NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: tommiejeep on July 03, 2015, 06:53:41
-
:(
I've been watching the newly announced Sony sensors on the a7RII and RX100 IV. No, I will not be buying an a7RII ;) but just a couple of question given Nikon's use of Sony Sensors.
1. What would be the chances of Nikon finally coming out with a full frame mirrorless using this type of sensor ? Interesting write up about the AF of the new sensors on Dpr.
2. Does the new breed of Nikkor 'E' lenses make it any easier to design a mirrorless body using the F-mount 'E' lenses ?
I buy and use cameras for what they will let me do but really do not pay much attention to the engineering .
I do answer to Stupid when it fits :)
Cheers,
Tom
-
Nikon do not necessarily use Sony sensors and even when they do, the designs are modified to specification. Thus, it is all right to ask, but your question(s) are well-nigh impossible to answer with any authority.
On the "E" lens technology, it eliminates a mechanical interface and thus is cheaper and easier to implement *if* you don't need to pay any attention to backwards compatibility. Nikon are unlikely to forego such compatibility with their top cameras as this has been a hallmark for decades, but for any entirely different camera concept, maybe they are.
However, any change to the current register distance of 46.50 mm will necessitate new optical designs.
Finally, DPreview is hardly the place for the most reliable information.
-
I feel that this site has some valuable information on sensors: http://sensorgen.info/
I think the best thing about a mirrorless design is the reduced flange back distance (=register distance). The Sony Alpha7-Series has 18mm compared to 46,5mm in the Nikon F-designs.
This allows for smaller powerful lens designs or the use of Leica "M"-optics.
-
Nikon do not necessarily use Sony sensors and even when they do, the designs are modified to specification. Thus, it is all right to ask, but your question(s) are well-nigh impossible to answer with any authority.
I've always preferred the images coming out of the D700, D3S and Df to the rest of my Nikons although I still very much like the images coming from the D200 at ISO 100.
[/quote] On the "E" lens technology, it eliminates a mechanical interface and thus is cheaper and easier to implement *if* you don't need to pay any attention to backwards compatibility. Nikon are unlikely to forego such compatibility with their top cameras as this has been a hallmark for decades, but for any entirely different camera concept, maybe they are.[/quote]
[/quote] However, any change to the current register distance of 46.50 mm will necessitate new optical designs. [/quote]
That I do understand but if a TC1.4 gives excellent results , meters correctly and AFs in all modes, why not an FT-Fx that can do the same?
[/quote]Finally, DPreview is hardly the place for the most reliable information. [/quote]
Agree :)
I am old and really enjoy my gear but my 14 year-old , who has been shooting all of my gear since he was 9(and cameras since he was 5), has no interest in the Nikons any more. He is a pretty good Photographer, better than I am, and he has great results from his smartphone, GoPro and EM5. At the moment there is nothing from Nikon that gets him enthusiastic. He can take the his D300/D7100 out with his afs 80-400vr and get very good wildlife images and he will still shoot the 500vr with the D300s when I can get him to come out. He is the future of photography sales not me.
I think Nikon really needs to come out of the Box . Quite a few of us were excited when the D750 Ads first appeared ;) , I very much enjoy shooting it but it did not live up to the Ads >:( .
Keep producing cameras for the F-mount ( a Df2 springs to mind :) ) but the Nikon 1 just did not keep pace. Imaging and multi-media is changing just too fast for Nikon at the moment.
whoops, sorry I messed up the quotes
Tom
-
Frank, many thanks for that link, which I had never seen, bookmarked :)
You are right on the flange. I was just checking out some images taken with a NOVOFLEX adapter using the 55 1.2 Ais and the a7r. The new Nikon 300vr is pretty darn small and light when I compare to my Olympus 40-150 2.8 :)
Tom
-
...
I think the best thing about a mirrorless design is the reduced flange back distance (=register distance). The Sony Alpha7-Series has 18mm compared to 46,5mm in the Nikon F-designs.
This allows for smaller powerful lens designs or the use of Leica "M"-optics.
That is not the case for many lenses, the Sony A7 series has huge problems when it comes to Leica M lenses, except for the A7s that does a little better than the rest.
The nice lenses for Sony A, for instance Zeiss are the same size exactly as the AFS Nikon F mount versions just take 35mm 1.4
-
1. What would be the chances of Nikon finally coming out with a full frame mirrorless using this type of sensor ? Interesting write up about the AF of the new sensors on Dpr.
