Ian Rance

<p>Mirrorless is the latest thing many people seem to be into.<br>

I would imagine that Nikon is at least thinking about a mirrorless FX system as it would sell to many people, however looking at the Sony A7Rii and the issues that surround it I would hope that Nikon may be able to pull all the stops out and make something special that would have lasting appeal.<br>

I would like to see a Nikon with:</p>

<p>In body stabilisation (most important)<br>

Standard Nikon menus with simple menus, not like the Sony. Make it intuitive.<br>

A decent size battery which may also mean a nice grip on the camera.<br>

DF style controls (this is a personal one).<br>

Make the camera 'right' so less grumbling and 'wait for the Mk 2 comments'.<br>

Not more that £2000. Sony is over charging for the A7Rii.<br>

A reasonably priced F mount adaptor - or maybe even include it in the box. Please don't charge us £400+ extra.<br>

Good power management that will not result in overheating<br>

Class leading EVF.<br>

4K video would be important so include it (but not something I would use as my TV is a standard 4:3 CRT set).<br>

Lenses at launch - this is tricky as a whole new lens line is expensive and creates confusion. Sony has the Zeiss lenses and if Nikon could do similar by allowing other manufacturers to make lenses that would help a great deal. I'm thinking Tokina or Tamron.</p>

<p>At the moment I am happy with optical finders and live view, however I do have a Fuji X100t and see the appeal of a high performance compact system. If Nikon were to introduce such a camera I would certainly be interested. I am imagining a D3300 size camera with FX sensor and big EVF.</p>

<p>So what would you want - or are you happy with SLR's enough not to be interested.</p>

<p>That's pretty much it Andrew. I use aperture priority and adjust the ISO to get the shutter speed where I need it. Another plus of the Df is that the RAW files are (for me) just the right size. The Df really is a camera to use and keep using, the strengths only really show themselves after you have used it for a while.</p>

<p>This lens is very variable. I had one that was mushy and photos looked like your image but some people are happy with their copy - same as the 18-55mm, also very variable.</p>

<p>Rangefinders are great - the silent leaf shutter is a wonder of technology. I use and like the Kodak Retina range - mine has a 47mm Ektar f/2 lens - but that is not wide.</p>

<p>I really wanted a Nikon one with 28mm lens (you know, the one with the dials on top) but prices were too high - especially as no repairs are possible any more - so I went for a Fuji X100R which has a 35mm f/2 equivalent lens and has the film presets. Not film I know, but good quality.</p>

<p>Andrew, I'm a left eye viewfinder user so I use my left index finger to press the button and thumb to turn the wheel. For me, that is easier than the other cameras where my cheek blocks the buttons to press the ISO button. But if you are right eyed I can understand the problem.</p>

<p>I have 8.1 on my computer but really, I don't use windows as once I log on I just get on with photo editing or using the internet. I don't see what benefit 10 would be - and I have only just got to understand what I am doing with 8.1 after a year of struggling.</p>

<p>Annie, what aperture are you using when you get the blurry results? Please can you share a photo with the blur - it could be one of many things.</p>

<p>Surely that would be CDAF David - like normal live view? What would the mirror do during the AF operation - it would be in the way surely?</p>

<p>I think that the problem is that the accuracy of the distance (D) register on the lens is not accurate enough to work with the fine tune. So what you are saying would work well IF the distance register on the lens was accurate enough to apply the various offsets. As it is the focus in live view is completely separate from that in normal phase detect and if you then get perfect focus in live view the camera still does not know what the offset is compared to what the camera thinks is correct due to the technology not being enough to make this happen. Perhaps if Nikon were to massively up the distance technology then it could happen.</p>

<p>I think Df images do have a different look to the rest of the range - the colour seems more open. But that is only my findings - nothing scientific and of course with processing, anything is possible, just that the Df seems easier to get where I want it.<br>

One of the confusing things to me is why people are all over the retro mirrorless cameras yet the Df gets slated for being retro influenced. Anyway, for what I use the Df for the wheel controls are perfect. In low light I can look down the viewfinder and rotate the ISO dial until I get the shutter speed I need and the flip Ai tab means I can utilise my older lenses. I think it is an excellent camera with files that just beg to be printed A4 size - in fact I have been giving some prints as gifts. The feel of the camera is well built in my opinion and the shutter action just right. I fitted one of the new Nikon AR-11 releases and now the shutter action is almost addictive.<br>

But I would never recommend the Df as from experience I have found the technology I admire and look forward to using is not what other people like. I thought the Sony MiniDisc was a great system and I still use it but look what happened to that.</p>

<p>I wish Nikon had made a high quality version of the old slide copiers that used daylight through a diffuser - they are much easier to use.</p>

<p>My mirrorless Samsung S6 phone has an amazing camera in it. Better than my Canon S95 in many situations. I don't even miss being able to change a lens!</p>

<p>Another one, now there is graffiti, then there was none.</p><div></div>

<p>In 2004 I got my very first Nikon - an L35AF from a charity shop for 99 Pence. A good starting place I think.</p><div></div>

<p>You need to have a battery inserted to see through the viewfinder properly. This is because there is an LCD overlay that is in a dimmed state when no battery is fitted.</p>

<p>I have tried most of the different types, however the older f/2.8 lenses from the 60's and early 70's are almost twice the size of the newer Ai/Ai-S versions - and better built too - but maybe not so good for travel. The older ones have a screw out hood which is better constructed than the newer pull out hood versions and the focus and aperture selection are a bit nicer (smoother) too, however they are 4 element as opposed to the later 5 element as Joe said. Trying both there is little difference in results as I think the change form 4 to 5 elements was to reduce the size. The newer lenses flare perhaps a little less wide open and are a hair sharper, but stop the old ones down to f/4 and the quality is superb - as good as the newer ones. Also the single coated older lenses have a bit warmer colour (if you like that).<br>

