NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Jan Anne on April 20, 2017, 08:47:58
-
Its fair to say mirrorless is now on par with DSLR technology and even surpasses it on some fronts.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/1308959313/the-sony-a9-is-a-24mp-sports-shooting-powerhouse
-
The specifications seem great, except for the strange lack of GPS support. However, a camera isn't better than its optical companions. Thus not only need the camera to handle well, support fast AF, and deliver quality files, the lens system must be up to the challenge as well.
This kind of top level entry requires native lenses. Adapting third-party lenses will always incur compromises and missing features.
-
Well, one would have to test the camera in practical use to be able to say what it is and isn't.
-
That goes without saying. But agree, many might shoot specifications not the real thing.
I'm curious about the battery performance. The Sonys I have personal acquaintance with have had very poor performance compared to modern DSLRs.
-
Suggested retail €5300
-
I guess the number of shots you get on a charge is greatly dependent on how much live viewing and focusing you do between shots. If one shoots at 20fps, likely one can get many more shots per charge than shooting individual frames. But then the time between battery changes may still be quite short.
-
J.A., on paper it sounds great but so did the a7rii. Sony always makes claims , some turn out to be fact , others not so. Let's wait and see. Something that got no play on any Sony Forum was that after Dpr giving the a7rii the number 1 spot last year, when it came time for their recommendations as top camera in each category, the a7rii was second to the Nikon D750. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2016-roundup-semi-pro-interchangeable-lens-cameras/11
I agree with B.R. , particularly about lenses, the 100-400 is not a Pro action lens so Sony is bowing to their well heeled fan base. Where was the 200 f2 or 300 f2.8?
The a9 seems to have addressed many of my complaints with the a7rii, Read, write speeds, buffer, start-up and lags but will have to see . The a6500 fell short of their claims. We also do not know about tracking and metering. If it does 90% of the claims then it is going to be very interesting to watch. If they are aiming for Tokyo 2020 then we can expect a version 2 before then and Sony may throw some perks, and lenses, to the Pro sports shooters.
I'll just wait and see but would not bother me to go lighter for sports :)
Hope all is good with you
Tom
-
Sounds all very well on paper. If this camera achieves 90% of what Sony claims, it should be the best camera in the world....
-
If I read the specs right no sound recorded with the video ....thats useless
MISLEADING PRESS RELEASE ..IT HAS MIC AND SOCKET ....
-
Nikon Rumors reacted a bit too overly. ;D
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/04/19/the-day-the-sony-a9-was-announced.aspx/#more-111775
-
If I read the specs right no sound recorded with the video ....thats useless
This is wrong!
The camera has a stero microphone built in as well as a microphone jack.
-
Nikon Rumors reacted a bit too overly. ;D
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/04/19/the-day-the-sony-a9-was-announced.aspx/#more-111775
They are really dramatic, making it sound like an obituary. :D
Hopefully Nikon has some fighting spirit left in them. I certainly hope that Sony and Fujifilm can challenge Nikon and Canon and gain a substantial market share, so we could get a more competitive market and move away from the de facto duoploly that has existed between Canon and Nikon. It would be nice if all four of Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon and Sony had double digit market shares for a more healthy camera market, long term.
In retrospect I think Olympus and Panasonic should have made an APS-C system.
-
The A9 has a shutter lag of 30 miliseconds compared to 35 miliseconds for the Canon 1DX mkII. The EVF is fast enough to follow action rather than relying on bursts of shots.
-
This all adds up to a luminance that is 2x higher than the XGA OLED Tru-Finder from the α7R II, creating a viewfinder image with a brightness level that is nearly identical to the actual scene being framed, ensuring the most natural shooting experience.
I'm not sure if it is a good news. More luminance, more eye strain...
-
Sony is trying hard to dethrone Nikon as the number two in photo equipment and it does look like they are making steady progress.
What worries me is that Nikon has been trying to keep its D-series sensor manufacturing out of Sony since the D3 - first Renesas then Toshiba manufacturing the sensors. But both of these companies sensor divisions now belong to Sony. The biggest innovation in the A9 seems to be in its sensor technology ... it will be interesting to see what Nikon does about its sensor strategy.
Anyway, with regards to the Sony A9 announcement:
1) Will AF be as good as claimed with fast lenses such as 300mm f2.8 or 600mm f4? It is curious that Sony is only showing a relatively slow lens with the A9.
2) In 14-bit Uncompressed RAW mode the max fps is 12 I believe?
Wish there was someone like Rob Galbraith who could do a serious test of the AF capabilities of the Sony, and compare with Canon and Nikon.
Regards
Dibyendu
-
Sony is trying hard to dethrone Nikon as the number two in photo equipment and it does look like they are making steady progress.
What worries me is that Nikon has been trying to keep its D-series sensor manufacturing out of Sony since the D3 - first Renesas then Toshiba manufacturing the sensors. But both of these companies sensor divisions now belong to Sony. The biggest innovation in the A9 seems to be in its sensor technology ... it will be interesting to see what Nikon does about its sensor strategy.
Anyway, with regards to the Sony A9 announcement:
1) Will AF be as good as claimed with fast lenses such as 300mm f2.8 or 600mm f4? It is curious that Sony is only showing a relatively slow lens with the A9.
2) In 14-bit Uncompressed RAW mode the max fps is 12 I believe?
Wish there was someone like Rob Galbraith who could do a serious test of the AF capabilities of the Sony, and compare with Canon and Nikon.
Regards
Dibyendu
We won't know exactly how good the AF is with long lenses, until Sony actally make native 300/2.8 and 500/4 lenses. Currently there are only adapted A-mount or Canon EOS supertele primes to choose from. I certainly would not buy A-mount lenses, since that mount is virtually dead.
-
This all adds up to a luminance that is 2x higher than the XGA OLED Tru-Finder from the α7R II, creating a viewfinder image with a brightness level that is nearly identical to the actual scene being framed, ensuring the most natural shooting experience.
I'm not sure if it is a good news. More luminance, more eye strain...
3.69 mp sounds very much like the Fuji GFX EVF. I think you would have to try it to actually know how it works for you. Could too much contrast be your problem, or what we in the film days called steep graduation of an emulsion?
Considering the future, your challenge with the EVF really would have to be solved.
-
I'd say the opposite: the EVF technology needs to be massively improved in order to stop being a challenge for many users.
Users can rarely be relied upon to improve :D
-
What worries me is that Nikon has been trying to keep its D-series sensor manufacturing out of Sony since the D3 - first Renesas then Toshiba manufacturing the sensors. But both of these companies sensor divisions now belong to Sony. The biggest innovation in the A9 seems to be in its sensor technology ... it will be interesting to see what Nikon does about its sensor strategy.
I don't think it's in Sony's best interest not to sell its sensor technology to third parties or not collaborate with Nikon and others on the topic of sensor design and manufacturing. Even in the best case Sony can probably make more money by selling sensors to camera manufacturers than from their own camera business. But of course they can try to change that. For Canon, making their own sensors worked well initially but in recent years they have been behind in some aspects of sensor performance (especially base ISO dynamic range). I think for Nikon and other manufacturers of cameras, it is beneficial to spread out sensor manufacturing to other companies so that they're less sensitive to the success of any one sensor manufacturer. Sony seems to be very ambitious now in their sensor business and acquired some other companies' facilities to expand production, but then camera sales has been on a decline so I don't know if they now need that capacity any more. Consolidation of sensor manufacturing to one place is a really bad idea IMO as then it makes everyone who use that facility more vulnerable to earthquakes, flooding etc.
1) Will AF be as good as claimed with fast lenses such as 300mm f2.8 or 600mm f4? It is curious that Sony is only showing a relatively slow lens with the A9.
It seems the camera isn't really designed for very large lenses, just looking at the size of the body and geometry of the grip. I think if the mirrorless autofocus system allowed the practical use of 300/2.8, 500/4 for the typical applications of such lenses, including fast approaching or departing subjects, they would have introduced such lenses for the E mount instead of making the A mount body A99 II in 2016.
-
3.69 mp sounds very much like the Fuji GFX EVF. I think you would have to try it to actually know how it works for you. Could too much contrast be your problem, or what we in the film days called steep graduation of an emulsion?
Considering the future, your challenge with the EVF really would have to be solved.
What about a hybrid VF, both optical and video (EVF)? Until then....OVF for me.
-
The "silent shutter" is so tempting... It will be a great feature for stage shootting
-
Sony is trying hard to dethrone Nikon as the number two in photo equipment and it does look like they are making steady progress.
What worries me is that Nikon has been trying to keep its D-series sensor manufacturing out of Sony since the D3 - first Renesas then Toshiba manufacturing the sensors. But both of these companies sensor divisions now belong to Sony. The biggest innovation in the A9 seems to be in its sensor technology ... it will be interesting to see what Nikon does about its sensor strategy.
Anyway, with regards to the Sony A9 announcement:
1) Will AF be as good as claimed with fast lenses such as 300mm f2.8 or 600mm f4? It is curious that Sony is only showing a relatively slow lens with the A9.
2) In 14-bit Uncompressed RAW mode the max fps is 12 I believe?
Wish there was someone like Rob Galbraith who could do a serious test of the AF capabilities of the Sony, and compare with Canon and Nikon.
Regards
Dibyendu
As we all know, Nikon kept themselves a long time in "only" the DX- world and people got frustrated and thought it might be the "end" of Nikon........
Then, when Nikon was ready, they delivered the D3!
Folks, enjoy your Nikon- gear, and be certain that Nikon WILL deliver when due time (that is, when they can serve us with the best there is) ;-). Can`t wait until Nikon produces a silent, mirrorless camera with a hybrid viewfinder (real OVF and video). Hmmm, when I come to think of it; not sure I want the camera to all silent......:-)))
-
The "silent shutter" is so tempting... It will be a great feature for stage shootting
Silent shutter is very useful. Been using for Musical Events ever since FW 4 for the EM-1s. One of the reasons I bought the a7rii (not the 42 MP) . It is great on the Pen F and touch screen for candids/Street. I think the guys that shoot the Nikon 1 know what I am taking about. I can see it being very useful for some indoor sporting events and Golf :) .
-
I don't think Sony will cease selling sensors to Nikon, or to manufacture them on Nikon's behalf. Sony is well aware that a competitor would quickly step in and make sensors for Nikon.
-
Waiting for the D820 or whatever it will be called here. I don't think an EVF is in my future, yet.
-
I'd say the opposite: the EVF technology needs to be massively improved in order to stop being a challenge for many users.
Users can rarely be relied upon to improve :D
Well, the OVF gives me eyestrain, and I can't reliably focus with it, but Nikon and Canon haven't given it an extreme makeover, so far. :o
Sometimes users stay the way they are. ;)
-
While the marketing published specs might look impressive (same as the way that Olympus made the EM1.2 look impressive), if you delve deeper into the specs, what most people would use, significantly decreases the "hero" specs from the press release. It is no better than a Canikon flagship.
On top of that, without having an extensive test of the AF system, we don't know if they will still be suffering from C-AF performance behind Canikon.
I too, have a feeling that when Nikon is ready, we are going to get a killer FX mirrorless camera that will be backward compatible with the F-mount. I feel they have learned a lot from the Nikon 1 series cameras and will translate some of the mirrorless stuff from that to a larger sensor camera....if they have not already done so. Something nags my brain and I think that they already have something prototyped out. The DSLR is still not dead for a very large demographic of users.
-
What irks me a lot is the blurb about tech advancement in the camera gear field and specifically sensor.
Nobody bother to lift the hood and talk about the RAW capture in-camera after being exposed to the sensor. I am talkiing about the in-camera software which translates the captured image. This is where Nikon shines and Sony does not. The sad part is Nikon do not make much of a song and dance about how they are using the sensor to produce the images. And Sony is still working on it.
The analogy of American gaz guzzlers vs Europen muscle cars.
I am not even mentioning that both Canon and Nikon are camera systems and Sony is not for now.
If one cannot take a proper picture with any camera, then he/she definitely do not need the latest and greatest.
So there, Sony A9 to A999 Pffffffftttt. Add Hasselblad - Fuji - Olympus - Panasonic or whatever.
-
---
Sometimes users stay the way they are. ;)
That kind of snide remarks we could do well without. Is it so hard to accept that the EVF is not yet at perfection level?