Apparently Canon is planning to release a full frame mirrorless camera this year, if so Nikon can not afford to stay behind.
-
Erik. Of course the theoretical advantage does not necessarily translate into a practical advantage.
1. If designs are simply recycled from a long flange system
2. If the manufacturer does not invest in new designs.
3. I know one Leica shooter who uses his M-lenses with the7II iirc and claims better results than with his Digital M body. I will ask him wich lenses he uses
-
Things aren't simple.
At the present state of digital photography, lenses with a *long* flange distance (register) actually are far better suited than those with a very short register. The issue can be circumvented, but again with current technology, the components should form a closed feedback loop so are required to communicate freely. That effectively rule out a lot of third-party and non-native lenses.
-
Erik. Of course the theoretical advantage does not necessarily translate into a practical advantage.
1. If designs are simply recycled from a long flange system
2. If the manufacturer does not invest in new designs.
3. I know one Leica shooter who uses his M-lenses with the7II iirc and claims better results than with his Digital M body. I will ask him wich lenses heuses
I don't believe this is backed up by facts or theory!!!
I believe you are completely wrong in your statements regarding this - On other sites I have participated in conversations with people that are fascinated by the new possibilities of short flange distance and the urban myths of mirror less is spread widely.
I have some answers for your 3 statements below:
1. I wouldn't call the new Zeiss 35mm 1.4 E mount for Sony A7 a recycled design... Nobody recycles lens design currently it was a thing of the past Voigtlander 90mm 3.5 12mm and 15mm and the fantastic Nikkor 105mm 2.5 was even converted the other way around :) But this has no bearing today...
2. The New Leica M lenses are made for Leica M cameras and Voigtlander the same 15mm for instance and also now Zeiss is trying with for instance 35mm 1.4 Both for Leica M
3. Sony A7 II and 7s can use the standard and long focal length lenses and get away with it. But for sure not the wide angles!
If you try to borrow his camera and look through the viewfinder you will se that the focus peaking is indicating more or less the whole frame as in focus, anyone with just a little knowledge of shooting wide angle lenses on Leica M digital cameras know that the depth of sharpness is very narrow! Even 24mm 3.8 is completely unusable on Sony A unless you hide or mask this by stopping down even then you will fight smearing at corners... at 28mm and below
Leica M is designed as a system.
And some lens manufacturers are designing lenses for that system Voigtlander, Zeiss and Japan Optical that is more or less that, back wards compatibility is somewhat troubled due to sensors...
Zeiss 35mm 1.4 for Leica M is larger than the optical performance and IQ identical Leica M 35mm 1.4...
Sony A7 et all is designed as a system.
And some lens manufacturers are designing lenses for that system and the good and fast lenses are identical in size and weight to the AFS lenses of for instance Nikon F!!!
The Zeiss 35mm 1.4 Sony E mount for A7 is proof of this. A super nice lens BTW!!!
I know that it is hard to swallow but there is no way getting around this!
Mirror less is fine if you want a small well performing package to shoot street, action, safari, travel, kids, events and generally have fun that is fine but you could just as well select a DX camera and a DX lens size and weight.
Leica M is and will always be for the wealthy purists enjoying a collective Stem Punk dream :)
But if you need that special close up shot with small dof and details popping out on a large wall print or double spread or fast action and precision and ease in getting just the right moment .... well... then I see big lenses... I see big lenses at all sports games and at news events also...
Yes they probably have a Fuji x t1 or the like in the bag or over the shoulder as well as a supplement... I think we all do that now :)
But thinking that the DSLR is going to be obsolete soon is a mistake IMHO
Sure we all would love to see new EVF full frame cameras from Canon and Nikon ASAP - and they will come for sure! Hopefully they will have same mechanical/functionality quality and size as Leica M and surpass the IQ as well. However then they will be as heavy as the Leica M so similar to a Df...
-
Pity it is seems to be impossible to loose weight on lenses unless
a) no af
b) no vr
c) largest f=4
d) PF on tele
e) small chip size like m43
Is there a good physicist's explanation for this?
-
It is possible if you give up correction of aberrations. The number of elements has increased considerably, not only because of AF or VR. See Zeiss WA for sure.
-
A natural explanation why m43 lenses often are smaller is that their focal lengths are shorter as well. Thus, a 300 mm f/2.8 for m43 would be the same size as for DX/FX, simply because the entrance pupil is so large (~105 mm).
