ilkka_nissila

<p><em>Is broken mirrors the most frequent failure? The D600 issue the nail in the mirrored coffin?</em></p> <p>I believe it was the shutter, not the mirror, that is the source of the debris on the D600 sensor. Most mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have physical shutters all the same. I've never heard of a mirror problem in Nikons, although I guess it's possible (and certainly regarding alignment of the main and sub mirrors). But it's the most important part of the camera for me so it would be the last that I'd let go as it facilitates the optical viewfinder.</p> <p><em>they now would have to convince them</em></p> <p>I doubt very much that Nikon is trying to convince pros that mirrorless is the way to go when acceptable focus tracking in low light with shallow depth of field doesn't exist in any currently realized mirrorless camera. It is likely this that is the reason why Sony's A7 is offered with a 35/2.8 prime as the fast wide angle for the time being, at roughly the same price that Nikon and Canon DSLR users can get Sigma's excellent 35/1.4 (two stops faster lens, and a known excellent perfomer). The large sensor mirrorless cameras likely can't track movement acceptably with a fast lens in low light. If the technology did exist, no doubt manufacturers would happily offer it. Certainly the X100s I used to have produced erratic results in low light in terms of focus, and wanted to activate the extremely distracting focus assist light (which was not possible in a concert to avoid the photographer becoming more noticeable than the performers). Within similar conditions the D800 had no trouble focusing fast lenses without any assist light. This is also noted by Nikon that while mirrorless camera AF is more precise (they may have meant accurate) in bright light, the DSLR AF is more precise in low light. Since these are dictated by optics, geometry and signal to noise ratio, likely their relative merits will remain so for the foreseeable future. If someone demonstrates a mirrorless full frame camera with 85/1.4 or 200/2 focus tracking an approaching subject at ISO 6400, f/2, 1/100s light levels or 1-2 stops dimmer than that (not unusual for concert lighting indoors), I will be happy to consider such a product assuming the viewfinder issue can be resolved some day. I would expect that in 5-10 years we will see where the technology goes, if the mirrorless camera manufacturers continue their research and development.</p> <p>By the way I completely understand that people who primarily shoot stationary subjects and want to do it hand-held (e.g. when traveling, with the lightest possible setup) would prefer a mirrorless full frame camera. However, it comes with it the requirement to develop a whole new lens lineup, which makes the thought lucrative primarily to those manufacturers who don't have a large existing user base.</p>

<p><em>That leaves the EVF, which videographers have been perfectly happy to use for ages now.</em></p> <p>I know some videographers and a lot of the time when I see them in action, they're not using the EVF. They're looking at the LCD or the subject directly past the camera. "The EVF is awful" is what have heard, unless they're using an extremely expensive high end video camera. In any case the video camera records a continuous sequence of shots at high frame rate so the user doesn't have to time shots based on subject micro-expressions (which the camera wouldn't record properly, anyway since it's all a blur at the shutter speeds required for a fluid appearance of motion) as still photographers do. It's the most important thing in the success of a photograph of a person in my view, how the facial muscles appear in support of the emotion expressed, and at the very least the foundation of my people photography.</p> <p><em>a close WYSIWYG to the final image</em></p> <p>That would be impossible since each raw image is processed using highly individual adjustments in post-processing. When I am photographing, I want to see the subject, not a computer's rendering of what it thinks the image of the subject should look like. The appearance of the photograph is determined afterwards. Learning to do proper exposures is like the first steps of a child learning to walk. Any experienced photographer is going to have no difficulty with trivial matters such as that. What they want to say with the image, that's another matter which some people do struggle with even later on.</p> <p>The X100s is a nice, quiet camera. I never used the EVF; the optical viewfinder was however very nice (if dark). However I find the image quality of my Nikons to be much better, and the Fuji X100s doesn't do continuous autofocus with any but the central AF point. I specifically want my camera to have off-center AF tracking capability, which is one of the reasons I eventually bought the D7100.</p> <p><em>Nikon should go back to producing advanced DX bodies and lenses that "advanced amateurs" want and are willing to pay for.</em></p> <p>I think they do a lot of that already. The D7100 offers incredible AF and sensor for the money, and it's a well rounded camera with just a slight problem: a buffer that is small for the file size. This will no doubt be fixed in a future upgrade, and it'll still stay at about half the price of any D300s replacement. Nikon has in recent years introduced a lot of reasonably priced lenses at the advanced amateur: 28/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 are all getting excellent reviews and are priced very fairly. The 70-200/4 and the new 80-400/4.5-5.6 are also arguably affordable by this time (although when a brand new model, the AF-S 80-400 was quite expensive). The D610 has better image quality at 1/3rd of the price of the D3X and is much more compact as well. I often hear that this or that segment is "ignored" by Nikon but the facts don't seem to support that. For the specific type of high-fps photography, the used market has many D3s, D3, and soon D4 models available at reasonable prices compared to a new D4s. If you want high speed, and the latest technology, you have to pay to play. Second hand purchases have always been the way beginning photographers (as well as anyone who is particular about their use of money) can get better equipment than they could afford to buy new. In my first 5 years in photography most things I bought were second hand. I don't believe I complained about that, it was a great opportunity.</p>

