Are you staying with dSLR's? No mirrorless?

[Dieter Schaefer]

The Voigtlander 21/f4 is tempting, but is reported to not work well on the Sony A7 series.

I owned the 21/4 - already a pain to correct on a APS-C sensor (NEX-6 in my case) and downright impossible on an A7; I doubt things are better on the Z6.. Try the new 21/3.5 - but that's with a Sony-mount (though there are adapters available). I traded the 21/4 for the 21/1.8 - but that's not a small lens and it has some rather pronounced field-curvature too.

[Ed_Ingold]

It's a little late for me to consider staying with a DSLR, since my Nikon bodies and lenses went on to greener pastures over five years ago. I decided to move on in 2013, buying a Leica M9 and a few lenses to complement the one's I had since the 1960's. When the Sony A7ii came out, I jumped ship again, and have never looked back. I am a technical person, fussy about results. The Sony gave me the freedom to experiment never possible on a DSLR, much less a rangefinder camera. It does what I need it to do, as well as needs I never knew before. The only sports I shoot are things my kids and grandkids participate in. If you told me which anniversary the last Super Bowl represented, that would be the same number I've missed watching. Notwithstanding, my A9 can track a ball in the air or a 90 lb Golden running after it. The dog is happy to chase a ball without being paid (or making ungrateful gestures).

[Mary Doo]

I have a large collection of Nikon manual focus, auto focus and digital slr's and I'm tempted by the z6/z7 but I keep thinking that if I do that I'll take the plunge and buy Z lenses rather than using the lens adapter with my other lenses. The reason I state this is as I do my research I'm finding more and more compatibility issues with the premium 3rd party and AF Nikkor lenses I already own. I have a few AFS lenses that are fully compatible but feel I should just stay with what I have. I'm 63 and don't think I want to add another system although I like the smaller size, weight and ibis that the new Z bodies offer. What are your plans for mirrorless?

Sounds like you are on a cross road. First of all, age 63 is not old. It's the age that many amateur photographers breath a sigh of relief from career ambition, time and financial constraints. So camera clubs nationwide have a lot of retired people who enjoy photography, buying new equipment, etc.

 

For mirrorless, Nikon offers the Z system. Like Gary, I have tapped into micro four-thirds for quite a few years now. What I like about it is the compactness. I can easily carry a focal range from super-wide to the equivalent of 800mm in a bag that does not look so ridiculously gigantic.

[paul_b.1]

I have and use both, as a wedding photographer . All my life I was in a quest for the "right setup" , the right tool for the job ...,and mirrorless give me a very important feature :

"what you see is what you get". Since I don't like to change lenses often , I use the following pairing :

Nikon D4s + 70-200/2,8 - at church and restaurant

Fuji XT3 + 50-140/2,8 (70-200 equiv. in FF) - outside and "trash the dress"

Sony a7iii + 16-35/2,8 - outside, church and restaurant (without flash)

Nikon D750, D800 + 24-70/2,8 - only restaurant, with CLS flashes (4)

My favorites : Fuji XT3 and Nikon D4s

For my personal pictures I use Fuji with diffrent lenses (16/1,4 - 23/1,4 - 50/2). Why ? Outstanding quality (both camera and lenses), lightness, and amazing colors science.

[Andrew Garrard]

Since we're quoting ages... 45 (mid-life crisis territory). Currently on a D850 with D810 backup, and IR D90, plus an F5.

 

The current mirrorless bodies would be a step back for most of the shooting I do, mostly in terms of buffer and viewfinder response, although they certainly keep the D810 honest. I have slight envy for AF speed in live view shooting, although rolling shutter hurts that option when I use it on the D850; once I've got a mechanical shutter I'm no longer silent, although the D810 is quieter (or at least less intrusive) than the D850. I would like more accurate AF wide open, but maintain that Nikon could do a contrast-detect confirmation mode on a dSLR if they wanted to. I don't see myself getting a great deal from an EVF that I couldn't get from the rear LCD - but my only EVF body is a V1, so I'm not exactly current. Eye detect AF is certainly something I have envy of, but I have to remind myself that I don't actually shoot people all that often, especially ones that are moving a lot; I'm not entirely convinced that Nikon couldn't take a stab at it with the D850's meter.