-
Pity it is seems to be impossible to loose weight on lenses unless
a) no af
b) no vr
c) largest f=4
d) PF on tele
e) small chip size like m43
Is there a good physicist's explanation for this?
c) Plenty of small very light wight Leica M lenses in full frame that are tiny and f/1.4 f/2.0 etc.?
-
Erik. Why is that so? And why should it not be possible on a Sony?
-
Mirrorless have one huge advantage over DSLRs - manufacture costs. As soon as they catch up with DSLRs in AF , the laws of economics will make it very difficult for DSLRs to compete. It is cheaper to manufacture a mirrorless camera of the same class, and it is cheaper to manufacture a similar lense for a mirrorless camera. Whatever way you look at DSLR, regardless of how much you admire it, it is still a XX century film camera with a sensor stuck into it.
-
Nobody denies mirrorless cameras might be simpler and hence less expensive to produce. Still quite moot as long as their finder(s) are problematic. EVFs are getting better, though. And handling any camera outside the envelope the manufacturer envisioned, for example, in cold weather, often finds a bigger camera better. Try using gloves or mittens when shooting to illustrate this aspect.
" it is cheaper to manufacture a similar lense for a mirrorless camera" - not necessarily true. For some lenses, probably the opposite.
These DSLR/Mirrorless discussions really lead nowhere. We cannot predict the future. Digital photography is still in its infancy. Really the current state of the digital art is like film-based photography 100+ years ago.
Besides, 100-150 years ago, people used the gear at hand to make great images. The same is possible today no matter what technology or format one uses. Much better use of time than discussing which system is old-fashioned or not.
-
Erik. Why is that so? And why should it not be possible on a Sony?
It is definitely possible with/on a Sony but for several reasons it's an unlikely route for Sony and for third party lens designers.
Price, the Leica M lenses are super expensive, around three times that of Zeiss. The cost goes to cover the Leica M philosophy; Range Finder, simple to use, very compact, discrete and super high image quality also a more or less manual production line... designing and actually being able to produce in small series, lenses with floating elements that small and with so tight tolerances is no easy task...
The lens and camera/sensor is an integral designed part for Leica, the micro lenses, extremely thin sensor cover glass...
These are also why they keep getting into trouble.
M8 IR issues, M9 sensor cover glass corrosion etc...
But apparently Leica gets away with it despite the prices and the hick ups...
Sony is aiming at super high technology with all the bells and whistles; super auto focus, WiFi, tons of special functionality in the menus, etc... sure they want compact but not that small... and not at the price
Zeiss aim for super high image quality, but are not able to cut the size and weight at the price level they are on, to be competitive with the original manufacturer prices...
-
Mirrorless have one huge advantage over DSLRs - manufacture costs. As soon as they catch up with DSLRs in AF , the laws of economics will make it very difficult for DSLRs to compete. It is cheaper to manufacture a mirrorless camera of the same class, and it is cheaper to manufacture a similar lense for a mirrorless camera. Whatever way you look at DSLR, regardless of how much you admire it, it is still a XX century film camera with a sensor stuck into it.
Sorry you miss the point completely! We are not preaching here! :)
It has very little to do with cost of manufacturing or AF catching up...
It's about over all usability!
If an EVS system comes along that is better or equal to an OVF we will see a change but so what...
Why is it you think the world is DSLR vs Mirrorless? - They live superbly side by side already ::)
-
Besides, 100-150 years ago, people used the gear at hand to make great images. The same is possible today no matter what technology or format one uses. Much better use of time than discussing which system is old-fashioned or not.
I rarely talk about cameras and do not understand much about it. I do not like just two things - darkroom and big heavy bodies/lenses. Other than that I do not mind shooting with whatever Is at hand.
-
Sometimes having a heavy camera is an advantage. Sometimes having a heavy lens is an advantage. Sometimes the previous is the opposite thus showing the fallacy of blanket statements.
-
... Other than that I do not mind shooting with whatever Is at hand.
Then you have found the right site to join :)
We will shoot with anything here! :)
-
Erik. Thank you.
The Otus series shows that Zeiss can get away with Leica Style pricing. Yet they did not manage to make the lenses
small. For Fuji X the Zeiss lenses are much smaller.
then we have exceptional small AF glass from Olympus like the 75 Zuiko. You say longer focal lengths are no problem though.
also the 40 to 150 pro Zuiko can obviouly fulfil highest expextations.
there was a time when Oly was one of the best lens manufacturers in the 24x36 qmm world also in wide angles like the famous 3.5/21 Zuiko.
