thought "huh, that's a big insect - oh, wait..." and it was gone, and in the other it dive bombed someone I was dining with and was gone in about a second. I hope Shun's ones are a bit more accommodating, but if my dragonfly experience is anything to go by, he has a lot of respect from me for capturing anything at all!

[ShunCheung]

For any wildlife photography, we tend to find where they drink and eat. For hummingbirds, that may mean hummingbird feeders, or if you would like to capture it more naturally, you go to where their favorite flowers are. I have been thinking about that recently since the hummingbird season should start in mid to late March, coming soon.

[BeBu Lamar]

No, BeBu, I think it's just you. :p

 

I guess Shun could take some very nice pictures of stuffed hummingbirds with a contrast-detect medium format Fuji GFX 50R. I've seen perhaps two hummingbirds in person (in the US - they're not exactly native to the UK); in one case I thought "huh, that's a big insect - oh, wait..." and it was gone, and in the other it dive bombed someone I was dining with and was gone in about a second. I hope Shun's ones are a bit more accommodating, but if my dragonfly experience is anything to go by, he has a lot of respect from me for capturing anything at all!

I bet Shun could take great pictures of real humming birds with the Fuji GFX 50R but we don't know as I don't think he has one yet. He has the Z6 then the D850 but I do think he may have a Z7 soon unless Nikon introduces the new Z soon.

[2Oceans]

Mike, So I did it. I ordered my first mirrorless Dx camera. It’s a Fuji X100F I bought because I like the retro street camera look and because it has a reputation for amazing out of the box color like my first DSLR that was a Fuji S2 Pro that took my Nikon lenses. It has a fixed 23mm f2 lens and a leaf shutter so I will not be compelled to buy any new lenses for it and grow a Fuji system. This gives way for me to upgrade as the mirrorless Nikon system evolves into something I want . I have kept with Nikon because I have held on to what the late Galen Rowell said about the durability of Nikon gear when I was ready to switch to Canon. Nikon is philosophically a much different company now than it was 15 years ago when they were somewhat stuck with DX only and my general thinking at that time was that they were not particularly innovative. At this time I feel that DX has some advantages such as lower cost and size and that higher noise and less resolution are gradually being overcome by engineering feats of madness. That said, I proudly own three full frame Nikon DSLRs with integrated or installed grips and they have a nice permanent niche in my quiver and share EN-EL15a and EN-EL18c batteries with their lowly DX siblings. So with the X100F exception I will likely stay a dedicated Nikon user and transition to a mirrorless iteration as Nikon mirrorless evolves with hopefully a DX. I am not sure that I care about upgrading from D850 to a Z7 though I am increasingly impressed with the reviews I have read about the new Z lenses. I can't conceive of a better camera and system than the D850 so I am hoping Nikon will come up with something big to make me change my mind. I was looking at other mirrorless systems including the Olympus micro 4/3. Fuji, Sony and Olympus have more highly evolved systems and in particular the Olympus has a feature called Pro Capture that will begin capturing images as the shutter released is pressed half way, a second or two before and then actually stores the more current retrograde images when the shutter is fully depressed along with the real time images. I hope Nikon will emulate this feature since I know that it will potentially lead to capturing the most spontaneous and decisive moments in action photography. Other than that selfish desire I am optimistic about the future for Nikon but also look forward to my X100F arriving so I can shoot mirrorless DX on the street with the flash synced to 2000 of a second at large apertures. Perhaps the Nikon 550 will be mirrorless with the flux capacitor battery that can be used to power a small vacation bohia on the side.

[rodeo_joe1]

Anyone done side-by-side comparison images from the Z7 against Sony A7riii? Or Z6 against a6500 or similar? After all, that should be the acid test.

 

Despite my quite substantial 'investment' in F mount glassware, I'm getting more and more disillusioned with Nikon's design decisions and company direction - not to mention their pricing structure.

 

I really can't see any good reason not to switch to Sony, who now have a clear head-start in the field of MILC designs. After all, if I'm spending several K on a camera body and a couple of lenses, why wouldn't I go with a company that has several (proven) lenses to offer already. Unless Nikon are going to see sense and tempt me with a deep discount against their all too similar competition.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Anyone done side-by-side comparison images from the Z7 against Sony A7riii?

Not seeing much of a difference when processing RAW files (after I've found a more appropriate set of JPEG parameter settings for the Z7).

I really can't see any good reason not to switch to Sony, who now have a clear head-start in the field of MILC designs.

Advantage Nikon: better body ergonomics though the body is still too small (spend $51 for this little attachment https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D36LPFW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 for the Sony body and the handling improves substantially). Better menu. Better EVF. Better AF with adapted AF-S lenses than what's available with third party adapters for Sony. Advantage Sony: pretty much everything else (the pending Z-firmware update will move Nikon a bit closer though).

why wouldn't I go with a company that has several (proven) lenses to offer already

That's what I did - but I limited my Sony lens inventory now to two lenses: 12-24/4 and 24-105/4. Nikon's Z-mount equivalent (14-30/4 and 24-70/4) just doesn't do it for me.