To make myself even more clear, I certainly hope EVF-based systems eventually will function as well as they should do and be a step forward for all users.
-
That kind of snide remarks we could do well without. Is it so hard to accept that the EVF is not yet at perfection level?
To make myself even more clear, I certainly hope EVF-based systems eventually will function as well as they should do and be a step forward for all users.
I have made no snide remark.
EVF works much better than an OVF for me, and I'm not alone. Please accept that.
This was my last contribution to this thread.
-
I think it would be best to accept that different types of technical solutions work well for different people. I think it is great that we have so many different options available today. I would prefer even greater diversity if possible.
I appreciate the silent high frame rate solution offered by Sony in this camera but it is not cost effective for me and I would like an optical viewfinder nevertheless. I can see this would be very useful for some applications; not necessarily sports but e.g. weddings, funerals, and concerts, for those who can afford it.
-
3.69 mp sounds very much like the Fuji GFX EVF. I think you would have to try it to actually know how it works for you. Could too much contrast be your problem, or what we in the film days called steep graduation of an emulsion?
Considering the future, your challenge with the EVF really would have to be solved.
Considering that the LCDs and hi-res TVs are brighter, more contrasty and more stressful to the eyes, the EVF could become worse and worse. :o :o :o
The most "decent" EVF for me was that of Olympus E-M5 MkII, but I read complains that its contrast was too low. :(
-
Well, the OVF gives me eyestrain, and I can't reliably focus with it, but Nikon and Canon haven't given it an extreme makeover, so far. :o
Sometimes users stay the way they are. ;)
Probably the problem are your eyes.
I've tested quite extensively the best EVFs available (Sony Alpha, Leica SL): it's not working. I still don't understand that the only way of salvation for camera makers should go the "mirrorless way"; cost reduction wise may be. But as a sport / action photographer, EVF is still a piece of sh...t to express it more bluntly.
-
EVF is still a piece of sh...t to express it more bluntly.
+1
-
The biggest reason for the varying opinions and experiences with OVF and EVF is that the viewfinder involves individual eye(s) to look into them. So, no one can generalize the conclusion of "which is better" dispute. The only thing we can do is to share individual experience. Arguments make little sense.
-
The EVF fans should just accept this technology is not yet an universal solution. Nothing more. I'm not denying their preference at all.
The problems with current implementations of the OVF are readily acknowledged and debated. Why cannot it be the same for EVF?
The entire discussion has an eerie echo of the response to the audio CD technology in its time. We were told it was "perfect", shown graphs that indicated the same, yet the sound was in some way alien and stressing to the ear. It took the science many years to perfect the digital sound. Some purists would say it can never be good enough. I don't hold that position at all, only that one should learn from history.
-
Please can we keep offensive language out of this debate.
Also, I do not see anyone claiming that EVFs are a universal solution. I do see some saying that they prefer them.
Personally, I am comfortable with both EVF and OVF, and find benefits with both.
-
In my imagination, to gain acceptance in the pro PJ/Sports shooting community, the finder in the new Sony will have to:
1.Be bright enough to be seen/used easily when used in blazing bright sunlight (10.000lux+).
2.Have the motion delay down to the one frame (approx 1/30th of a second) that pro video cameras have.
3. Not suffer from blackout/freezout during sequence shooting. An OVF can be used to manually follow focus(in good light) at 10 or 12 FPS...will this camera/finder allow that?
I hope it's as good as the promo materials make it sound.
-
The specs are impressive, but there're a lot of footnotes with the specs.
I'll follow the reviews, but this camera is not on my list. I will skip at least one other generation mirrorless camera's
One thing is for sure; mirrorless is closing in fast.
-
The specifications seem great, except for the strange lack of GPS support. ...
GPS data is supported via blue tooth and an APP on e.g a mobile phone.
---
A OVF does show a lot of black out when shooting at a high frame rate burst (my D4 experience). The latest EVF (like the Oly E1 MK 2, much better than the first E1) are very close, Sony claims A9 to be even better (no black out at all), sounds good.
-
GPS data is supported via blue tooth and an APP on e.g a mobile phone. --
That is not what is meant by GPS support. It should be natively supported by the camera. One might as well use a standard GPS logger with all the hassles that approach entails.
-
Ah, they need to have some options for further versions ;-)
-
Hybrid VF, please Nikon. It is certainly possible. Nikon will not be able to compete on electronics alone against Sony. If they retain the analog/optical factor they can retain a foothold that Sony will not touch.
-
The "silent shutter" is so tempting... It will be a great feature for stage shootting
Hi Paco, I have an a7S for sale with silent shutter and insane ISO performance ;)
-
Considering that the LCDs and hi-res TVs are brighter, more contrasty and more stressful to the eyes, the EVF could become worse and worse. :o :o :o
The most "decent" EVF for me was that of Olympus E-M5 MkII, but I read complains that its contrast was too low. :(
Anyone can answer...
Isn't the brightness and contrast of a EVF user adjustable? I would think this would be a standard feature by now.v
Dave
-
Anyone can answer...
Isn't the brightness and contrast of a EVF user adjustable? I would think this would be a standard feature by now.v
Yes, it is. I've always adjusted the brightness to the lowest setting which was still too bright for me. I inserted a piece of 3-stop ND gel into the eyepiece to further reduce the brightness.
-
In my imagination, to gain acceptance in the pro PJ/Sports shooting community, the finder in the new Sony will have to:
1.Be bright enough to be seen/used easily when used in blazing bright sunlight (10.000lux+).
2.Have the motion delay down to the one frame (approx 1/30th of a second) that pro video cameras have.
3. Not suffer from blackout/freezout during sequence shooting. On OVF can be used to manually follow focus at 10 or 12 FPS...will this camera/finder allow that?
I hope it's as good as the promo materials make it sound.
Fuji claims that the display time lag of X-T2 is 0.005sec. So, the new A9 with the image sensor boasting very fast readout time should be able to satisfy your criterion #2 easily.
-
In a lot of ways this seems to me to be a full-frame and slightly upgraded version of the Nikon 1 V1, which could do 60 frames per second back in 2012. It will be interesting to see, when it is tested, how much better than a V3 it is, apart from the frame size.
-
Yes, it is. I've always adjusted the brightness to the lowest setting which was still too bright for me. I inserted a piece of 3-stop ND gel into the eyepiece to further reduce the brightness.
Akira, your eyes are an A7s with a f/1.2 lens, and my eyes are Kodachrome 25 with an f/4.5 lens. The EVFs I've seen...which isn't all of them on the market...are way too dim in bright daylight.
-
Akira, your eyes are an A7s with a f/1.2 lens, and my eyes are Kodachrome 25 with an f/4.5 lens. The EVFs I've seen...which isn't all of them on the market...are way too dim in bright daylight.
Keith, I can share the problem of EVF in bright daylight, and it only exacerbates my annoyance. The EVF set to the lowest and added with the ND filter is all too dim under bright daylight. That's the only time I would want to set the brightness at least to "neutral" or "zero" and remove the ND gel. But, again, it is all too bright under mild lighting conditions or indoors. To me, OVF can handle such a vast difference of lighting conditions way better. I've enjoyed all the other benefits of EVF, but this single problem persists as main reason for me shying away from EVF.
The a9 without EVF (thus with a flat top) and with an articulating LCD would be my ideal mirrorless camera. :D
-
Its fair to say mirrorless is now on par with DSLR technology and even surpasses it on some fronts.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/1308959313/the-sony-a9-is-a-24mp-sports-shooting-powerhouse
Are you tempted Jan Anne?
-
Are you tempted Jan Anne?
Yes but I'm not in a hurry :)
The a7RII does everything I want it to do besides fast autofocus with long lenses (400/5.6) and high fps, but for a 42MP camera its simply not set up to be a sport camera so that's OK. With shorter native AF lenses or with MF lenses the camera works very well and have no need for an upgrade.
In the coming years I plan to do some cool trips again which probably will contain some form of wildlife shooting so I would like to have a second dedicated speed demon for serious tele use like I had on the NG Safari in 2009 (D300 with 200-400VR).
The only serious candidates until now were the D500 or a single digit Nikon so I'm thrilled that Sony finally has a serious alternative fully compatible with my current lens lineup and priced somewhere in the middle.
The a9 is also a sign of whats coming for the cheaper a7 MKIII series and all mirrorless cameras in general so all in all a very exciting camera. And Nikon did mention they plan to enter the mirrorless market once the technology is mature enough, I guess that moment just arrived so bring it on Nikon!!!
-
I had an inkling you might be, but quite expensive I thought, out of my league thankfully!
-
The a9 is also a sign of whats coming for the cheaper a7 MKIII series and all mirrorless cameras in general so all in all a very exciting camera. And Nikon did mention they plan to enter the mirrorless market once the technology is mature enough, I guess that moment just arrived so bring it on Nikon!!!
That's almost exactly what came up to my mind when I read the info on a9. :D
-
Hi Paco, I have an a7S for sale with silent shutter and insane ISO performance ;)
I understand that it is possible to use my Nikon lenses with af?
-
I understand that it is possible to use my Nikon lenses with af?
Not really, the a7S is more suited for using manual focus lenses IMHO.
The S models lack PDAF needed for proper AF performance, they shine with insane ISO performance in both film and photography.
Combine it with a Nikkor 50/1.2 or Voigtlander 35/1.2 (also for sale) and one owns the night, covertly :)
-
Paco there are two ways to get AF on the Sony bodies with Nikon lenses. There is a Commlite adapter which will AF quite well on some Nikon G lenses. I tested most of my lenses before I started selling. It worked great with the 24-70 2.8G , pretty well on the 70-200 2.8 G vr II, works pretty well with the 58 1.4G, it worked very well with the 85 1.8G. Did not work at all with 105 2.8G VR Macro and just about worked with 24-120 f4 vr and 70-200 f4 vr, lots of hunting on those two but eventually focus lock. D lenses report exif but no AF, Ai, Ais nothing. Maybe Exif if chipped.
I actually use the Techart Pro for Leica M to FE with stacked adapter (Kipon) for AF with my 28 f2s, 105 2.5s, the 75-150 3.5E and 135 2.8 Ais (sold). The Techart states for the a7ii,a7rii, a6300 and a6500. I use quite a few Voigts, and Leica on my Sonys and if I get the135 f3.4 I will by a second Techat Pro. All of my lenses are pretty easy to MF except the Voigt 40 1.4 (hate the focus ring). Using the G lens in MF works but they obviously do not have the Aperture ring >:( . The MF aids are pretty good. Focus peaking is hit o miss but used in conjunction with the magnification all works well.
J. A. has the Techart but not sure if he has the Commlite. He can tell you more about the a7s.
Tom
-
I have the Commlite Canon EF to E adapter permanently attached to the Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO, works great with aperture control and full EXIF registration. Only nitpick is that the 2.5 aperture is registered as 2.8 but really don't bother.
A Metabones Canon EF to E adapter is on the Canon 100-400 and Techart Leica M to E is used for EXIF registration for the 50/1.2 and AF when needed.
Don't have the Commlite Nikon F to E as of now as I have no AF Nikon lenses and the 50/1.2 isn't chipped. Was planning on getting one for the NG trip in Scotland so I could test it with the plethora of Nikon lenses present at the event but the adapter wasn't available in time.
-
I'm always interested when someone comes out with something new. Scrolling down the specifications I came on one which caught my eye: 30 sec. max shutter speed. If I was interested in a Sony (I'm not) that would be a deal killer for me, but then maybe they have something else in the pipeline for landscape buffs.
-
Ehhh, all of the dozen or so DSLR or mirrorless cameras I owned in the last ten years had a 30s max exposure without the use of an additional remote...
I never understood this limitation and rather curious which Nikon body can do longer exposures without external help?
-
On some of the FX bodies (like D750) you can do time exposures, i.e. use your wristwatch to time the exposure. Press once to open, press a second time to close the shutter. The 30s limit is probably only for safety. Doubling a few times would soon get to 24h exposures :D
-
... or dead batteries. If long-term noise reduction is ON, the camera needs to make another 'blind' exposure of the same duration in addition. Very hard on batteries in low temperatures.
More than a few hours hours is rarely practical. Or necessary. I don't think I ever been beyond the 6 hours mark.
-
Speaking of batteries, the new a9 batteries are 2.2 the size of the old ones so capacity wise now on par with those used in most Nikon DSLR's.