 

Nikon are clearly going to push the Z series harder than their dSLRs, so I expect the disadvantages to disappear - especially when it comes to buffer, which is presumably a trivial change. Size doesn't bother me so much, and while I'll take all the optical quality I can get, there are some pretty competitive dSLR lenses for the most part, and I'm not that desperate for f/1.2.

 

If I wanted to go DX (seriously, not just IR) for portability, I'd probably be looking at Fuji, who seem to be more all-in on mirrorless APS-C than anyone else. Currently an RX100 is my pocket option, although mine actually seems to have stopped charging, so I might have to look at a replacement (my Coolpix A is not as flexible); as I know from my minimal micro 4/3 collection (one old body, two lenses) once it doesn't fit in my pocket, I'm generally happy to take a dSLR, so I'm in no hurry to give Fuji my money.

[rodeo_joe1]

...so I'm in no hurry to give Fuji my money.

Nor me.

To wander waaay off topic.

I keep seeing praise for the colour rendition of Fuji's X-trans sensors, but frankly I'm not seeing it.

 

The 'comparometer' samples at Imaging Resource, which I've grown to trust, show a distinctly different and not terribly well-defined colour rendering from Fuji's X-trans cameras. By not well-defined I mean that the distinction between colour shades isn't too clear. Yellows, pinks and red shades in particular tend to (to my eye) merge to one rendering with very little subtlety. Not so with any other Bayer matrix sensor.

 

Also, the much-touted improved sharpness only seems to work orthogonally. Diagonals, which are much more common in a natural scene, are rendered with noticeable jaggies at the pixel level. Small niggles, but niggles nonetheless.

 

That aside, Fuji's ergonomics, appearance and build-quality definitely do appeal. But really, a camera is for looking through not at.

[heimbrandt]

I am staying with the DSLR for now, but I am open to a mirrorless camera as a backup or a future upgrade. As I shoot a lot of birds, I still prefer an OVF and the (admittedly decreasing) advantage that the DSLR AF has for fast moving subjects. Mirrorless have probably both caught up and passed DSLR AF-C performance by the time I will look for a new camera.

[2Oceans]

Mark, I have a refurbished Fuji X100F that is a DX equivalent. It has a fixed lens and a leaf shutter that will allow me to crush sun light with a wide open aperture and a digital neutral density filter while at the same time shooting with a flash with an extremely quite mechanical shutter option at 4000th in broad day light. It has limitations but I am having a lot if fun with it using a remote flash. I have all I could wish for with Nikon DSLRs but think that mirrorless is inevitable. That said with my investment in Nikon DSLR glass I would hope for a level of compatibility with my expensive long glass before I move to Nikon mirrorless. I would love to have a dead silent camera with the equivalent of what Olympus calls Pro Capture to photograph Big Foot, Grover Krantz rest in peace. Only fully electronic cameras will meet that need. I hope Nikon will continue too satisfy my needs. I love the current system that I own. So while I am excited about the future and not too stuck in convention I am still waiting to see how Nikon evolves before I commit to a Nikon mirrorless system. Additionally the ergonomics of cameras that are too small will have to be addressed. There has always been a Nikon feel that I liked. My Fuji is small and lovable because I am still in the honeymoon period with it but I hope Nikon will come through with future designs that are larger with the kind of ergonomics that we usually associate with Nikon bodies. They can keep making small stuff but I cant imagine balancing a body the size of a pack of cigarettes on the end of a 600mm f4 lens. They would have to harden the body and post a large sign on the camera not to use the body while lifting the lens as well as move the location of or extend the tripod foot to balance things out. Sadly we may be close to the point where the future Nikon D6 is the evolutionary equivalent to the F6 that was at the end of a noble bloodline. Maybe there is something in the number 6, think about it. Finally the evolution of Nikon DSLRs has reminded me that there is always a waiting period. In the mid 2000s many were preparing to dump Nikon. The 2008 Beijing olympics where I saw a majority of black lenses at a major sporting event for he first time showed that Nikon could come through in a big way. So here’s hoping and waiting. Stay frosty.

[Thomas J.]

What are your plans for mirrorless?

 

Absolutely none.

 

I'm a wedding shooter and I can't even fathom using anything but my Canon SLR's and lenses. 2-card slots are also a non-negotiable when doing weddings or other paid shoots. If it don't have dual cards......sayonara baby.