Unless Nikon are going to see sense and tempt me with a deep discount against their all too similar competition.

There's currently a discount that puts the Z7 at the same price point as the A7RIII - at least for me, that was still not enough.

[Gary Naka]

If we take the existing FX lens landscape as a sample, they have both lower cost consumer grade and expensive pro grade lenses.

Nikon could do the same in the Z mount, and target the consumer grade lenses and lower cost Z camera to the existing DX market.

Then they eliminate the complaints from the DX folks of lack of GOOD DX lenses. And they have one less camera and lens system to deal with.

 

Olympus has just that landscape with their micro 4/3 system.

• Consumer EM10 + consumer grade lenses
  
• Pro EM1 + pro grade lenses
  

What is nice about the Olympus landscape is, that I can and do mix and match, to meet the requirements of a shoot.

 

The problem with switching to all FX is the uproar from the current DX users.

But like the switch from the F mount to the Z mount, a lot of people won't like phasing out the DX line.

 

Though Nikon could keep the DX line going in dSLR format, until it becomes unprofitable.

 

The alternative is a minimal DX mirrorless line, equivalent to the D3xxx and D5xxx cameras, and the associated consumer grade lenses.

Canon is doing that right now with the EOS-M50. It has a different mount, but they have an ES to M adapter to use current ES lenses. Not sure if it can use the new R mirrorless FF lenses.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Gary Naka

[Gary Naka]

Earlier this month I went on a two-week Antarctica cruise with 100 passengers. There was another person with a Z7, and both of our cameras worked perfectly throughout the trip. (I brought 4 Nikon bodies and 7 Nikkor lenses in total. Everything worked just fine in some harsh environment.)

 

There were also a few people with Sony mirrorless cameras and some Fuji and Canon as well. I understand two Sony mirrorless cameras failed on the trip. I discussed with one Sony owner in detail. His camera (A7 II) worked fine in the cold (the temperature was around freezing, such that it was not that cold) as long as he used a small lens, but when he put on his Sony 70-200mm/f2.8, it failed to AF outdoors, but indoors it was fine. He tried a few usual tricks such as switching to a freshly charged battery and keeping his battery in his pocket to keep it warm. It didn't help. He believed that the problem was that the Sony camera was too small and they had to put a very small battery inside, and it didn't provide enough power in the cold. This is probably not a major issue for most, but that Sony owner is from Alaska so that cold-weather performance is important to him, and he thinks he'll switch brands.

 

The Z6 and Z7 are merely Nikon's first installment. I am quite sure that larger bodies will be added in the coming years, although not necessarily as large as a D5.

 

 

I am curious as to what your battery run time of the Z6 is.

 

I think Nikon made a mistake in making the Z6 and 7 with the same battery as the dSLR.

Mirrorless cameras suck much more power, and NEED a larger battery than a dSLR. I can shoot my D7200 for 2 DAYS, but my Olympus EM1-mk1 will only last 4 HOURS of continuous power on time. With a high drain lens, it goes to empty in less than 2-1/2 hours, which is stupid short. The EM1-mk2 has a 40% larger battery, but still lags behind a dSLR.

[mike_halliwell]

I think I'd prefer a ergonomic camera with a smaller battery, to a 2000+ frame camera that won't fit my hands.

 

Everyone has spare batteries and charging them from powerbanks or even with a solar charger is easy.

 

Just make sure you remember to carry them...they don't work at home....:D

[Gary Naka]

I think I'd prefer a ergonomic camera with a smaller battery, to a 2000+ frame camera that won't fit my hands.

 

Everyone has spare batteries and charging them from powerbanks or even with a solar charger is easy.

 

Just make sure you remember to carry them...they don't work at home....:D

 

Having used a mirrorless on vacation, what is a PiA is to go through 3 or 4 batteries in a day. Cuz you then have to charge 3 or 4 batteries at night. Miss charging one night and you are in trouble the next day, unless you are carrying 6 - 8 batteries. But then you have to play catch up the next night, with 6 - 8 drained batteries.

 

The Olympus batteries/chargers (as of now) do NOT charge from a powerbank, AC only.

 

The 2-1/2 hour battery life, means I am NOT taking that lens/camera combination on vacation.

But at home, not a problem.

[mike_halliwell]

The Olympus batteries/chargers (as of now) do NOT charge from a powerbank, AC only.

That's the kinda daftness I associate with Nikon...:-)

 

3 or 4 a day, humm, I can see your point!

 

However, try doing a decent timelapse with a single en-el15 and you'll find the same problem. The only way is an en-el18...in a grip.