-
Usually do half hour exposures for startrails, always bothered me that I had to bring a remote to do so.
-
Speaking of batteries, the new a9 batteries are 2.2 the size of the old ones so capacity wise now on par with those used in most Nikon DSLR's.
That statistic is not enough as we don't know the specific power consumption of the new camera. It is likely to be higher than for a DSLR due to the EVF etc.
Buried deep down into the spec list was a reference to approx. 600 exposures per charge if memory serves. That in my experience tells me battery capacity might well be an issue in field situations. I usually get only a fraction of the max.number listed by the makers.
-
Of course, but when a battery is half the size of the ones used in typical DSLR's and the camera needs constant power for the sensor and EVF you're already 10 points behind in battery life. With batteries of equal size mirrorless is only a few points behind because they will always use more power than a DSLR ;D
-
Just a kind reminder of a thread which remains unresponded http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5728.msg92039.html#msg92039
-
With regards to batteries... my D3s only has about 175K clicks but I have shot all day soccer tournaments (2000+ clicks) with one battery and never had to change batteries. I always carry a 2nd but never used.
As more is known about the a9, the asterisks are starting to appear. It does seem to be much more user friendly but the Sony verbiage seems to be a bit over the top. Anyone buying based on Sony claims will probably be in for a surprise. Case in point is that dust and moisture sealing for 'most' buttons/dials. First thing that happened with my a7ii (in Rajasthan) was dust in the Aperture wheel. I can see where the a9 might be a great Action Event camera (a7rii is not, I've tried) but the Buy in is just too high when I already have Nikons (and lenses (!) ) which are very good at doing the job. If I could write off the costs would be one thing but just for fun, no.
Definitely a watching brief :)
Tom
-
The 30sec limit may be more related to the heat dissipation. Sony has been suffering from the excessive heat. Small body + large sensor + constant live view can be a dooming combination...
My NEX-5T/R became very hot after extended shooting.
-
There is NO 30s limit, below the specs of the D5 vs the a9.
Both have an in camera minimum shutter of 30s and a buib function, both can shoot longer shutter times when using a remote like any other camera out there.
Btw the D5 has a maximum shutter of 1/8000th while the electronic shutter of the a9 goes two stops faster (not uncommon with mirrorless).
-
Nice to have, but shooting cars travelling, from left to right (or R to L) at over 300km/h, at 1/8000s has never be a problem to have everything tack sharp (even the wheels). Analysing my image DB; it appears that I have about 2% of my pictures taken at 1/8000s. I was surprised to see speeds of a couple of pictures at 1/19'000s, but this was from my iPhone....
This is 1/8000s
-
My car drives 99,99% of the time in a forward direction but I'm glad it also has a reverse so I can pull out of the drive way.
I mainly shoot with 1.2 and 1.4 lenses during the night, with faster shutter speeds I can also shoot wide open on the occasional sunny day trips :)
One by one technical limitations are being eliminated opening up new possibilities to explore, to me this is very exiting but might be less interesting for the traditional photographer.
-
My worries about the A9 are whether Sony now finally has made a camera for photographers and that it handles as such, or whether their engineering approach still prevails. Lack of weather sealing for a model purported to be pro calibre is not what one likes to learn.
But at present one has to give a9 the benefit of doubt. Early days yet.
I did keep the dedicated adapters for S-mount Nikkors to E-mount Sony, by the way, after dumping the A7. I'm not that easily deterred. Hopefully some day a camera model that lives up to my needs and expectations will materialise to allow using these gadgets and breathe new life into the old faithful Nikkor S range.
-
Nikon is always late when it comes to gimmicks :o :o :o
-
Let's wait and see
Photographic equipment is more than horsepowers on a piece of paper, Minolta 9000 or 9xi also had advanced features, to succeed on the "pro-segment" lenses are at least as important, Nikon 1V1 also had 60fps without being too useful , ....
interesting nevertheless
-
I did keep the dedicated adapters for S-mount Nikkors to E-mount Sony, by the way, after dumping the A7. I'm not that easily deterred. Hopefully some day a camera model that lives up to my needs and expectations will materialise to allow using these gadgets and breathe new life into the old faithful Nikkor S range.
Would you share which adapters you prefer/kept. I've been watching for some Nikon S lenses but have no idea which adapter (for a7ii/rii) . There is a 105 f2.5 around at the moment. I have not researched that particular lens as of yet but did look at it some time ago and know it is not the lightest lens around :( .
Cheers,
-
I purchased a high quality S=> E adapter made by amedeo.m (eBay vendor). Quite expensive and very well made. It also included the helicoid necessary for focusing the 50 mm Nikkors which mount on the inner bayonet of the S-type cameras.
The 10.5 cm f/2.5 Nikkor for S-mount is very heavy, no wonder considering the amount of brass inside it.
-
Bjørn , many thanks. He has good reputation but hard to buy in UK. From his site, he appears to be making limited quantities these days.
Cheers,
Tom
-
These items are largely hand made so production volume is limited. I had to wait for about 2 months for the adapters to be completed, but they were well worth the wait.
-
Tom, Japanese Rayqual makes an Nikon-S to Sony EF mount adapter:
http://www.rayqual.com/SC_kakushu.html
-
Certainly an interesting camera. I think it's great that Sony is pushing the mirrorless format forward - competition is good.
-
Time for Sony to roll out some big long glass!
Adapting is problematic.
1. Precision of the adapter ring compromises IQ.
2. Adapting of UWA is tricky. I have friends adapting the Laowa 12mm and the IQ in the edges are atrocious. It is however just fine natively mounted on DSLRs
3. AF. Good luck. Not going to trust an adapter's AF ability when I track birds and what not.
Adapting has lots of advantages too, obviously.
Sony also released a 100-400mm, but such a "sunshine" lens isn't enough! More more more! 400/2.8 500 and 600/4, 800 f/5.6! ;)
-
Voigtlander makes native 10, 12 and 15mm lenses of very high quality.
I have the 15mm which performs very well, the 10mm will follow later this year.
-
Tom, Japanese Rayqual makes an Nikon-S to Sony EF mount adapter:
http://www.rayqual.com/SC_kakushu.html
Akira, many thanks. In UK (maybe Europe) they are also marketed as Kindai. Nice to see a Japanese company making adapters. Most are coming out of China now. Some work , some do not.
Cheers
Tom
-
Akira, many thanks. In UK (maybe Europe) they are also marketed as Kindai. Nice to see a Japanese company making adapters. Most are coming out of China now. Some work , some do not.
Cheers
Tom
Tom, you are welcome. Kindai International is actually a trading company and has been the authorized dealer of Novoflex for Japan. Rayqual mount adapters have been handled by Stephen Gandy of CameraQuest.
-
Here's Lok Cheung's hands-on review of A9 on PGN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgaWa6Znmxs
The body finish is nice matte black.
-
I will wait for Nikon response. 24 MP is not enough for my style. I do not need 20fps. No blackout VF, the best, still, 36 or 43 sensor, IBIS, Nikon's adapter for already existed AFS lenses - that is what I need from future Nikon's mirrorless. LZ
-
Here's an interesting article assessing the cost for the system switch:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5769746764/the-cost-of-switching-to-sony-from-canon
-
I will wait for Nikon response. 24 MP is not enough for my style. I do not need 20fps. No blackout VF, the best, still, 36 or 43 sensor, IBIS, Nikon's adapter for already existed AFS lenses - that is what I need from future Nikon's mirrorless. LZ
One problem with that wish-list is that it is irrational to have IBIS in a mirrorless camera. The only advantage of the mirrorless design is that there are fewer parts and much simpler assembly, with many fewer critical alignment steps. (Why we as consumers should care is another question, since the manufacturers are using the lower costs to raise profit margins, not lower prices). But putting the sensor on skates is putting back a whole lot of parts and a whole lot of manufacturing complexity.
-
unless already addressed here... my issue is latency between view mode and shutter actuation.. .. intolerable for fast action (e.g. wildlife)
-
One problem with that wish-list is that it is irrational to have IBIS in a mirrorless camera.
From a complexity and cost point of view, perhaps. But since there is an EVF and no mirror (and in the case of the A9, the mechanical shutter doesn't have to be used), the camera itself is causing no vibration, and so it may be possible to shoot successfully hand-held at slower speeds than with a DSLR. To facilitate this, compensation for hand shake with IBIS is a reasonable approach.
However, personally I prefer fast shutter speeds that stop the movement and wide aperture to isolate the subject (to create images where the subject is sharp and surroundings are blurred), instead of broad depth of field and slow shutter speed, which results in a sharp surround and a blurred subject. So for me VR is mostly needed in medium telephoto lenses where subject-freezing shutter speeds may not be enough to stabilize the viewfinder and eliminate hand shake. I do use VR occasionally with shorter lenses and while it can be useful, it is not a large effect. For static subjects I use a tripod for much greater options of depth of field and to eliminate remaining uncertainty over shake (with non-supertelephoto lenses at least). I think with any image stabilization system whether sensor-moving or implemented in the optics, cannot guarantee sharpness the way a good tripod can, and sometimes introduces a bit of blur in itself (due to noise in the measurement of acceleration and imperfect compensation). This is one of the reasons why I systematically use a tripod for static subjects instead of relying on technology. Further advantages of the tripod approach is more precise and reproducible framing and composition, the possibility of capturing several frames at different exposures or with different focus, without the composition drifting, and the ability to use tilt for enhancing the sharpness of near-to-far scenes precisely (hand held, it would be very difficult and results more random than I'd like).
But I can see the benefits of IBIS for certain types of e.g. environmental portraits, etc. using a shorter lens, and I'm sure I'd come up with uses for the technology if it were implemented in my cameras. But I'm unlikely to choose a system based on this feature by itself. The optical viewfinder is far too important for me. I might buy a mirrorless camera for the silent shooting feature, once mature and not ridiculously priced. I expect that the lack of moving parts would translate to lower purchase and service costs for the user, but I'm not sure if this is happening yet. I like to shoot concerts and dance, and there have been circumstances where the camera sound has been a distraction to someone sitting near me, which is where a camera like the A9 would be excellent option. But the Sony is very expensive! 5300€ for the camera body and 2000€ for a 135/2.8 lens.
-
IBIS is definitely a rational thing to have in a mirrorless camera. As, Ilkka says, environmental pirtraits. Another application is when the use of a tripod is impractical, or simply not allowed. Sometimes even flash photography is not allowed.
I think that the A9 may find uses where a silent camera is desired, and some of the venues where IBIS is useful could coincide with where a totally silent camera is desired. This could include some sports like like golf or tennis, where you're not allowed to disturb the players, not even with the sound of a shutter. These are of course different sports from what we see in Sony's commercials.
Personally I wouldn't buy a camera without IBIS, since IBIS adds flexibility. Minolta/Sony and Pentax offer DSLRs with IBIS, so the feature is possible with an OVF as well as an EVF.
-
IBIS, the new techno acronym. I'm not sure, if the generic IBIS, is as efficient as the lens optimized VR.
-
However, personally I prefer fast shutter speeds that stop the movement and wide aperture to isolate the subject (to create images where the subject is sharp and surroundings are blurred), instead of broad depth of field and slow shutter speed, which results in a sharp surround and a blurred subject. So for me VR is mostly needed in medium telephoto lenses where subject-freezing shutter speeds may not be enough to stabilize the viewfinder and eliminate hand shake. I do use VR occasionally with shorter lenses and while it can be useful, it is not a large effect. For static subjects I use a tripod for much greater options of depth of field and to eliminate remaining uncertainty over shake (with non-supertelephoto lenses at least). I think with any image stabilization system whether sensor-moving or implemented in the optics, cannot guarantee sharpness the way a good tripod can, and sometimes introduces a bit of blur in itself (due to noise in the measurement of acceleration and imperfect compensation). This is one of the reasons why I systematically use a tripod for static subjects instead of relying on technology. Further advantages of the tripod approach is more precise and reproducible framing and composition, the possibility of capturing several frames at different exposures or with different focus, without the composition drifting, and the ability to use tilt for enhancing the sharpness of near-to-far scenes precisely (hand held, it would be very difficult and results more random than I'd like).
+1, very well said.