The 135mm f/2.8 Ai-S lenses are currently overpriced due to the 'Angry Photographer' who has a YouTube channel which tests the older lenses telling the world how good they are. This leaves the older 135mm f/2.8 lenses at a bargain price because he does not rate those. They will also likely need Ai converting.<br>

If I were searching for a 135mm lens now I would personally go for one of the 'off' brand lenses that have a very good reputation. Honestly, the difference between a mint used $50 Hoya brand 135mm f/2.8 and a Nikkor is not that great at all. One has just sold for £25 with free postage I see. Amazing! I had one and they are great. Hoya is famous for their good glass. The common Tamron 135mm f/2.5 is not so great - results are a bit flat and not as good as the Nikkor.<br>

Anyway, I do feel that a 135mm prime has a place in a travel kit. It sounds a bit useless and redundant 'when a zoom does the same thing' but once you get that lens on photos almost find themselves - details, street scenes and portraits.<br>

Good luck.</p>

<p>Peter, the 18-55mm (collapsing version) can be REALLY good. At f/8 it is as good as a lens can be - I have a panorama on my wall and every detail is clear and crisp. That lens is available new for under £80!<br>

What is sadly all too common with the cheaper lenses is sample variation. I tried a 18-55mm in store and it was soft at the 55mm end on one side. It was brand new too.</p>

<p>What lenses are you likely to be using? If just a zoom lens or two, the 5300 is a solid choice, however the viewfinder is really only for composing the photo as it is not as clear and bright as the (bigger) D7000. If you think you might be getting some manual focus lenses or used AF-D lenses, then the D7000 will work better with these. It really is a case of holding and trying both as they are very different to hold. The D7000 will be a fair bit heavier as well as having a better viewfinder.</p>

<p>My choice would be the D7000 as it has an excellent sensor with (in my opinion) just right megapixels. I have used mine at night and had some excellent results. It is a nice camera!</p>

<p>I was a 100% film shooter as I loved the film look I got, but that was down to the film being good in the first place. I'm sorry, but I find most of the current colour negative offerings a weak shadow of what was just 3 years ago. The Kodak Ektar which is a current 'premium' film has to me, horrible colour with a pervasive green tinge. This is sad to me as when I used Fuji Reala I knew what the result would be as I pressed the shutter - what would and what wouldn't work (almost like a preview in my mind). I still use film, but don't get the pleasure I once did from it as I know that the end photos will be average at best whatever care I put into the taking of the image.<br>

So where does that leave me? Well, I use Nikon digital and to be honest, with a little care, I can get the image how I like them - but digital works a bit different to film. This photo has what I would call a film look, but the film that gives this look has gone. So no point in just pining for what was - it won't come back. Often when people say they like the look of film they mean they currently find grainy lo-fi images with off colour different enough to interest them. That isn't the film look to me - its more like junk processing in old chemicals.</p><div></div>

<p>Personally I suggest the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200MM F/4-5.6G ED VR II (make sure it is the latest version with the collapse button) simply because the 55-300 is too variable sample to sample. The main problem is focus shift on stopping down - which means photos will be in focus only at the widest aperture and get more out of focus as you close the aperture. Two copies did this to me, yet the 55-200 is a superb performer (lighter too).</p>

<p>Don, its because it was tested on a DX body (D200). John, I would love such a range of primes to be available. A set of those and a week off and I would be happy indeed. At least we have the 45mm to be getting on with though :-)</p><div></div>

<p>I do wonder about mirrorless, but the way it is pushed in the camera shops is almost like hard sell. I don't know why that is. Sometimes I think people are sold the wrong thing because they listen to the salesman too much and either lose interest in photography or have to spend more money later to get what they actually need later on.</p>

<p>Personally I think something like a Nikon Df with compact 20mm f/4 or 45mm f/2.8 is just about right but I do like the direct view through the lens because I appreciate it for what it is - a direct view. Other people probably would revile the thought of such a setup, so its good we have the choice.</p>

<p>Live view works best when you zoom in and manually focus on the subject I find. I have tried the live view AF but was not impressed and now use it only in very good light. Contrast detect AF has a way to go yet.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input - and good to see others are still enjoying this lens. Its a shame it has become expensive, however they were selling new for £199 which was a very fair price I think - especially as for that you got a metal hood and NC filter too.</p>

<p>I asked about focus fine tune recently and after spending time doing it I feel that it is 80% the lens but also how it reacts when mounted on different bodies. Because the lens is focused wide open, the camera is focussing with the lens in its worst state (for image quality). With this softness the focus system of the camera must decide what is the best 'in focus' state and with the aberrations in the lenses of the AF system adding to the mix along with minor lens element misalignments (in the actual taking lens and the body) it is easy for errors to manifest themselves. I have noted that the very latest AF system in the D750 and D810 seems to be the most robust against errors - a little better than the D800. I would like to think that Nikon are understanding the technical issues and work to improve them on newer bodies. My D7000 was the very worst for AF error and despite battling with AF fine tune I could never get repeatable results. Sending it back to Nikon got it sorted in double quick time - for a reasonable fee. That was grey market too which I was told Nikon would not touch.<br>

To sum up I do think your lens has a fault so needs to go back for repair. I do think repair is often better than replacement in this instance.</p>