They were not cheap but they were able to compete with Leica in quality without the exorbitant price tag
-
Sometimes having a heavy camera is an advantage. Sometimes having a heavy lens is an advantage. Sometimes the previous is the opposite thus showing the fallacy of blanket statements.
Where did I state that heavy camera is always a disadvantage??? I am just saying that I DO NOT LIKE heavy cameras and lenses. Please read again carefully before jumping to accusations.
I just wrote one post about cameras here and was accused of preaching, of "seeing the world as Mirrorless against DSLRs"( I doubt you know how I see the world), of "showing the fallacy of blanket statements" and talking about cameras too much instead of going out and shooting.
Oh, thank you very much.
I have my opinions, my preferences and my shooting style, and it looks like I better keep it under wraps on this forum. Thank you.
-
Nobody has accused you of anything. Please read the posts again. I commented on a general level.
To be more specific, NG is supposed to be a forum in which people can disagree violently, yet still be friends. There is no need for everybody to march unison in one direction as it were.
-
Sometimes having a heavy camera is an advantage. Sometimes having a heavy lens is an advantage. Sometimes the previous is the opposite thus showing the fallacy of blanket statements.
Where did I state that heavy camera is always a disadvantage??? I am just saying that I DO NOT LIKE heavy cameras and lenses. Please read again carefully before jumping to accusations.
I just wrote one post about cameras here and was accused of preaching, of "seeing the world as Mirrorless against DSLRs"( I doubt you know how I see the world), of "showing the fallacy of blanket statements" and talking about cameras too much instead of going out and shooting.
Oh, thank you very much.
I have my opinions, my preferences and my shooting style, and it looks like I better keep it under wraps on this forum. Thank you.
Sorry you miss the point completely! We are not preaching here! :)
It has very little to do with cost of manufacturing or AF catching up...
It's about over all usability!
If an EVS system comes along that is better or equal to an OVF we will see a change but so what...
Why is it you think the world is DSLR vs Mirrorless? - They live superbly side by side already ::)
Please re read what I wrote! : We are not preaching here! :) as in: I am not and I know that neither is Bjørn!
It was not an acquisition meant at you!
-
Erik. Thank you.
The Otus series shows that Zeiss can get away with Leica Style pricing. Yet they did not manage to make the lenses
small. For Fuji X the Zeiss lenses are much smaller.
then we have exceptional small AF glass from Olympus like the 75 Zuiko. You say longer focal lengths are no problem though.
also the 40 to 150 pro Zuiko can obviouly fulfil highest expextations.
there was a time when Oly was one of the best lens manufacturers in the 24x36 qmm world also in wide angles like the famous 3.5/21 Zuiko.
They were not cheap but they were able to compete with Leica in quality without the exorbitant price tag
Yes the new Zeiss Otus approach Leica prices... SLR not short focal length...
The old OM lenses was/are similar in size to Nikkor F-mount lenses and yes before digital many of them where highly regarded on film... SLR not short focal length...
Should we try to write up an 'Executive summary'?....
-
I feel it is not easy to understand complex matter that justifies a FAQ.
Erik. Feature Request. FAQ section on technicalities like these.
Also an article on formats and empty magnification by the fiercebear.
PS. Some claim the Zuiko OM Film optics are still very good on Digital bodies
-
I occasionally use a Olympus OM 28/3.5 and Shift 35/2.8 on my Nikons. Both are very good, but a little lacking in getting top marks in their respective class. Still more than nice enough for their intended purpose.
-
Interesting take on quality vs size (particularly lens size) from Fuji
http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/
For what I shoot (fast action) and how I shoot , I cannot see myself giving up my DSLRs anytime soon. I really cannot live with the EVF at the moment. Probably not in my lifetime ;) . What I do like about the better EVFs, for certain types of shooting, I seeing my setting adjustments to the image in real time.
I still think that Nikon needs to compete. Biggest waste of time for me is Nikon continuing to try and compete in Video. Several other manufacturers are miles ahead. Offer vid on consumer/entry levels but not on all high end bodies. I can buy a great , small, high performance video camera for relatively little money.
Just my 2 rupees,
Tom
ps Quite some time back I posted a size weight comparison of my gripped EM1,12-40 2.8 vs my D7100, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 |C on a well known Mirrorless Forum and had one reply . Not what they wanted to see ;)
-
That interview was certainly interesting, more for the attitude of the journalist than the confusing statements given as answers. Fortunately, the Fuji X system does well on its own and doesn't need that kind of support...
-
:)