 

Like someone else said above, I don't like EVF's either. I checked out a Sony A7 Mark something at Adorama and I thought the EVF was lagging just a hair.....plus that system costs a fortune to build. The latest Canon (and Nikon) mirrorless offerings are cool though, but they only have one card slot.....not for professional use.

 

If and when I go on vacation, I'll still take one of my spare SLR's and pop a kit zoom on it.

[tholte]

When my D750 bites the dust I will probably get a mirrorless system. I am leaning toward Fuji for many reasons, some of which don't make a lot of sense. I have friends that have them and like their results, I like the retro look and knobs, I like the way Fuji has firmware updates to not only fix problems but to add features, I like the selection of lenses and the quality/price ratio and I don't need full frame or large files. I am thinking I will get a used XT-2 and if I like the experience, get a used XT-3 when the new XP- Pro is released. If the second generation Nikon Z series look good, may think about getting one of those.

[Andrew Garrard]

I chatted to Park Cameras about this a year or so back, when getting my 70-200; I noted that the Nikon display was substantially less prominent in their store than the Fuji display, and since they're one of the larger UK dealers (having both a 400mm FL and F-mount 120-300mm Sigma in stock being a clue) this was a bit of a shocker to me for Nikon's marketing. They told me that there were a lot of Fuji samplers - but also a lot of people coming back to dSLRs after trying them.

 

Fuji do make some Bayer bodies. X-Trans should affect fine detail; whether it affects actual colour rendition is another matter, and I'd hope more down to the raw converter, although I know nothing about the Fuji filters (and the number of different filters in use - I could believe the claim that an RG/GB Bayer often has more than one green in it). I'm sure they have their own set of different problems - as do Sony and Canon; nobody's made a perfect camera yet.

 

Some things, though, are down to the current bodies rather than mirrorless as a whole. Dual slots being one, obviously. They'll come as the lines round out. I can believe Nikon will get around to making a mirrorless body that's enough of an improvement over my D850 that I'll want one - though they haven't yet. It'll have to be pretty good, though. Meanwhile, when I next have disposable income, I'm happy to continue adding F-mount lenses in the short term.

[ben_hutcherson]

31 here, and more cameras than sense.

 

Lord willing, I think that I will likely live long enough that the writing is on the wall for the high end SLRs/DSLRs.

 

With that said, I have no immediate plans to switch. My D800/D600 pairing(augmented by a D3s for when I need speed) works great for me right now as go-to DSLRs, and I also have others for specific purposes. Since I still shoot a lot of film, system continuity and being able to use the same lens kit for both helps me a lot(although that doesn't keep me from using alternate film systems, like my Hasselblad, RB67, or even Olympus OM these days).

 

A Z6 or Z7 would save me about 300g over the D600 in terms of body weight, but the weight is still there for lenses and in many cases that far exceeds the contribution from the body.

[photo_galleries]

To me, the question of DSLR v. Mirrorless is not an either-or question. I have a D850, D500 and D800e as well as a Fuji X-T2 and a Sony RX100 v5. I grab the camera depending on my mood and intended use.

[CvhKaar]

IF i would switch , or start with, mirrorles, chances would be verry slim that it would be Nikon..

XQD cards are still hard to find and too expensive over here, and Nikon's wirelesss connectivity is not to good either. so both resting on bad dicisions

 

In addition Nikon does not really care about macro/micro photography anymore in the recent years, no new development, and still the old extention rings which have never been improved making a lot of ppl dependend on off-brand stuff like Kenko and the likes.

 

Nikon seems to make a lot of dicissions wich make the brand less interresting for high end amateur's ..

I do not like to have to say this since i have been shooting Nikon for almost 40 years now, but it is what it is i guess

[BeBu Lamar]

Actually the type of mirrorless that makes the most sense to me is the digital view camera. Of course Sinar already made something like that.

[invisibleflash]

I have mirrorless and dslr. All are older models. Will continue to shoot what I got. If I hit the lotto I may upgrade.

[Nick D.]

Buy what you can/want, I have both, don't see much difference in images.

[Andrew Garrard]

Well, the sensors are currently (almost) the same, so the image difference is likely to be small (give or take current mild striping from the PDAF and future sensor developments hitting different bodies at different times). The question - as it has been since film days - is whether the camera let you get the shot.