Underline = extra agreement or ++1
Dave Hartman
---
"Another application is when the use of a tripod is impractical, or simply not allowed. Sometimes even flash photography is not allowed." --bjornthun
I find situations where I can't set down a tripod and VR really helps so another +1.
---
It's often said that VR can't stop subject motion. A tripod can't either unfortunately.
Perhaps VR is better compared to a monopod than a tripod. Neither VR nor monopod holds the composition as a tripod does. Both give a few extra stops of help with hand and camera shake.
VR should come with a guaranty that it will always deliver one from hand shake. It's not there yet.
---
I'm finding the A9 interesting but I'm still doubting the EVF. I'd like to have a look. I wonder if Best Buy will stock it. Otherwise I'd have to drive about 75 miles to see one.
Dave Hartman
-
One possible drawback of IBIS is that since the sensor is able to move, heat management can be more difficult.
Jim Kasson has been studying the dark noise from various cameras and I recall that A7RII has some increase in dark noise in a series of long exposures relative to the A7R. A7RII has IBIS which wasn't present in the A7R.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7r-self-heating-for-long-exposures/
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7rii-self-heating-for-long-exposures/
Now, it might not be an issue for most people who don't do e.g. astrophotography with a series of long exposures, or long exposures at night, but the same phenomena may be affecting the camera during recording of 4K video; although I have no idea of how common this problem is but some Sony users are reporting overheating of the camera in some circumstances. I don't know if the heat is generated in the video processor or the sensor, battery, or all of them. However, I suspect IBIS plays a part in making it more difficult to keep the sensor cool during extended usage since one can not fix a large area heat conduction path from the components if they have to have significant freedom of movement.
Anyway, this is a minor issue but as 4K recording gets more common, heat issues need to be attended to. I haven't had camera heating problems as I don't do much video, but I did experience the SB-900 overheating when I was shooting formals for a July wedding in bare sunlight. Before, I had never experienced overheating of the flash as I had been using it for some time only indoors, and I didn't use the full flash energy, but outdoors it became necessary to squeeze as much as possible from my three speedlights and the SB-900 dropped from the game very quickly. I since got SB-910 and SB-5000 which contain progressive improvements to the issue; I think the SB-910 has changed hardware to minimize the issue and the SB-5000 finally has active cooling so one can use it with full output without concern. I think Nikon managed this problem quite well although the best efforts are seen in the newer flashes.
I think IBIS is best fit to a mirrorless (or SLT) camera as if you implement IBIS in a DSLR, the viewfinder no longer shows the precise framing of the image and it may also lead to problems in positioning the AF sensor point accurately on the subject unless the AF point position markers are moving according to sensor movement also in the viewfinder. In a mirrorless camera system, the merits of IBIS are more clear than in a DSLR and I feel it makes sense for Nikon and Canon to stick with in-lens VR / IS technology for DSLRs to keep the accuracy of the viewfinder and AF point position. Finally since in-camera stabilization was invented by Minolta and further developed by Olympus and Sony (if I've understood the history correctly), I think there would likely be license fees for Nikon and Canon to pay if they want to implement IBIS in their cameras. When they make mirrorless systems, they may consider it although not invented in house. Canon made a few IS prime lenses (24mm, 28mm, and 35mm) and Nikon the 24-70/2.8 VR and 16-35/4 VR to cover applications where stabilization is needed on a shorter lens. There are also f/1.8 stabilized prime lenses (35/1.8, 45/1.8 and 85/1.8 VC) from Tamron available.
-
With all the drawbacks of IBIS, I have to admit that it is addictive. The IBIS in Olympus E-M5 MkII was fantastic. True that the IBIS won't contribute to reduce the subject movement, its positive effect is undeniable. It worked admirably even with the adapted Nikkor Ai 300mm/f4.5 and Samyang 7.5mm/f3.5 fisheye so long as you set the focal length correctly.
I didn't find any heat management problem with E-M5 MKII because of the floarting sensor, neither with Panasonic GX8, possibly thanks to their smaller m4/3 sensors.
-
With all the drawbacks of IBIS, I have to admit that it is addictive. The IBIS in Olympus E-M5 MkII was fantastic. True that the IBIS won't contribute to reduce the subject movement, its positive effect is undeniable. It worked admirably even with the adapted Nikkor Ai 300mm/f4.5 and Samyang 7.5mm/f3.5 fisheye so long as you set the focal length correctly.
Point taken.
I didn't find any heat management problem with E-M5 MKII because of the floarting sensor, neither with Panasonic GX8, possibly thanks to their smaller m4/3 sensors.
It is likely that there is less heat generated by the smaller sensor. Also I suspect the problems with larger sensors that are occasionally reported mainly affect extended long-exposure shooting and long continuous 4K recording (possibly in hot climate outdoors during the day) and are likely something that most users will not run into in their day-to-day use. Regarding astrophotography long exposure noise management, there seems to be an issue with median filtering
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/specific-a7sii-astrophotography-fix-request/
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a7rii-long-exposure-spatial-filtering-with-fw-3-30/
These may be the side effects of Sony trying to mitigate long-exposure noise with algorithmic processing in the firmware, leading to stars being mistaken for hot pixels and erased by the algorithm.
Nikon used to have shadow clipping at high ISO settings in older DSLRs just a few years ago but in the new cameras (e.g. D810) this has been reduced to a minimum and in the D5 I don't recall that it is present. I suspect Nikon used shadow clipping at high ISO to reduce visibility of banding and other types of artifacts in general photography but this meant that averaging long exposure high ISO shots to bring out nebulae then didn't work as well as it should have. In the newer cameras they've been able to solve these problems in a way that shouldn't hinder astrophotography.
I think it would be better if manufacturers offered an option to shoot and store a "true RAW" file with no processing whatsoever but this hasn't been the case in general. I guess they're worried that sensor testers find out about the noise and the product's reputation suffers, or that people use the raw RAW file and run into the problems which could have been mitigated by processing in firmware.
-
I shot a ten-minute movie with NEX-5R in Tokyo during a very hot summer day (35 degree Celsius, possibly over 40 degree on the asphalt), and the camera became formidably hot. After the shooting, I had to remove the battery, leave the battery door open and raise the tilting LCD screen to cool the camera down.
Also, I always wonder how the camera can tell the hot pixels from the stars when it does long exposure noise reduction. For the landscapes of starry nights, there should be no problem if some stars are erased, but for the astronomical photography, it should be a serious problem. You would have to stack the frames or use a dedicated camera.
-
Tony Northrup at Sonyalfa Rumors: A7rII vs A9 - A7rII is sharper, more DR, less noise at high ISO. And way cheaper, I'd add. So its what I've already said - I do not need 20fps, for such the huge loss of quality, to summarize. Let us see the direct comparison on the field. LZ
-
I shot a ten-minute movie with NEX-5R in Tokyo during a very hot summer day (35 degree Celsius, possibly over 40 degree on the asphalt), and the camera became formidably hot. After the shooting, I had to remove the battery, leave the battery door open and raise the tilting LCD screen to cool the camera down.
Also, I always wonder how the camera can tell the hot pixels from the stars when it does long exposure noise reduction. For the landscapes of starry nights, there should be no problem if some stars are erased, but for the astronomical photography, it should be a serious problem. You would have to stack the frames or use a dedicated camera.
Actually, that's a problem, hence the infameous "star eater" algorithms.
-
Tony Northrup at Sonyalfa Rumors: A7rII vs A9 - A7rII is sharper, more DR, less noise at high ISO. And way cheaper, I'd add. So its what I've already said - I do not need 20fps, for such the huge loss of quality, to summarize. Let us see the direct comparison on the field. LZ
I didn't know Tony Northrup (of Tony & Chelsea?) has been involved with Sony Rumors.
Actually, that's a problem, hence the infameous "star eater" algorithms.
That problem is not only with Sony, but applies to the algorithm in general?
-
Tony Northrup said more:
1. shutter & mechanical shutter on a9–DR, ISO 25,600 noise, rolling shutter. No e-shutter penalty except sync
2. Sony a7R II vs a9 raw: a7R II is sharper, more dynamic range, lower noise at high ISO. Still want a9 bc it works better & IQ is still great!
3. Checking results, Sony a9’s focusing equals 1DX, D5 & D500 (the best in the world) + higher framerate (10-20 FPS real world) + no blackout 👏
4. Our #SonyA9 review will be up 4/27 @ 11am ET because embargo. #SonyAlpha
In point 2, IQ of the A9 is still great, i.e. no big loss in image quality.
Note also point 3 about AF.
Akira, I don't know enough about noise removal algorithms in digital sensors. I guess the "star eating" may be a problem for scientific astro photography.
-
Tony Northrup said more: In point 2, IQ of the A9 is still great, i.e. no big loss in image quality.
The rest is priority of the second kind, as for me, of course. Direct image quality is not equal to the D750, so far. The next Sony's A9R with its 43MP will be close to what I, personally, is waiting for Nikon's mirrorless. Or A99II, with its pellicle mirror. In this case Nikon doesn't need any adapter for the last AFS-G lenses. Will see soon, I believe. LZ
-
For Nikon shootests who haven't warmed up to the electronic view finder ready yourselves for an EVF replacement for the D810 or D750. Nikon traditionally rolls out new technology in a lower model SLR so I think this trend may follow for new technology in a dSLR.
I look for a Nikon D5s and D500s not a mirrorless replacement. As interesting as the A9 is I don't think it's ready for most sports venues.
Dave Hartman who would like to be an Ambassador for Sony so he could be a Double Agent for Nikon.
-
IBIS, the new techno acronym. I'm not sure, if the generic IBIS, is as efficient as the lens optimized VR.
I would be inclined to say that it's probably more efficient, and especially efficient when combined with in-lens stabilization. E.g. On the Olympus cameras with some of the new supertele lenses you can attempt shots at shutter speeds that are completely unthinkable with Nikon's current VR implementation. I don't know whether IBIS makes sense on a DSLR, maybe you need a continuous stream of image data so it would only be applicable to LiveView. So I don't know whether Nikon will ever want/be able to compete in this regard. Moreover, moving the sensor to stabilize the image does not have the same detrimental effects on OOF rendition that the Nikon VR sometimes exhibits.
-
I don't think there will be a mirrorless replacement to the D810 but a parallel line of products designed to take advantage the strengths of mirrorless while DSLRs will follow their own path of evolution. In the end all the AF lenses need to be redesigned to autofocus well with mirrorless (except the AF-P which are already so equipped) if that's where you want to go. Manual focus would work of course with an adapter if that's what you use. Canon have stated they are working on a 120MP DSLR so probably Nikon will seek to compete with that as well as Sony's product line.
-
Ilkka,
I hope the D810 replacement will not be a mirrorless camera. I'm not willing to say never to an EVF but for now I want an optical viewfinder.
Dave
-
Ilkka,
I hope the D810 replacement will not be a mirrorless camera. I'm not willing to say never to an EVF but for now I want an optical viewfinder.
Dave
One little more step and you will find yourself in the camp of the A99II-like new Nikon lovers... Or not? LZ
-
Here is a hands-on review by Jordan Drake of TCSTV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHym5T2_xUM
and here are the ones by Tony & Chelsea (in the later part of the first one, you can watch the interview to the Sony rep):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Z9ZvIZ2VE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv7ZVSnEtmA
-
as long as there is zero blackout or latency, i am all for this.... of course, i have to wait until nikon goes this route with the pro-cams
-
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your optical viewfinder...again
So is this the end?
Dave Hartman
-
So is this the end?
Dave Hartman
The end is in the eye of the beholder... ;)
-
Nikon still lists the F6, don't they? There will be DSLRs for quite a few more years, but they will become a niche product, and there will be much fewer models to choose from. DSLR product development will grind to a halt in the years ahead.
I'm inclined to think that the Nikon E type Nikkors are the most future proof DSLR Nikkors.
-
I'm inclined to think that the Nikon E type Nikkors are the most future proof DSLR Nikkors.
The latest Nikon E and Canon EF lenses are indeed the most future proof autofocus DSLR lenses but the question remains why one would want to use these modern lenses on a mirrorless platform once these systems become mature in their lens lineup. Unique lenses like already legendary 105/1.4E might always be interesting though.
Old skool manual focus lenses will stay popular because their population is slowly decreasing over time while offering an unique classic rendering, character and experience not found in modern lenses anymore. Hence my 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 125/2.5 will probably stay within my lens collections until my last breath, all other lenses might be sold when better alternatives become available.
