NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on April 09, 2018, 22:09:55
-
IMO, one of the most brilliant concepts Sigma Corporation has is their Mount Conversion Service (https://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/mount-conversion-service)—where, basically, if you decide to switch brands (e.g., from Canon to Nikon), you don't have to sell your lens at all—instead, you can pay Sigma a nominal fee ($100 to $380), and they will simply change the mount of your lens to the mount of the another manufacturer.
I think Nikon could learn from this innovative/adaptable perspective as a means by which to handle the pending shift from conventional DSLRs into the mirrorless era.
If you have read the latest DP Review Article, The Reign of the DSLR is Almost Over (https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/5014039475/cp-2018-interviews-the-reign-of-the-dslr-is-almost-over), the most important single sentence out of the 1826-word piece is this:
- It’s hard to imagine, for example, how much more advanced Nikon’s DSLR platform can get, following the release of the D5 and D850.
(However,) At a certain point, the mirror and prism will become barriers to further innovation, and if we haven't reached that point already, surely we must be getting close?
As a companion, it is important to realize the following two truths:
- Third party high-end vendors Voigtländer and Zeiss are all targeting mirrorless with their future endeavors.
- From a long-term perspective, 'cameras' really don't matter; lenses are what truly matter, from an investment perspective.
That said, one of the greatest trepidations I have about buying any more 'Nikon glass' is where will its relevance be in 2 years? :o
Will I be stuck with a 'dead end'? Or will there be some way to adapt it to the future ... and do I really want 'an adapter,' even if it's available? :-\
IMO Nikon's greatest move toward the future would be to offer a Lens Mount Conversion Service, for their existing customers, to help them transition into the new era. Physically-altering the mount is a superior solution to an 'adapter,' at a roughly-equivalent price point. Not to mention that the knowledge of this being available would make purchasing existing AF lens choices more secure for newer customers.
In keeping with the above, on advantage Nikon has (that newbies Sony/Fuji don't have), is Nikon already has the lens designs to far more elite glass than any of these companies do, and by a country mile.
It will be far easier for Nikon to utilize these same formulas, and merely re-design their existing lens mounts to be mirrorless, than it will be for the Sonys/Fujis to come up with as many brand-new, totally-fresh lens developments as to what Nikon has already ;)
Thoughts?
-
my two cents:
I see a lot of current high performance glass is heavy.
I see many of the mirrorless cameras are light.
I see the combined systems as ergonomic nonsense.
I see a heavy Nikon with heavy glass makes a lot of sense ergonomically as a light Leica with light glass does.
What if someone starts to design handling around the lens, camera only as an appendix to the lens system?
I imagine a break out box from the chip holder attached to the lens collar residing in the center of gravity. The center of gravity of the whole system has all knobs, dials and levers plus a high res video finder. No I did not patent this but noone can follwing this post.
Just food for thought thrown to the design folks
-
It's not really about 'lightness' or 'heaviness'; it's about the mirror itself being an impediment to technology.
Remove the mirror; you change the dynamics of how the lens mount is created.
Change how the lens mount is created, you create a compatibility dilemma for legacy glass.
MF lenses are easy to adapt, so no problem there.
It's the future of DSLR AF glass ... what do you do with it ... after the world goes mirrorless within 2 years?
Your choices will be limited to the following 4 alternatives:
Keep all your existing lenses, and keep your DSLR, until death do you part (or malfunction separates you);
Keep your lenses, and buy awkward adapters, and accept a minor impediment (and decreased lens value) as mirrorless becomes the norm and your lenses get more-and-more obsolete;
Dump all your lenses, take the financial loss, and re-build again from scratch ...
or ...
Pay for a lens-mount-change, factory direct, keep your existing glass, and pay a nominal charge to bring them up to speed with the new mirrorless bodies.
To me, the last option seems best.
-
I am an old horse. With everyone jumping the mirrorless train I catch the fallout of cheap D850, D500 and D5 to accomodate my glass or any glass I might still be able to buy.
If I get the mount converted will I be happy to attach a 350 Gramm camera to a lens double or triple its weight? no.
I will buy a system with light cameras a light glass if finally I see a convincing electronic view finder with no drive by wire focussing.
So: If Nikon manages to design an ergonomic mirrorless system with light cameras, light glass, an EVF that satisfies my eyes and no drive by wire I will buy cameras and glass from them. If not I stay with what I have got. More than happy with that!
-
I am an old horse. With everyone jumping the mirrorless train I catch the fallout of cheap D850, D500 and D5 to accomodate my glass or any glass I might still be able to buy.
Why would you buy a cheap D850/D500, when you already own them?
I fear you're missing the point.
My point is about future lens investment ... right now ... at the looming dawn of the crossover ... not "being happy with what you already have."
I will buy a system with light cameras a light glass if finally I see a convincing electronic view finder with no drive by wire focussing.