 

I vaguely wonder whether Nikon will ever update the 200mm f/4 micro, re-release a 70-180 micro, or update the 105mm with other kinds of VR (like Canon's). Thing is, the best macro option hasn't been made by Nikon for as long as I've been involved with the system - the 105mm was always a bit questionable compared with at least the 90mm Tamron and 100mm Tokina, and the Sigma 105mm/150mm/180mm triumverate are very good. Plus there's the Voigtlander glass. Currently I have a Mitakon 4.5-5x macro (which does something Nikon can't without big bellows), and - mostly because of the triangular aperture on the Mitakon but partly for flexibility - I'm actively looking at the 25mm 2.5-5x Laowa. But the important thing is that they are available for the mount; macro lenses (especially high magnification) are never going to be big sellers, especially in a market where the third party options are so popular (slow apertures and arguably no autofocus makes for a good target for small companies), and I'm quite happy for Nikon to focus on more popular glass.

[ben_hutcherson]

I vaguely wonder whether Nikon will ever update the 200mm f/4 micro, re-release a 70-180 micro, or update the 105mm with other kinds of VR (like Canon's). Thing is, the best macro option hasn't been made by Nikon for as long as I've been involved with the system - the 105mm was always a bit questionable compared with at least the 90mm Tamron and 100mm Tokina, and the Sigma 105mm/150mm/180mm triumverate are very good.

 

I think Nikon moved away from making "true Macro" lenses right around the time they opened up the 55mm to f/2.8 and made it an AI-S lens.

 

It seems as though Nikon has tended toward making their "Micro" lenses more general purpose lenses than actual macro lenses. Heck, even the ancient compensating aperture 55mm is better in my testing than the subsequent non-compensating in the 1:10 and beyond range, although that's splitting hairs.

 

I'll come right out and say that I don't like the 105mm f/2.8 VR. As a general purpose short tele, there are a lot of reasons why it's better than the "D" version of the same focal length. As a practical lens for 1:10 to 1:1, though, I found the D version better so consequently sold the VR.

[ilkka_nissila]

I agree the 105 VR isn't the best macro lens, it's a general purpose short tele with close-up capability. I use the 200mm micro for shots that are greater than 1:2 and the 85 PC-E typically for shots that I can do with the maximum magnification of 1:2. I think I haven't used the 105 VR for many years now, except last year to try out the focus shift feature. I think this combination of 85 and 200 works very well for my needs. Additionally, I have lenses that I use on a bellows for situations requiring higher magnification or tilt beyond 1:2, but I don't use them in the field all that often because of considerably reduced convenience. It would be great if Nikon put more attention to macro, but it is what it is. Ironically Nikon do make microscope lenses and they have a competition which highlights very impressive photography made using such systems.

[joseph_smith3]

I am 76 and am very conscious about weight and size of my camera stuff. I looked at both the z6 and z7 when they were announced and their features do not match the features I need to use on my Nikon FX and DX bodies, d810 and D500. That being said, for travel I will very likely buy a mirrorless pocketable camera like a Sony RX with a 20-200mm equivalent lens because of its small size. Before I do that I will look to see what camera and lens Nikon might have in their mirrorless lineup.

 

Another thing to note for nature shooters is that with the new PF lenses now 300mm and 500mm, a well featured DX body like the D500 and these lenses results in a system that is less in weight and size than FX lenses in the same focal length.

 

If mirrorless completely solves the need to AF fine tune lenses, and if buffer sizes increase, etc, maybe a switch to mirrorless will make sense. Then you just have to find the money to make it happen.

[andylynn]

I have a D800 and a Fuji kit. My wife loves the D800 with the 24-70, and it does produce excellent results. But for daily use and travel, the Fuji wins. The XPro2 sensor is APSC but it’s as good as is needed for anything but extreme high ISO situations. The lenses really are smaller and better than most SLR lenses. The focus is dead on perfect with the on-sensor AF points. Having small f/1.4 lenses compensates for the smaller frame. And a small Timbuk2 bag with a padded insert fits 2 bodies and 3 lenses and a week’s worth of batteries.