-
Interestingly both Canon and Nikon started to employ non-ultrasonic motors (Canon's STM and Nikon's P). While the omission of the mechanical control is the obvious trend, and the ultrasonic motors could be obsolete.
-
So not long ago, maybe a year, I bought three obsolete lenses. Is that what I understand?
Dave who himself is obsolete.
-
My experience is that E lenses can be erratic in very cold and humid winter conditions. None of the other types of Nikkors give me regular trouble. With E lenses it is typical to run into problems in the peak of winter. I would not choose an E lens for it being E but of course the newest lenses are likely to stay serviceable for a longer time than some older autofocus lenses.
If you want to use autofocus with mirrorless you need a lens designed with that in mind. AF-P lenses should qualify (they actually show quiet and snappy AF in live view) but so far they're not E. Stepper motors have been introduced into DSLR systems by Canon as well. For both manufacturers, these lenses are not the high end models with fast maximum apertures. Probably USM is faster and that's why they don't use stepper motors for fast professional grade lenses. Sony also put two motors in the 70-200/2.8, one of them is ultrasonic, illustrating the continuing need for this type of motor in a fast telephoto. Personally I don't see any point in an adapted, mismatching AF body and AF lens combination that were not designed to work with each other. The motor is one thing, flange distance another (phase detect AF is optimized for a specific distance, according to Nikon), communication protocol another, and finally the filter stack and microlenses are designed to be an optimal fit with the manufacturer's own lenses. The adapter is often a clumsy addition which affects handling and ergonomics.
But for me this is not relevant since I am happy using the DSLR and if I want a quieter camera, I would get one with an OVF either from Leica or Fuji. Those systems I use with their native lenses to make best out of them as well.
-
The latest Nikon E and Canon EF lenses are indeed the most future proof autofocus DSLR lenses but the question remains why one would want to use these modern lenses on a mirrorless platform once these systems become mature in their lens lineup. Unique lenses like already legendary 105/1.4E might always be interesting though.
Future proofness in the sense that one does not need to switch lenses when buying a new mirrorless camera, while still retaining AF and full exposure automation. Lenses will often be the most expensive part of a camera system.
Old skool manual focus lenses will stay popular because their population is slowly decreasing over time while offering an unique classic rendering, character and experience not found in modern lenses anymore. Hence my 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 125/2.5 will probably stay within my lens collections until my last breath, all other lenses might be sold when better alternatives become available.
Your CV 125/2.5 in Canon EF mount is one of those future proof lenses, which retains exposure automation and EXIF. Also it is very well corrected compared to classical f/1.2 lenses and still an optically a modern lens. That's the same market that Cosina and Zeiss still cater to with MF lenses for the Leica M and Sony E mounts.
However classical lenses from various manufacturers will remain popular as they are easier to use on a full frame mirrorless, and you can mix and match classical lenses from different manufacturers with different lens mount. When Nikon/Canon go mirrorless they may find an even greater market. As for metering, a Nikon pre-Ai will easily meter on a Sony, even in the A mode, so some lenses "increase" their future proofness.
-
I've not encountered problems with E mount lenses in the winter. They are no more prone to problems than any other AF lenses I've had, and I've had quite a few.
Edit: My confusion of terminology and letters.
-
Interestingly both Canon and Nikon started to employ non-ultrasonic motors (Canon's STM and Nikon's P). While the omission of the mechanical control is the obvious trend, and the ultrasonic motors could be obsolete.
I'm not sure that USM motors go out of fashion. I wonder, if they are rather being accompanied by stepper motors as another class of motors, so the lens designers choose the more types of motors according to application and the weight of the focusing group in the lens. As I understand it lenses like a 300/2.8 still need the big ring type USM motors. The Sony 70-200/2.8 FE uses two kinds of motors, one of which is a ring type USM. So, I don't think USM is on it's way out.
I would imagine that an AF version of the Nikon 45/2.8P would do best with a stepper motor, like the Canon 40/2.8 STM.
Wasn't there something called "micro-USM" motors. Is the Canon STM/Nikon -P an alternative or replacement for those, but not for the ring USM motors?
-
I've not encountered problems with E mount lenses in the winter. They are no more prone to problems than any other AF lenses I've had, and I've had quite a few.
I regularly take advantage of the peak of the winter when it gets below -20C and the sea is about to freeze, but is still open and there is sea smoke. In this environment after about one hour of use in my experience the camera fails to control the aperture of E lenses. G, D, etc. lenses have not exhibited this phenomena in my use (except one 70-200/2.8 original copy which got some dirt in the aperture mechanism, and operated wide open on two occasions, easily cleaned). With E lenses the camera can either lock up per se, or keep operating but fail to control the aperture after prolonged exposure to these conditions, depending on the camera model. This has happened with several camera bodies, including D700, D800, D810. I think the problem is the water vapour freezes on the contacts, but it could be something about the aperture mechanism itself. I initially thoght it was the weather sealing of the body itself but after I've accumulated a lot of E lenses it became clear that the problem seems to be related to them. Offending lenses include the 24, 45, 85 PC-E Nikkors and the 70-200/2.8E. The regularity of this happening is very high given sufficient exposure to open water and cold, humid air. I've tried taking out the battery and put it back in, it doesn't seem to help but mounting/unmounting the lens does allow shooting to continue, even if for a brief time. Anyway, I often shoot in the same environment with a friend who uses Canon 5D series cameras and also tilt/shift lenses and he doesn't have any problems. Canon has longer experience with electromagnetic apertures for sure. I'm not saying Canons don't have problems in the cold - some do.
Personally I do not value E Nikkors over G or earlier Nikkors specifically and don't think the new system is as reliable as the old, in the conditions that I do my winter landscape photography in. I am aware that dust and dirt can jam a G lens and am not saying it is perfect but it doesn't exibit this particular issue in my experience.
I'm not trying to discourage anyone from buying E lenses just that they're not a panacea to all problems, in their current state, and I certainly won't avoid G or other lenses because they're not "E" (I do not avoid E lenses either, if the lens has features and quality I may buy it, just that it is regrettable there appears to be this issue). My experience simply does not merit such discrimination. Without doubt the reproducibity of exposure in high fps shooting is improved in normal shooting conditions (i.e. normal temperature and humidity), and the fps rate itself can increase a bit due to the use of an E lens.
Nikon, of course do not claim that the cameras work in the conditions that I'm talking about. They specify 0 to 40C and also put limits on RH. However, for my landscape photography those rather harsh winter conditions are essential to get the effects that I want and I do want to use tilt a lot to make even sharpness in near-to-far compositions. For quick snaps, I am sure the E holds up for most users, but I could be on one spot for 15 min, 30min or longer and a few hours in one area. Unfortunately with the hard part of the winter getting shorter, it is essential that I make the best of what remains available and gear malfunction is rather annoying as it can mean the best shot of the year is missed. Yes, even in landscape photography time can be short. For now, taking off the lens and putting it back on seems to rectify the issue now that I know about it, but I have used this trick only a few times so far and I don't know if it will always work. My suspicion is on the electrical contacts being too exposed in the F mount. In Canons the lens contacts point inwards, towards the camera body. I don't know if this is the difference or if there is something else.
I have to say that this has never occurred on the large bodies (D3, D3X, D5) but I think that's just that I use the more compact bodies most of the time for landscape photography and although the large cameras are well built, I'm not terribly keen on holding them on water for a longer time. They can supply power in the cold for a longer time but again this doesn't seem to be all about that. Of course, it could be a combination of factors: power drop in combination with condensation & freezing both of the contacts and the aperture itself (maybe) instead of just one factor. It may be that the motor that controls the aperture in the body when using a G lens is better shielded from cold and condensation.
-
Ilkka, you talk about Nikon E type lenses. I'm sorry, but I think I confused Sony E (mount) and Nikon E (type). My bad. Too much letters for my brain today.
I hope Nikon will sort out the issue you have. To me it sounds like condensation of water on exposed electronics inside the lens. That would imply that lenses aren't 100% sealed, which lensrentals.com warns against with all brands of lenses.
-
I regularly take advantage of the peak of the winter when it gets below -20C and the sea is about to freeze, but is still open and there is sea smoke. In this environment after about one hour of use in my experience the camera fails to control the aperture of E lenses. G, D, etc. lenses have not exhibited this phenomena in my use (except one 70-200/2.8 original copy which got some dirt in the aperture mechanism, and operated wide open on two occasions, easily cleaned). With E lenses the camera can either lock up per se, or keep operating but fail to control the aperture after prolonged exposure to these conditions, depending on the camera model. This has happened with several camera bodies, including D700, D800, D810. I think the problem is the water vapour freezes on the contacts, but it could be something about the aperture mechanism itself. I initially thoght it was the weather sealing of the body itself but after I've accumulated a lot of E lenses it became clear that the problem seems to be related to them. Offending lenses include the 24, 45, 85 PC-E Nikkors and the 70-200/2.8E. The regularity of this happening is very high given sufficient exposure to open water and cold, humid air. I've tried taking out the battery and put it back in, it doesn't seem to help but mounting/unmounting the lens does allow shooting to continue, even if for a brief time. Anyway, I often shoot in the same environment with a friend who uses Canon 5D series cameras and also tilt/shift lenses and he doesn't have any problems. Canon has longer experience with electromagnetic apertures for sure. I'm not saying Canons don't have problems in the cold - some do.
...
My AFS 300mm f/4 E PF VR has been working flawlessly at temperatures down to -30°C and lower. It has been left outside for 5 h periods at -25°C during astrophotography sessions with frost buildup on the outer casing - with no problems appearing (the lens is typically stopped down a little during this use so problems would be apparent).
If you get into conditions that cause frost buildup inside the lens that does not sound very healthy for the lens. One thing to consider is humidity that the lens is equilibrated to inside your house before taking the lens out. I sort of doubt that with the sealing present on the lenses there would be enough air circulation to bring in enough humidity for frost buildup to happen inside the lens. Air at -20°C has very low water vapor pressure (i.e. humidity content) even at 100% relative humidity. So there has to be considerable air circulation for frost to build up; this is the case on the outside of the lens, as with my 300mm described above.
-
I have not experienced any condensation or frosting of the optical path inside the lens in recent years (many years ago I did have a 20-35/2.8 which did develop condensation inside by open water but my other lenses have not). The images come out normally. I think maybe it is a power issue? Anyway my main suspicion is on the contacts between body and lens since mounting and unmounting rectifies the situation. Maybe in the cold the electronic aperture requires more current than the body can provide? I could ask Nikon service about it, of course.
After returning to normal conditions all the gear has continued to work normally. I have not seen this issue with the 300 PF but I've not exposed it to these conditions for very long and usually shoot it wide open.
-
IBIS is definitely a rational thing to have in a mirrorless camera. As, Ilkka says, environmental pirtraits. Another application is when the use of a tripod is impractical, or simply not allowed. Sometimes even flash photography is not allowed.
The issue is not whether image stabilisation is useful, but whether it is rational to put it in the body rather than the lens when the only advantage of the mirrorless design is simplicity of construction of the body.
The idea that mirror movement causes vibrations that affect the exposure is an urban myth. The vibrations caused by the mirror end before the shutter opens. Here is a recording from a D200 (from http://www.aaronlinsdau.com/category/gear/page/2/).
-
The issue is not whether image stabilisation is useful, but whether it is rational to put it in the body rather than the lens when the only advantage of the mirrorless design is simplicity of construction of the body.
You seem to imply that it is equivalent to put stabilisation in the body or the lens. Why do you think that it makes no difference?
The idea that mirror movement causes vibrations that affect the exposure is an urban myth. The vibrations caused by the mirror end before the shutter opens. Here is a recording from a D200 (from http://www.aaronlinsdau.com/category/gear/page/2/).
I would be interested to see similar recordings for other cameras. To my knowledge, not all cameras are affected by vibration issues to the same extent. Do you think that Nikon's efforts to improve the D810 mirror mechanism were due to them believing in an "urban myth"?
-
You seem to imply that it is equivalent to put stabilisation in the body or the lens. Why do you think that it makes no difference?
I would be interested to see similar recordings for other cameras. To my knowledge, not all cameras are affected by vibration issues to the same extent. Do you think that Nikon's efforts to improve the D810 mirror mechanism were due to them believing in an "urban myth"?