[Mary Doo]

The 2-1/2 hour battery life, means I am NOT taking that lens/camera combination on vacation.

But at home, not a problem.

 

Not sure how many images you shot in one day. The battery duration has improved a lot with Olympus EM1 Mark II. While I always bring extra batteries, normally I find that one battery would just about last for one full day. More than comparable with my Nikon experience.

[Gary Naka]

Not sure how many images you shot in one day. The battery duration has improved a lot with Olympus EM1 Mark II. While I always bring extra batteries, normally I find that one battery would just about last for one full day. More than comparable with my Nikon experience.

 

2-1/2 hours was shooting baseball/softball and lacrosse with the 12-100/4 on the EM1-mk1. It was ON pretty much all the time.

At first I thought it was the low 40F temp shooting lacrosse at night, but shooting baseball at warmer 75-80F only gave me a little more run time. So I figure the 12-100 just drains a lot more power.

4 hours was on the deck of the train with the P-Lumix 12-60. Continuously ON, since I had no chance to go back and shoot what I missed.

I found here that battery life seemed to be related to power ON time, not number of pics shot. I was consistently changing batteries at about 11am and 5pm, enough to predict when I would need to change batteries.

I think the battery on the mk2 has more than 40% greater capacity than the mk1 battery. What I don't know is how much more power the mk2 draws. Even so, I figure that there is significantly more run time with the mk2.

[Mary Doo]

Dunno, I don't shoot sports for hours. Don't remember it bothered me even before Mark II. Maybe I just had several batteries with me all the time or I always used Nikon as well on a trip. Anyhow, the Mark II's battery life is at least twice as durable, I think. Ask Olympus Tech Support (484-896-5624) for a better answer. Good luck!

[Gary Naka]

Dunno, I don't shoot sports for hours. Don't remember it bothered me even before Mark II. Maybe I just had several batteries with me all the time or I always used Nikon as well on a trip. Anyhow, the Mark II's battery life is at least twice as durable, I think. Ask Olympus Tech Support (484-896-5624) for a better answer. Good luck!

 

The 4 hours run time did not bother me much.

It was only after putting on the 12-100 that the shorter 2-1/2 hr run time was really obvious.

I will give Olympus a ring.

[Mary Doo]

The 4 hours run time did not bother me much.

It was only after putting on the 12-100 that the shorter 2-1/2 hr run time was really obvious.

I will give Olympus a ring.

Question, why do you keep it on for 4 hours? Think even Nikon would not do any better if you keep it on all the time.

[Gary Naka]

Question, why do you keep it on for 4 hours? Think even Nikon would not do any better if you keep it on all the time.

 

On vacation, on the train, it is moving fast and I usually do not have a lot of warning about what scene is coming up, some times just seconds, so I just leave it on, all the time that I am out on the observation deck. That way I can quickly shoot a scene that appears, and not reach over to the left deck to turn it on and then wait for the camera to power up.

 

When shooting sports, I am shooting often enough that reaching over to the power switch on the left deck is a pain, so I just leave it on, except when moving to a different position on the field.

 

Similarly, when at a family parties, I tend to leave it on for longer periods than I did my dSLR, because it is not easy and fast to turn on.

 

If the power switch was easier to reach and use, like the power switch on the Nikon and Canon dSLR, around the shutter button, I would turn it off more often. The location of the power switch on the EM1 and EM10 is one part of the retro design that is just dumb. :mad: IMHO, a switch like that is meant to be turned on and left on for long periods, rather than be turned on and off.

[rodeo_joe1]

What on earth did people do when pictures came in silly little 36 exposure canisters, and they were opening the camera back every few minutes?

Oh, and carrying ten, a dozen or maybe 20 of those little canisters - the hardship, oh the humanity!

[mike_halliwell]

the hardship, oh the humanity

 

Different World RJ...........:D

 

Anyone know whether you can get to 9fps on a D850 with the mains power supply and NO grip?

[Vincent Peri]

What on earth did people do when pictures came in silly little 36 exposure canisters, and they were opening the camera back every few minutes?

Oh, and carrying ten, a dozen or maybe 20 of those little canisters - the hardship, oh the humanity!

 

When I go out shooting, I carry 4 cameras and 4 rolls of film, and wander through New Orleans' French Quarter for several hours at a time. I rarely shoot all four rolls on an outing. That's because I study a scene from various angles and shoot the one that is best IMO. I don't shoot indiscriminately, polishing off a roll every few minutes. I edit my photos in the viewfinder and finally shoot the scene I think is best.

 

If I want to photograph a person, I'll watch the person for a few seconds first to judge if I'l photograph him/her. Then I'll look through the camera at the person for a second or two and then shoot.

 

I've always used these procedures ever since I first started 35mm photography in 1973.