So: If Nikon manages to design an ergonomic mirrorless system with light cameras, light glass, an EVF that satisfies my eyes and no drive by wire I will buy cameras and glass from them. If not I stay with what I have got. More than happy with that!
I am getting the idea that Nikon's D5/D850/D500 were "the last great stand" of the DSLR ... marvelous cameras ... but that the lenses that they need (particularly AF) are going to go the way of the DoDo (particularly the D and G dinosaurs, with manual diaphragms).
I dumped my 300 f/2.8G VR II for two main reasons: 1) not ergonomically-friendly, and 2) the dinosaur design, unfit for the pending modern era.
I only have ONE "E" LENS (300 PF) ... but I was going to invest in some others ... but I am not sure I want to do that right now.
Everything else I have is MF and I am not worried about those.
It's buying new Nikkor AF lenses that I am worried about ...
I don't want to buy a 600mm f/4E, for example, only to find out Nikon puts all DSLRs to pasture next year ... and comes out with a new mirrorless line, radically-changing the mount :-\ :o
Even if adapters are offered, I also really don't want 'adapters,' when all is said and done ::)
On the other hand, if there were some sign, some indication, that Nikon could convert its modern E mount to its new mirrorless mount, keeping the usefulness of my recent E lens investments, then I would be more willing to pick up a few more E lenses during the interim, while we wait for the future to unfold.
Yes, I too am happy with what I have right now, D810/D500, and lots of nice MF (Zeiss/CV) glass + one E lens (300 PF) ... but that's not my point.
My point is, I think I am done buying anything else, until I know what Nikon's intended future model is, and how/if current items can/not be adapted/changed into them.
Hope this makes sense ...
-
Hi all.
" mirror and prism will become barriers to further innovation"
I am not sure that further innovation is necessary though the returns are sure to continue to diminish.
I can take beautiful pictures of birds in flight and landscapes that can be printed as large as anyone would reasonably want. My long glass (400 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/4) doesn't even have VR nor do I intend to pay for more modern glass. Now that I have two D500s and a D810, I can't see what a mirrorless camera would do for me that I can't already do.
JIM
-
there is no need for that because the new camera will be F-mount compatible via adapters :o :o :o but it will not be cheap ::)
-
Thom Hogan has written about the mount options for a new Nikon Mirrorless camera http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-mirrorless-prisoners.html (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-mirrorless-prisoners.html) and concludes:
"But one thing is pretty clear from the above: Nikon has to choose to use the existing F-mount for full frame or they strongly risk losing the number two ILC market share."
But the 46.5mm lens mount register is awkward for a mirrorless system, especially for compact wide lenses. And it has a lot of compromises along the way as Nikon shoehorned AI, AF, AF-S, VR and E into the original F mount. I think they are better making a clean break, with a modern properly designed mount much as Canon did with the EOS lens system in 1987. Recent patents suggest they are going down this path. As long as they make an adapter which works well and is not too expensive, photographers can continue to seamlessly use their existing glass. I imagine the adapter would support AF-S, VR and E, hopefully also AI, but not older screw-drive AF - unless they can squeeze an AF motor inside the adapter! :o
-
During the last couple of months, I have tried everything worthwhile in the mirrorless world (Leica, Sony, Fuji)... I don’t see, for the medium term, any mirrorless camera replacing the high end DSLRs. If the former is the new need, demanded by the market, these will have to live side by side.
-
it's about the mirror itself being an impediment to technology.
Remove the mirror; you change the dynamics of how the lens mount is created.
What exactly do you mean by "the dynamics of how the lens mount is created"? What technology is the mirror an impediment to?
We know what DPR means by saying that the mirror and prism will become "barriers to further innovation", because they tell us: "It's hard to argue with Mr. Tanaka of Sony that "if cameras are going to develop […] manufacturers have to develop mirrorless technologies". Consider features like face / eye-detection AF, full-frame autofocus coverage and 4K video". That's it? Those are the "innovations" we are being deprived of? Or is it the ability to turn your face into an emoji (I saw this in a phone ad while I was watching Paris-Roubaix, but I am only guessing that is what Barnaby Britton means by "clever computational tricks")?
Thom Hogan is right about one thing (at least): camera companies need to find a way to persuade people to buy new cameras. That is what DPR is trying to do, because they are in the business of selling cameras. DPR is not banging the mirrorless drum because there is a problem with the SLR design, but because persuading all dSLR owners that they have to switch to mirrorless is the only way the camera industry can get near to the sales volumes of 15 years ago, when everyone all at once had to buy a digital camera. Having failed with promoting imaginary advantages of existing features (face-detect AF, FCOL), they have turned to claiming that SLRs are doomed to disappear because of entirely imaginary technologies. They must think we are idiots.
-
--- They must think we are idiots.
Apparently, this is the universal business model of our times.