The test was done with D200 and 85/1.4 combo attached on the Kirk BH3 ballhead, which means that the body is directly mounted on the ballhead. The vibration caused by the mirror may stay longer when the camera is attached to, say, AF-S 300/4.0 mounted on a tripod. The tripod collar of AF-S 300/4.0 is known to be a bit too flimsy. The mirror shock of D800 could be stronger than that of D200, and its l/mm resolution is finer than that of D200. So, the shock could be more influential.
-
Has the Sony A9 demonstrated that the EVF and electronic shutter are ready for professional sports and wildlife photography? What's your take?
Dave Hartman
I know the lenses aren't available yet but the question isn't about the lenses. It's about the technology in the camera body.
-
Right, and also the D800 mirror is probably roughly double the mass of the D200 mirror.
-
Right, and also the D800 mirror is probably roughly double the mass of the D200 mirror.
Which would mean the vibrations would decay twice as fast (all other things being equal).
-
Which would mean the vibrations would decay twice as fast (all other things being equal).
Why is there a mirror-up feature on most DSLRs?
-
On the D800E I had no issues with both the mirror and shutter vibrations when shooting slow exposures handheld with lenses like the 35/1.4G.
The mechanical shutter on the original 36MP a7R was so violent however that I couldn't get any decent images under the same conditions, this frustrated me so much that I quickly switched to the 12MP a7S when it became available which had both an electronic first curtain, less scrutinising pixels and more ISO range to play with for even more low light fun.
My current 42MP A7RII has the same features plus a stabilised sensor (IBIS), I always shoot it with an electronic first curtain as there are no downsides for my kind of use (the fully electronic shutter does impact noise btw) and rarely use IBIS on lenses shorter than 100mm but it does come in handy with the CV125/2.5.
-
Why is there a mirror-up feature on most DSLRs?
When using a telephoto lens or macro to photograph stationary subjects on tripod, the mirror shake can cause a small amount of blur that is perceptible when magnifying the image a lot to make a large print. If one uses a too wimpy tripod or poor head, the effect increases in magnitude.
The shutter vibration also can cause an effect, and so Nikon implemented electronic first curtain shutter in the D5, D810, D500, and now D7500. Using a solid tripod, a good tripod collar, EFCS and mirror up, slightly sharper images can be realized in certain conditions which require a slow-ish shutter speed and telephoto lens.
However, mirror slap is more dampened now than it was in the early days of SLRs. Tripod mounts of lenses are improving in newer lenses in several cases. And solid tripods are now a bit lighter than they were before carbon fibre.
-
When using a telephoto lens or macro to photograph stationary subjects on tripod, the mirror shake can cause a small amount of blur that is perceptible when magnifying the image a lot to make a large print. If one uses a too wimpy tripod or poor head, the effect increases in magnitude.
The shutter vibration also can cause an effect, and so Nikon implemented electronic first curtain shutter in the D5, D810, D500, and now D7500. Using a solid tripod, a good tripod collar, EFCS and mirror up, slightly sharper images can be realized in certain conditions which require a slow-ish shutter speed and telephoto lens.
However, mirror slap is more dampened now than it was in the early days of SLRs. Tripod mounts of lenses are improving in newer lenses in several cases. And solid tripods are now a bit lighter than they were before carbon fibre.
Exactly, my experience too.
-
Has the Sony A9 demonstrated that the EVF and electronic shutter are ready for professional sports and wildlife photography? What's your take?
I'm obviously not a professional sports photographer but I do enough of sports photography to take the liberty to comment.
The rolling shutter effect is relatively minor but it can be seen in some images. I don't think it will be an issue for most applications.
In high frame rate photography, the viewfinder is mainly used to follow the action, adjust framing and composition. For these things I think the A9 viewfinder should work fine (even excellently). However, shooting at 20fps is quite silly for many situations, leading to lots of nearly identical frames that must be edited, which takes time which the professional sports photographer may not have. So I think it's a headline feature but not terribly useful in most applications. For a golf swing or a figure skating pirouette or other such fast movement, it can be useful. I think the silence has more implications than the high frame rate. If the photographer shoots 20000 frames in a hockey game and has to submit the single best image latest 30min after the game, that's going to be tricky to find the right image in such a short time.
However, when the action is not impossibly fast to time for, I would at least personally shoot in single shot mode as it allows me to give due consideration to the subject I'm shooting and choose a moment based on prior evolution of the events. This avoids unnecessary buildup of masses of images which take a lot of time to edit and allows me to inject more of my personality into the photos without having to do a lot of extra work afterwards. Also it can be that sometimes focus is lost during a high frame rate sequence and by taking a single shot one can monitor the focusing, preventing an out of focus image from happening. I have no idea of how good the EVF is for single shot shooting, as the reviewers so far seem to have been focused on how the 20fps shooting works. In time there will be more reviews and some by professional sports photographers not sponsored by the manufacturer who can give a well rounded opinion without being clouded in judgment by the possibilities of the new technology.
The problem in many reviews of web sites who do such things is that they advertise links to gear on their sites and thus they make money if they can motivate someone to buy new equipment, whether it is in the photographer's best intererest or not. If they have to buy several cameras and a whole lineup of lenses, all the better. I don't think it used to be as bad as it is today; in many cases the switching was openly considered to be unnecessary and not necessarily beneficial in the end. Now many sites promote frequent switching quite unabashedly. I think the issue is that since gear sales is on the decline, their livelihood is on the line. This is unfortunate and I think it would be better if there were more sites which took a more decent attitude towards these matters. Switching is stupendously expensive for many photographers who have more than a few lenses, and you rarely get a better system by switching unless you really pour a lot of extra money into it, or have very specific needs, in this case it might be whole frame focus coverage, silent shooting or some other feature (eye focus etc). I'm not saying these needs are not legitimate - they are, but the cost is not a trivial matter.
Anyway back to your topic I think for the high frame rate shooting sports photographer the A9 EVF should be fine but time will tell how large a proportion of single shot action shooters would prefer the EVF. The rolling shutter effect seems minor and I doubt a reader of a newspaper would in most cases notice the artifact. They might, in some cases, but they're not going to sue the newspaper for geometric distortion of the events. :o I guess the newspapers or media outlets who hire the photographers will also have some say about whether the rolling shutter effect is acceptable. Perhaps they will just avoid publishing distorted shots and choose frames where it is not obvious. In most cases it seems there is no effect to notice but in some panned shot of a runner it was.
-
You seem to imply that it is equivalent to put stabilisation in the body or the lens. Why do you think that it makes no difference?
I would be interested to see similar recordings for other cameras. To my knowledge, not all cameras are affected by vibration issues to the same extent. Do you think that Nikon's efforts to improve the D810 mirror mechanism were due to them believing in an "urban myth"?
I didn't say they are equivalent, just that they are the two options. Because you hold a camera + long lens and a camera + short lens differently the movements caused by physiological tremor are different, so there is a theoretical advantage to stabilising the lens, but I have not seen any evidence that performance is materially different.
As for some cameras being more affected than others, if any camera was going to be, it would be a medium format camera - because if a 35mm SLR has mirror slap, a medium format camera has mirror crash. If vibrations from the mirror were important in 35mm, they would be more important in medium format. They are not. It is a non-issue. Hasselblads, eg, have always been known for their spectacular mirror slap, but a lot of dam' fine images have been made with hand-held Hasselblads.
What improvements to the D810 mirror mechanism?
-
Why is there a mirror-up feature on most DSLRs?
Ansel Adams says in The Camera (p180) that you should use mirror lock-up for macrophotography at "high magnifications". The other use would be landscapes using a long lens.
-
Ansel Adams says in The Camera (p180) that you should use mirror lock-up for macrophotography at "high magnifications". The other use would be landscapes using a long lens.
And any shooting when you deem a tripod necessary to avoid vibrations, m-up should be used.
-
The test was done with D200 and 85/1.4 combo attached on the Kirk BH3 ballhead, which means that the body is directly mounted on the ballhead. The vibration caused by the mirror may stay longer when the camera is attached to, say, AF-S 300/4.0 mounted on a tripod. The tripod collar of AF-S 300/4.0 is known to be a bit too flimsy.
Sure - tripod mounting will have no effect at all unless there is effective mass coupling between the camera and the tripod, and the collars provided with Nikon lenses are very unlikely to achieve it. Does a single 1/4" screw really provide effective mass coupling? Maybe, but I doubt it.
In any case, the recording shows quite clearly that the vibrations caused by the shutter itself are much stronger than those caused by the mirror, and they are at their peak while the shutter is open. Even if the vibrations caused by the mirror decayed half as fast as in the recording, they would still be small compared to the shutter vibrations while the shutter was open.
-
Sure - tripod mounting will have no effect at all unless there is effective mass coupling between the camera and the tripod, and the collars provided with Nikon lenses are very unlikely to achieve it. Does a single 1/4" screw really provide effective mass coupling? Maybe, but I doubt it.
In any case, the recording shows quite clearly that the vibrations caused by the shutter itself are much stronger than those caused by the mirror, and they are at their peak while the shutter is open. Even if the vibrations caused by the mirror decayed half as fast as in the recording, they would still be small compared to the shutter vibrations while the shutter was open.
I see where you are coming from, but the measurement was done at the hot shoe. It should be done at the sensor. Moreover, the question of long vs. short lenses is important, since waves can travel back and forth on a long lens, prolonging the effect of vibrations.
I would be interested to see more measurements on recent cameras.
Which would mean the vibrations would decay twice as fast (all other things being equal).
I don't follow your reasoning here.
It is not the mirror that is the primary vibrating mass. The mirror hits other stuff and causes waves to travel all over the camera, lens, and tripod legs (put your ear on a tripod leg while the mirror moves and you will hear a rather loud sound). The shutter by itself does not cause such a loud sound.
What improvements to the D810 mirror mechanism?
The mirror slap must have been recognized by Nikon as a source of vibrations. See Section 3 on this page:
http://www.nikon.com/news/2014/0626_dslr_01.htm (http://www.nikon.com/news/2014/0626_dslr_01.htm)
-
According to the review of Imaging Resource, the shutter lag of D200 is 57msec and that of D800 is 44msec. So, the shutter shock may occur before the vibration caused by the mirror settles. Nikon deliberately slowed the shutter lag of D810 (54-56msec, according to Imaging Resource) to slow down the mirror movement sequence and thus to reduce the shock.
Also, on D800, the direction of the vibration initiated by the shutter could be the same as that of the remaining vibration caused by the mirror, which could recover the vibration "effectively".
-
So according to whomever, the shutter speed goes to few trillions of a second with no blackout.
I was interested to note that when the buffer fills up at high shutter speed, the buffer needs 1 or 2 minutes to write to the memory card.
Helloooooo, Two flipping minutes to purge the buffer. And what are you supposed to do in the mean time? Tell the sport athlete to stop and pick up again? Shoot hovering helicopters or frozen tossed pasta?
I mean, the whole thing is advertised for fast motion with the highest shutter speed and no blackouts.
I guess it will work alright for shooting landscapes at 20fps with a locked down camera. Dohhhhh.
I'll stick with the legacy D5 and 1Dx.
Sony, Yeah, right ::)
-
So according to whomever, the shutter speed goes to few trillions of a second with no blackout.
I was interested to note that when the buffer fills up at high shutter speed, the buffer needs 1 or 2 minutes to write to the memory card.
Helloooooo, Two flipping minutes to purge the buffer. And what are you supposed to do in the mean time? Tell the sport athlete to stop and pick up again? Shoot hovering helicopters or frozen tossed pasta?
I mean, the whole thing is advertised for fast motion with the highest shutter speed and no blackouts.
I guess it will work alright for shooting landscapes at 20fps with a locked down camera. Dohhhhh.
I'll stick with the legacy D5 and 1Dx.
Sony, Yeah, right ::)
No, 36 seconds, Tony Northrup corrected his previous statement of two minutes.
-
No, 36 seconds, Tony Northrup corrected his previous statement of two minutes.
That is correct and incorrect.
When writing to one card it is in the 36secs mark with the fastest super duper expensive card but when writing to two cards, the writing time jumps up.
Whatever it is whether 36secs or more, it still down time and you missed crucial shots while purging memory.
36secs is a lot of downtime for the singing and dancing Sony who are positioning the camera as a speed demon!