<p><em>they know how to make the most compatible mount ever.</em></p> <p>Well, at the moment their "most compatible" mount preserves no AF on non-AF-S lenses, and center point AF only for AF-S lenses from F mount. It is likely because the PDAF sensors embedded on the main sensor could not be designed to work properly on off-center areas with both types of lenses. Olympus preserves some AF functionality through their adapter for Four Thirds lenses, but judging from dpreview's video demonstration the AF with jitters a lot. Sony supports AF of their A mount lenses through an adapter which contains basically the semitransparent mirror etc. so it turns the A7 into an SLT camera. Canon's on-main sensor PDAF was compared with that camera's (consumer level) PDAF-through-mirrors and the former was a lot slower. While there is some progress in this type of AF in recent years, it seems unlikely that a mirrorless system would be designed in such a way that it gives competitive AF on existing DSLR lenses, as to get advantage from the mirrorless design, size mainly, native lenses are required, and those have different optics as they're much closer to the sensor than DSLR lenses, so the PDAF needs to be different, and CDAF which is typically used in low light (since the on main sensor PDAF isn't very sensitive) is relying basically on exhaustive searching of all focus positions to find the optimum (which works best on purpose made lenses that utilize stepper motors). I think a mirrorless autofocus camera necessarily leads to eventual abandonment of all existing autofocus lenses, and likely with inferior performance in low light. This, to me would be a big step backwards in the capability of photographic gear. </p> <p><em>they are soooo conservative in their releases</em></p> <p>Like with the D800(E)? Two years later Sony is able to make a 36MP camera, and Canon is still at 22MP. Anyway, I'm likely going back to 24MP and maybe 16MP as for me the quantity of data from shooting 50k 36MP files per year is too much for everyday use.</p>

<p>Looking through an EVF makes me feel sick. If Nikon went mirrorless with the D5, I'd consider quitting photography entirely since I wouldn't be able to time shots by eye and using it would likely be an unpleasant experience (not to mention an entire new lineup of lenses for AF to work well and to make any sense out of a size reduction). To be honest I think the D3/D4 size bodies are a good match to my hands so I don't see going smaller to be much of an improvement, either.</p>

<p>It is not a plain Ai lens, but similar to Ai-P lenses, with a CPU. The body recognizes it as a CPU lens and won't fire the shutter unless the aperture ring is set to the largest number / smallest aperture. The aperture ring on this type of lenses exists for use with those cameras that will let you use the ring, through a custom function or, in the case of older cameras, because they don't recognize the CPU on the lens (since they have no electrical contacts on the body side of the mount). I have several ZF.2 lenses and the behaviour described is normal. The OP should use the sub command dial to set aperture.</p>

<p>Right, so you set the aperture ring on the lens to f/16, and use the sub-command dial on the camera to control the aperture used. This is how it's supposed to work. On some cameras you can override the default behaviour using a custom function and after that you can use the aperture ring to set the aperture.</p>

<p>OCD = label given to people who want to do something (such as their craft) properly, in the eyes of those who don't care at all how anything is done.</p>

<p>Have you set the lens to its smallest aperture setting?</p>

<p><em>Nikon recently had to change Capture to a version that some longtime users find disappointing.</em></p> <p>That's not quite true. Capture NX2 is current software and is still supported (and it has gotten some significant improvements, e.g., in white balance management since Nik was purchased by Google). NX-D is new software (to be available free of charge) that Nikon has <em>under development</em> and it lacks the Nik control points. What people have experimented with are just beta versions that don't have all the features that will be in the finished software. In any case NX2 is not some holy grail, it has had many bugs but there are some things that it does very elegantly. In the end I am just as happy using NX-D (latest beta) as NX2 as I'm not a big control points user and found NX2 with all its bugs to be something of a burden. It never really interacted with the operating system and other software in the Windows environment properly. Still I by far prefer the raw conversions from it to those generated by LR or ACR. I do use LR and PS CC for later stages of the editing process.</p>

<p>I have a Novoflex bellows and they make an F mount adapter for it that lets you control the aperture of G lenses. I haven't tried how it would work with the lens in reversed orientation though. I use mainly Rodenstock lenses with it (much smaller than e.g. F mount lenses). It is the Castbal T/S which has tilt and shift capability but the extension range is somewhat short. They make other bellows as well, with and without movements. I'm sure you can find adapters by other makers as well that will let you control the aperture of G lenses (not necessarily with great precision).</p> <p>One nice thing about using e.g. enlarger and old-school macro lenses (not Micro-Nikkors) on a bellows or with extension rings is that the lens is much smaller in diameter than typical F- or EF-mount lenses and does not shade the subject as much so it's easier to get light on the subject.</p>