 

I’m seeing a lot of full frame mirrorless cameras with enormous heavy expensive lenses and I guess that’s what the manufacturers think the market calls for. We’ll see if they’re right, but personally I’m not interested.

[john_harper9]

Because my DSLR kit is a pain in the back, I was considering a Lumix or M4/3 camera to lighten the load. When Nikon announced the 14-30/4, I decided to try a Z6 with kit lens and the 14-30, and I have been using the new gear as my primary camera for 4 months. Nice kit, but I won't sell off the D800x just yet. The Z's EVF is the best I have used but frustrating when shooting fast action. At a recent event, I used the D800x with a 70-200 and the Z6 with the kit zoom. Most of the time, the 70-200 was the best lens but when the subject came closer, switching to the Z6 always resulted in a second delay refreshing the EVF as the camera woke up (I kept Z6 powered on with the lens in shooting position). Once the Z6 was ready to go, it performed well but EVF startup delay when switching cameras caused lost shots. I also experienced the "slide show" effect with rapid shutter actuation.

 

Some positives. The Z is great using AIS lenses with focus peaking. I'm at the toe of the learning curve for video but the Z's video and time lapse ease of use are superior to the DSLR. The Z6's low light performance is excellent and I have pulled up shadow detail that would need HDR bracketing with the D800x. My copy of the 14-30 is an excellent lens and except for vignetting, matches the performance of my other WA zooms (14-24, and 16-35). Overall, I'm pleased I bought the Z6 kit which is half the weight and bulk of the equivalent DSLR kit. Fits easily in my day hike backpack and my back thanks me. Perfect for travel, hiking, and day to day use.

[robert_bouknight1]

If mirrorless completely solves the need to AF fine tune lenses, and if buffer sizes increase, etc, maybe a switch to mirrorless will make sense.

 

Well, my 105/2.8 AFS Micro needs a bunch of fine tune on any DSLR I have tried, but initial testing on the Z6 inidcated pretty good accuracy without compensation. I was surprised by this.

 

I don't have statistics to back it up, but I think my Z6 seems to hit accurate AF where I want it with less effort on my part better than my D810, at least for general and people photography. Not sure how it would fare against AF in the D850/D5/D500.

 

I did try shooting an adult kickball game with the Z6 and my Gen 1 300/2.8AFS Tuesday evening. I am going to have to study menu settings and change a bunch of stuff. The way I had the Z6 configured, getting the AF system started and locked on my intended subject was more difficult than with a D810 and AFC-D9. Once locked, the Z6 did seem able to track an adult running at me.

 

I have the impression that the Z6 AF system was very good at nailing the focus on the face/eyes of the moving players, at f/3.2 on the 300mm, once I got AF started and locked. The other take away from the results is that the Z6 SOOC JPGs at ISOs above 5000 probably favor keeping detail and leaving some noise in dark areas. I liked the results. Also to note is that color rendering was very good under mixed mostly poor artificial lighting at 8:20PM.

 

I will try the Z6 for sports again with different settings for AF and more delay before battery saving begins. But for now, I am thinking that an optical finder is still better for sports.

 

I am not much of a close up shooter, but the non compensating 55/3.5 I have works very well on the Z6.

[Andrew Garrard]

I think my issue with the 105mm VR was that it seemed to have quite visible LoCA (my favourite aberration). Wide open, so does the (old) 90mm Tamron, although it cleans up quite well; the 100mm Tokina is apparently a bit better, and the new (VC) 90mm Tamron is too - but so is the 150mm Sigma macro, which is what I ended up getting to avoid the problem. I've not really heard anyone say the Nikkor isn't sharp (other than someone apologising for testing it at a normal shooting distance - I've possibly seen horizon softness from the 150mm Sigma, too), just that it's not particularly any better than the options it's twice as expensive as. Although it's a bit less than twice now the VC version of the Tamron is out, and the longer Sigma has a reason to cost more.

 

There's a place for "copy stand" (flat field) lenses like the 40mm and 60mm micro lenses, but I'd mostly rather have working distance, hence the disappointment that the 200mm f/4 (which admittedly doesn't really have anything wrong with it) hasn't been updated. Fortunately the 300mm f/4 isn't too bad down to moderate magnification; nor is the 70-200 FL. I wonder whether the FTZ might force Nikon to get on with a 200mm f/4 and 135mm prime replacement, though.