Let's see what other hidden downfalls will come to light. (Hello Sony, tracking motion at fast speed with spot focus on the eye? Tell me how is this going to be achieved and the number of missed shots? Of course the tests do not use spot focus but cluster or whatever they call it focus. So you shoot the sequence and enlarge the image to find out that the eyes are not in focus. Luv it!
N.B. The shooting sequence was a Hockey game where the players outfit was colored and the background white or faded. Even my Lego camera can track that. It is called in good English: Taking the piss.
Sony, the Art of Untruth.
-
Even the 36 seconds should seem to be eternity for a professional sport photographer on site. Of course, he/she should have another A9 body for such assignments. Remember that the camera doesn't respond to any operation during that 36 seconds.
Funny that Sony didn't employ XQD cards they developed. Maybe they wanted to keep the camera as small as possible. I'm not sure if that was the good decision...
-
And be aware that the speed is capped at 12fps if you shoot 14-bit uncompressed RAW files....
-
It is not the mirror that is the primary vibrating mass. The mirror hits other stuff and causes waves to travel all over the camera, lens, and tripod legs (put your ear on a tripod leg while the mirror moves and you will hear a rather loud sound). The shutter by itself does not cause such a loud sound.
I don't recommend placing your ear against a tripod leg with a Nikon F2 or FM2n. You might suffer permanent hearing loss. :)
Dave
-
... However, when the action is not impossibly fast to time for, I would at least personally shoot in single shot mode as it allows me to give due consideration to the subject I'm shooting and choose a moment based on prior evolution of the events. ...
Thank you for commenting!
Something I've done for a long time is speed up my slow continues frame rate to something comfortable like 5 or 6 frames per second and then squeeze off single frames. If I want a series I can hold down the shutter release. I'm not comfortable leaving the decisive moment to chance at 5-8 fps. I hate to think about editing a series of 20 fps bursts. Squeezing off single frames in CL advance mode will remain the norm for me.
Dave
The fastest camera I've ever owned is 8 fps. I've had zero opertunities to shoot sports in the last few years. I wish I could shoot motor sports occasionally.
-
I note that the referred to test was done on a carpeted floor.
I can report that [at least some]mirrorless cameras have a low-vibration advantage over SLR:
If I set up my AF-S 300/4(with Kirk A-S collar) clamped into the RRS BH-55 head, on the Gitzo GT2531 tripod(a light-weight tripod) standing on a rigid floor or piece of ground, and then add the D800 camera in normal firing cycle, I get image destroying camera-shake in the well-known 'danger zone' shutter speeds(approx. 1/125 down to 2 sec or so).
If I engage mirror lock up on the D800, the vibration is reduced, but the image is still harmed by a small amount of camera-shake blurring.
If I then switch the camera to my Fuji XE-1(via Novoflex mount adapter), there is no image-destroying vibration on this setup. None. I can freely shoot at 1/30, 1/4, or any shutter speed and have zero camera-shake induced blurring.
This is great for those of us who do not have the budget for several thousand dollars worth of professional fluid head video tripod.
-
If one fills the buffer in a D500 how long does it take the D500 to write all to memory? Is shooting suspended for the duration or can one start shooting when there is enough buffer available to hold a file?
Dave Hartman
-
I see where you are coming from, but the measurement was done at the hot shoe. It should be done at the sensor.
I would be interested to see more measurements on recent cameras.
I don't follow your reasoning here.
It is not the mirror that is the primary vibrating mass. The mirror hits other stuff and causes waves to travel all over the camera, lens, and tripod legs (put your ear on a tripod leg while the mirror moves and you will hear a rather loud sound). The shutter by itself does not cause such a loud sound.
The mirror slap must have been recognized by Nikon as a source of vibrations. See Section 3 on this page:
http://www.nikon.com/news/2014/0626_dslr_01.htm (http://www.nikon.com/news/2014/0626_dslr_01.htm)
You have contradicted yourself. If "The mirror hits other stuff and causes waves to travel all over the camera" then measuring them at the hot shoe is perfectly reasonable. And, in the D200, the shutter does cause a louder sound than the mirror.
It is not in question that the mirror mechanism makes a noise, or that when you are doing macro photography or using long lenses and (in both cases) shutter speeds in the 1/15 - 1/30 sec range, there may be a benefit from using mirror lock-up. I say "may" because I have never seen an actual example, but I have only tested it with medium format film.
-
According to the review of Imaging Resource, the shutter lag of D200 is 57msec and that of D800 is 44msec. So, the shutter shock may occur before the vibration caused by the mirror settles. Nikon deliberately slowed the shutter lag of D810 (54-56msec, according to Imaging Resource) to slow down the mirror movement sequence and thus to reduce the shock.
Also, on D800, the direction of the vibration initiated by the shutter could be the same as that of the remaining vibration caused by the mirror, which could recover the vibration "effectively".
Reducing the shock by slowing the mirror is also called making the camera quieter, which has social advantages that are more often a reason to value it than the effects of vibration on images in unusual conditions.
And, sure, mirror and shutter vibrations could be additive, but if they were out of phase they could equally well interfere destructively.
-
Well, you said that mirror-induced blur is an urban myth. If you are trying to argue that this is true based on a single experiment and a (overly) big dose of extrapolation, you've lost me right there. Particularly since it is so easy to reproduce.
If I'm sitting here with my camera trying to get rid of mirror-induced shake, it does not help me that someone 'disproved' it on his camera and specific conditions he was testing in.
On a general note, in science it is very hard to be successful proving that certain phenomena don't exist. What you can do is falsify theories. You can take one of the specific examples where people report blur and where they think that it is because of the mirror movement, reproduce it, and then track down why the blur occurs. Maybe the theory about mirror-induced shake is wrong (in that example). You can prove that by showing measurements that exclude the mirror as a source of vibrations. But then you still have to offer alternative explanations of why the blur occurs. The linked D200 experiment does not achieve that because the conditions are very different from those in which people usually report mirror-induced problems.
Another way to put it: if you're saying that all mirror-induced vibrations will always die down just before the shutter opens, then this requires extraordinary evidence and a very detailed theoretical calculation to have merit, and you still haven't accounted for all the reported cases of camera shake where the mirror is a likely source.
It is nice that Ansel Adams did not have these problems, but we have progressed quite a bit in terms of how much resolution we pack onto relatively small sensors and demands for stability have increased as we are able to examine our shots as closely as never before.
-
Ansel Adams had to contend with wind and an 8x10" camera's ability to catch that wind or so I surmise.
Dave
-
A comment from the side line: the first time I used a "field camera", a rather light-weight Toyo 4x5" in the mountains I was amazed how susceptible it was to being buffeted by wind. Not one of the first 10 sheets came out adequately sharp. I later dropped the cherry-wood Toyo for an Arca F-line metal camera that was much more robust and the problems diminished, but did not vanish entirely.
-
If one fills the buffer in a D500 how long does it take the D500 to write all to memory? Is shooting suspended for the duration or can one start shooting when there is enough buffer available to hold a file?
I thought the D5 and D500 can write to G series Sony XQD cards faster than they can generate new data (14-bit lossless compressed NEF), so you should be able to shoot a 200-image burst at 12fps, take off your finger and immediately fire another. The 200 image limit is the last defence set in firmware, to prevent the camera from accidentally firing the shutter forever if the shutter button is squeezed in the bag, for example. With uncompressed NEFs or use of slower cards (CF or older XQD) you can run into a real memory limit sooner than reaching 200.
Edit: Correction: I found an imaging resource test which shows the D5 took only 183 14-bit lossless compressed NEFs in a burst before buffer full (the D500 managed 200 images):
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d5/nikon-d5A6.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d500/nikon-d500A6.HTM
They report a 5-second clearing time for the D5 buffer and 3 seconds for the D500. I wonder why this result differs from Nikon specifications in the manual for the D5; perhaps it is due to a different card type or the test subject. Imaging Resource used a Lexar Pro 2933x XQD 2.0 400MB/s flash card. This would suggest the camera isn't quite able to write as fast as it generates data on those cards tested.
I read practically realized write speeds around 270-290MB/s on the D5 (297MB/s for the D500):
https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/nikon-d5/fastest-xqd-cards/
https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/nikon-d500/sd-and-xqd-card-speed-test/
12 fps * 25MB typical lossless compressed 14-bi NEF size = 300MB/s so it is a little bit more data than the write speed realized. Today the fastest XQD cards have manufacturer reported write speeds of 390 or 400MB/s; the Sony G 2 series being a few percent faster than the Lexar tested above.
Anyway, I suspect the different results reported may be due to the differences in the image content which affect the file size a bit. So if one buys the fastest cards today one can expect 3-5 s clearing time after a 200-ish image burst of 14-bit lossless compressed NEFs with these cameras, or perhaps if one is lucky with the compression of the image and can get a full buffer with virtually no clearing time.
I'm sorry for writing the initial post's assumptions - I tried to be more comprehensive in my correction. I should probably now test this with my camera and cards. At least I can take a look at how much the compression affects file size for my typical subject matter.
-
Well, you said that mirror-induced blur is an urban myth. If you are trying to argue that this is true based on a single experiment and a (overly) big dose of extrapolation, you've lost me right there. Particularly since it is so easy to reproduce.
It is nice that Ansel Adams did not have these problems, but we have progressed quite a bit in terms of how much resolution we pack onto relatively small sensors and demands for stability have increased as we are able to examine our shots as closely as never before.
But it is not easy to reproduce. Here, eg, is a clever set-up which shows no effect of mirror lock-up on camera vibration (https://petapixel.com/2011/05/02/dslr-mirror-vibration-shown-using-a-laser-pointer/ - one interesting aspect is the title given to the piece, and the number of people making comments who assert there was an effect of mirror lock-up: people see what they expect, not what is in front of their eyes).
Of course the phenomenon of mirror vibration affecting images is real: here is an example where the image is sharper with mirror lock-up (http://www.discoverdigitalphotography.com/2015/what-are-mirror-slap-and-shutter-shock/), but it used a 300mm lens and 1/25 shutter speed - exactly when Ansel Adams said mirror lock-up made a difference.
Using a 300mm lens at 1/25 sec is hardly routine. What is an urban myth is the idea that mirror slap is routinely blurring images. Even where the effect can be seen, it is small - trivial, compared to the effect of pressing the shutter with your finger, let alone compared to hand-holding.
-
...
Using a 300mm lens at 1/25 sec is hardly routine.
Very routine if you are a nature photographer in the Nordic countries :D
What is an urban myth is the idea that mirror slap is routinely blurring images. Even where the effect can be seen, it is small - trivial, compared to the effect of pressing the shutter with your finger, let alone compared to hand-holding.
Agree that user-induced movement is a major cause of unsharpness, in particular with long lenses and slow shutter speeds. The so-called "long lens technique" (LLT) which advocates pushing down hard on your long lens in fact is well capable of destroying image sharpness, unless shutter speed is very fast. And in the latter case, even a poor method such as LLT has little impact on the final outcome.
-
Very routine if you are a nature photographer in the Nordic countries :D
I can confirm this. In the winter, in particular, if I'm shooting some landscape details just before sunrise, 1/25s sounds about right. :)
I was shooting with the 80-400 AF-S for a few months before becoming frustrated and trading it in. I could not achieve consistently sharp results until the shutter speed was about 1/250s or 1/320s even using the Kirk collar. This meant waiting for the sun to be above the horizon in practice, which gives a harder light. Of course one can rise the ISO but that won't give the best tonal quality.
EFCS helps quite a bit but at that time it wasn't available on any Nikon camera; the D810 came the next year. Wind can still ruin slow speed shots with long focal lengths of course, but at least it isn't constantly present.
If one uses long focal lengths for action, then the mirror and shutter vibrations are largely mitigated by the fast shutter speeds typically required to freeze the subject movement. However, I think long focal lengths can be very useful for landscape as well, if one can get around the vibration issue. I do believe wildlife photographers run into vibration issues from time to time with long focal lengths as many animals are out there to be photographed in quite dim light. Again shooting before sunrise and just after can give an interesting variety of lighting for the photographs.
-
Using a 300mm lens at 1/25 sec is hardly routine.
It is if you're trying to make shots like this:
-
A comment from the side line: the first time I used a "field camera", a rather light-weight Toyo 4x5" in the mountains I was amazed how susceptible it was to being buffeted by wind. Not one of the first 10 sheets came out adequately sharp. I later dropped the cherry-wood Toyo for an Arca F-line metal camera that was much more robust and the problems diminished, but did not vanish entirely.
Outdoors wind is the main problem for me. I can IR release and MUP but I cannot stop the object movement...
-
Outdoors wind is the main problem for me. I can IR release and MUP but I cannot stop the object movement...
If a low angle works and a tripod legs can be spread wide then not extending the lower legs of a tripod can help. I use a 7kg Bogen video tripod that way.
Dave Hartman
-
Tripod weight per se has no bearing at all on the issue of movement prevention. The mechanical coupling of the gear to the tripod does, however.
-
Interesting, but this has not much to do with the initial topic .... 😏
-
Yes and no. The discussion veered into the domain of vibration and stability.
Besides, the flow of a forum thread always has a certain Brownian aspect to it.
-
I'm certainly one who has "sinned" many times, by deviating from the initial subject 😉
-
We are more interested in content contribution than in sins committed ...
-
It is if you're trying to make shots like this:
Well, since our vision has low acuity under low light conditions, it is, from a photographic point of view, an open question whether the greatest possible sharpness is desirable for low light images.
Leaving that aside, the technical question is where vibration caused by mirror motion ranks on the list of things that might adversely affect an image taken with a 300mm lens at 1/25 sec: atmospheric conditions, your finger on the shutter, vibration from passing trucks, the fact that you have an A9 and the only 300mm lens for it is a slow 70-300 zoom, etc. The answer is "way down", but if everything else has been controlled and you feel you need to eliminate the effect of mirror motion, fine: the camera is, obviously, on a tripod so you use mirror lock-up if you have it or shutter delay if you don't.
The question is whether cameras that don't have a mirror have an advantage because they never have mirror slap. The answer is that they do not, because in any circumstances when mirror slap might have an effect - usual or unusual for an individual as those circumstances may be - it is trivially easy to eliminate it.
-
Well, since our vision has low acuity under low light conditions, it is, from a photographic point of view, an open question whether the greatest possible sharpness is desirable for low light images.
That is a very imprecise and hardly poignant description. Many of us live in countries where light levels are pretty low for long periods of the year. Yet we strive for sharp images low light or not, and can be highly successful for cases when vibrations external or internal to the camera/lens are under control. I said it before and it bears repeating, 1/25 sec is often a "fast" shutter speed as far as I am concerned.
-
My major sources to low speed blur are tripod instability (I dont have a quality tripod) and VR; for the latter see illustration below: the star trail starts with a hook when the VR is activated:
-
MFloyd, that looks more like you tripping the shutter than VR.
Why do you use VR when using a tripod?
-
Well, since our vision has low acuity under low light conditions, it is, from a photographic point of view, an open question whether the greatest possible sharpness is desirable for low light images.
I find a key factor in my interest in photography to be able to record something that our naked eyes can't quite see clearly. Anyway, this is such a common situation in landscape photography (for landscape, acceptable light quality often comes with penalty in brightness) that it would be quite limiting to not have some kind of facility to avoid mirror and shutter shake. If you don't need it you don't need it but where I live, those speeds are normal or a bit on the fast side (many now seem to use filters to get the exposure time to seconds, but I don't like the effect much, so I'll stick to my 1/25s thank you very much). "More often than not" rather than something unusual.
Leaving that aside, the technical question is where vibration caused by mirror motion ranks on the list of things that might adversely affect an image taken with a 300mm lens at 1/25 sec: atmospheric conditions, your finger on the shutter, vibration from passing trucks, the fact that you have an A9 and the only 300mm lens for it is a slow 70-300 zoom, etc. The answer is "way down", but if everything else has been controlled and you feel you need to eliminate the effect of mirror motion, fine: the camera is, obviously, on a tripod so you use mirror lock-up if you have it or shutter delay if you don't.
I don't find that to be correct. When photographing nature, one is typically not affected by passing trucks. Atmospherics can have an effect but all effects which reduce image sharpness are cumulative and I want to eliminate those that I can. The subject may not be so very far away, it could be a rock some 10 meters from shore, with beautiful ice formations that glows nicely in the pre-sunrise light. So in this distance atmospheric degradation isn't such a problem. Yes, almost all my shots that are of static subjects are taken on tripod, even if I can use a fast shutter speed for landscape (rare), since I want to precisely control the composition and use the lowest possible ISO, and stop down the lens. With a tele, hand held shots tend to vary greatly in composition from shot to shot due to the difficulty of holding it precisely fixed. So a tripod solves this problem and many others.
The question is whether cameras that don't have a mirror have an advantage because they never have mirror slap. The answer is that they do not, because in any circumstances when mirror slap might have an effect - usual or unusual for an individual as those circumstances may be - it is trivially easy to eliminate it.
It is easy to avoid it but there are some hoops one must go through to avoid mirror and shutter shake in Nikons. In the D810, EFCS is tied to the M-UP release mode and to get precise timing and avoid vibrations you have to use a remote release with it, and for a moment between the two button presses required, you lose both optical view and the LCD LV of the subject, so timing is based on viewing past the camera with one's eyes. Setting these things up can take a bit of time. For landscape and close-ups, I don't mind going through the hoops but if one is working on living subjects, and want to take advantage of vibration free shooting, there can be an issue. In the D5, LV + M-UP + EFCS can be combined behind a single press of the remote release button, though, but I don't know if it is genuinely delay free. Anyway, Nikon is introducing electronic shutter gradually in their cameras it seems and they're being very cautious about it. There can be rolling shutter effects and uneven exposure in some cases (with PC lenses when movements are used with fast shutter speed) and this may be why Nikon doesn't allow access to the electronic shutter without the hoops. They probably don't want us using it by accident and getting unexpected artifacts. I guess in future cameras we can expect easier to use variants of this feature.
Some users do claim that mirror and shutter vibration shooting does result in sharper hand held captures as well, e.g. dpreview staff wrote an article about it and they indicated that they were able to get better sharpness hand holding the D810 in M-UP mode with EFCS and just pressing twice than in normal shooting mode but of course there is the viewfinder blackout that makes this mode of operation impractical in that camera. Personally I am fine with the limitations of my DSLR setups (including the hoops one must pass through sometimes) and simply prefer to use a wide aperture and fast shutter speed to get a higher confidence of avoiding subject movement effects as well as camera shake - when the subject is of such a nature that it can move. And I love the optical viewfinder for photographing subjects that can, and do move.
-
Many of us live in countries where light levels are pretty low for long periods of the year. Yet we strive for sharp images low light or not, and can be highly successful for cases when vibrations external or internal to the camera/lens are under control.
My point was simply that MFloyd had not said why he cared about the sharpness of that image, and since our visual acuity is low in the dark, less sharp images of night scenes are generally perceived to have greater visual fidelity. Of course, that may not be the aim, but if it was the aim you wouldn't worry about mirror slap, would you?
If a photographer has photographic reasons for wanting an image as sharp as possible, fine. But she has to have reasons for that choice, just as she has to have reasons to choose colour or B&W, or print on matte paper or gloss. The point is to not make sharpness a fetish whose value is independent of the role it may play in helping the particular image convey its meaning. As Ansel Adams said "... there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept" (The Camera, p73).
-
Sorry, I don't follow your train of thoughts at all. Night images in fact can be perceptibly *sharper* because light is less "white". A fact that has been well known among nature photographers for a long time.
However, I agree that sharpness on its own, without other aspects of the image bring taken into consideration, is not tremendously important. Nevertheless, if it is deemed necessary, there is no reason the photographer shouldn't get sharp images no matter what shutter speed is used. it is all a matter of proper support.
-
Tripod weight per se has no bearing at all on the issue of movement prevention. The mechanical coupling of the gear to the tripod does, however.
I can't agree with this at all. Mass equals inertia. A balance needs to be achieved. Even air has mass and when it's moving it can move objects. If air had no mass it could not move a feather. A light tripod is a smart breeze will almost certainly move some.
Now what I'm talking about is lowering the center of gravity. Giving the wind less to catch. Now is the lens is light and long and the hood catches the wind you'll likely have movement. That depends on various things including the lens tripod collar if it's a telephoto with one. If it's a camera body a tight fitting L-bracket will help greatly. For a tripod head I'm using a Sinar 2-way pan-tilt head designed for or as a part of an 8x10" camera.
Even my somewhat flimsy Bogen 3021 tripod is more steady when it's lowered, the last leg sections are not used (they flex, they are "squishy").
I bought the heavy Bogen video tripod because the light and rigged Linhof Expert Twin Shank Profile Tripod, 003317 Tripod is too light to hold a 4x5" monorail tripod when it's pointing down at say a 45 degree angle. It almost toppled forward once but I caught the camera. The tripod head is a 2-way pan-tilt Linhof Prof. Panhead II, 003618. I don't like that head. The tilt locks very nicely but the pan lock creeps and I think allows movement. Maybe I'll modify it for a monopod as a pan movement isn't needed.
Anyway the weight of a tripod is a factor and it does matter particularly in a smart breeze.
Dave Hartman
-
MFloyd, that looks more like you tripping the shutter than VR.
Why do you use VR when using a tripod?
Jakov, this was just a small test, to see when triggering the AF (and the VR) there was some impact. I have the same image without VR. Short test, for my own, and of which I do not guarantee its scientific thoroughness.
-
"Anyway the weight of a tripod is a factor and it does matter particularly in a smart breeze. "
Put your camera directly onto the ground. Cannot have a more massive support ... or lower centre of gravity ... Yet the issue of camera vibration is not solved at all.
By the way, even my most massive Sachtler weighs only 4 kg. Yet it readily supports a 1200 mm lens at very slow speeds provided a fluid head is put into use. My travel Sachtler weighs about 1 kg, yet I have shot 800 mm lenses on it.
-
The issue at hand is the unwanted movement of the picture recording apparatus, a problem magnified (ha ha) by the use of lenses with a relatively narrow field of view.
There seems to be a question about the relative importance of large mass and it's accompanying inertia acting to restrain/minimize/slow down movement, versus structural rigidity and it's accompanying prevention of movement.
It seems to me that, if possible, it would be better to prevent movement than merely reduce it.
-Keith B. who is saving for a Sachtler.
-
David, you make some valid theoretical arguments. It seems the point Bjørn is making however is that good design and manufacturing is of equal if not more importance in tripod stability than weight alone.
You're flimsy Bogen is more stable when lowered not only because of the lower center of gravity but also because of the lower level of design and quality of parts/tolerances used to manufacture it.
-
The issue at hand is the unwanted movement of the picture recording apparatus, a problem magnified (ha ha) by the use of lenses with a relatively narrow field of view.
There seems to be a question about the relative importance of large mass and it's accompanying inertia acting to restrain/minimize/slow down movement, versus structural rigidity and it's accompanying prevention of movement.
If you apply a force to an object (ie, hit it) you make it vibrate (ie, you make a noise). The loudness of the noise is less if the material the object is made from is stiffer, but is unrelated to the mass of the object. The frequency of the noise is reduced by both more stiffness and more mass (you can test this by walking around the house tapping solid wooden objects: the heavier they are the lower the pitch but the loudness is the same, but if you tap a metal object and a wooden one of the same weight the sound of the metal one is both softer and lower pitched). The speed with which the vibrations decay is also less if the material is stiffer and if the object is heavier.
If you put your camera on a tripod you are increasing the mass, if the camera and the tripod are connected tightly enough to form a single mass. If you have a relatively expensive camera you are probably not increasing the stiffness, because the camera and the tripod are made of the same sort of stuff. So, on a tripod the shutter sound should be distinctly lower in pitch, and shorter - often heard as "crisper" - but will not be softer.
Effective mass coupling between the camera and the tripod is not easy to achieve, and a lot of camera gear seems to be designed to make it harder - eg, the quick-release plates with a sheet of rubber on the top. If your camera does not have a distinctly lower pitched shutter sound on your current tripod you may need a better quick-release plate, not a better tripod. For the same reason a camera with a metal or carbon fibre frame and one that is tightly assembled will have a lower pitched and crisper shutter sound than one that has a plastic frame or is poorly assembled (like the doors on an expensive car).
-
Some people are reporting overheat and banding issues with the A9. Here, one of the reports http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-sony-a9-overheating-issue-report/