-
But the 46.5mm lens mount register is awkward for a mirrorless system, especially for compact wide lenses.
That is true, in that wide-angle lenses have to be retrofocus designs. However, mirrorless cameras with smaller-than-36 x 24 sensors also need retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses. The MFT mount is practically equivalent to the F-mount in this respect, and an APS-C mirrorless camera with a 20mm flange focal distance avoids a retrofocus design for only one of the traditional focal lengths - a 35mm equivalent. Even for an FX mirrorless sensor camera, only wide angle primes benefit: a 14-24 zoom still has to be retrofocus over the majority of its range.
Digital sensors do not like oblique light, because they are made up of wells. The longer flange focal distance required by the mirror turns out to be exactly what digital sensors need, and it would be seriously bad if Nikon used a short flange focal distance mount for its mirrorless camera. The short flange focal distances of current mirrorless designs have the disadvantage of creating severe peripheral light fall-off and a tendency for peripheral colour shift. The light fall-off is mitigated by designing severe barrel distortion into the lenses, but then you either tolerate the light fall-off and distortion or you correct them, and either way image quality suffers.
-
I do not see any mirrorless that makes sense to me ergonomically, except for the Leica M digital (OVF!)
If Nikon manages to make one I will buy it and I will sure not attach huge & bulky DSLR glass to it, but small and light new glass that integrates into the ergonomic design.
I have yet to see one EVF that makes sense to me, the best I have tried so far is the X Pro 2 by Fujifilm, but drive by wire manual focussing kills the system for me. AF-S is the better design by a long shot.
-
,,,,
Digital sensors do not like oblique light, because they are made up of wells. The longer flange focal distance required by the mirror turns out to be exactly what digital sensors need, and it would be seriously bad if Nikon used a short flange focal distance mount for its mirrorless camera. The short flange focal distances of current mirrorless designs have the disadvantage of creating severe peripheral light fall-off and a tendency for peripheral colour shift. The light fall-off is mitigated by designing severe barrel distortion into the lenses, but then you either tolerate the light fall-off and distortion or you correct them, and either way image quality suffers.
I agree, this has always been a key point for image sensors. I clearly remember the battle with this back when I got the D1
Leica has take this to the extreme in order for their lenses to work as best as possible, yet several of their older lens designs are useless on their Digital series of Leica M cameras.
-
I do not see any mirrorless that makes sense to me ergonomically, except for the Leica M digital (OVF!)
If Nikon manages to make one I will buy it and I will sure not attach huge & bulky DSLR glass to it, but small and light new glass that integrates into the ergonomic design.
It is not only for ergonomic reasons that you won't be using your SLR lenses. One "advantage" of the rangefinder design is that it saves you buying a lot of lenses because it can't use anything wider than 28mm (without a special viewfinder) or longer than 135mm, and it can't use macro lenses because of parallax.
-
I do not see any mirrorless that makes sense to me ergonomically, except for the Leica M digital (OVF!)
I'm with you, Frank. I handled a couple of mirrorless cameras and they felt very cramped. The lenses are not significantly smaller than some of the offerings for DSLRs. Then there is the electronic viewfinder.....
A Leica would work for me, too, but my wallet says "no." :P
Our hands are a certain size and therefore cameras need to be a certain size. So I'm not sure what problem mirrorless cameras are trying to solve except to be different.
-
Our hands are a certain size and therefore cameras need to be a certain size. So I'm not sure what problem mirrorless cameras are trying to solve except to be different.
This is serious & funny at the same time. I really love it!
-
A most interesting thread. Stimulating. It is clear the camera companies have made their decision, but DSLRs will persist for many years. As suggested in an active thread on DPR, DSLRs are analogous to crocodiles in an evolutionary context. They will thrive in key ecosystems, especially as their designs incorporate key +ve traits as mirrorless cameras innovate. This could well see exploiting mirror lockup for silent shutter and faster fps IF needed https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4271743?page=4#forum-post-61007265 (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4271743?page=4#forum-post-61007265)
So DSLRs and Mirrorless will coexist in the same ecosystem, with the former in key trophic niches, the keystone camera for pros. The DSLR serves a vast diversity of genres rather well.
The interview with Yamaki-san, Sigma CEO, is an interesting read. Really warm to this guy :-)
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/2150589362/sigma-interview-this-is-just-the-beginning
Posted by: Erik Lund
« on: Today at 11:37:23 » Insert Quote
Quote from: Les Olson on Today at 10:13:18
,,,,
Digital sensors do not like oblique light, because they are made up of wells. The longer flange focal distance required by the mirror turns out to be exactly what digital sensors need, and it would be seriously bad if Nikon used a short flange focal distance mount for its mirrorless camera. The short flange focal distances of current mirrorless designs have the disadvantage of creating severe peripheral light fall-off and a tendency for peripheral colour shift. The light fall-off is mitigated by designing severe barrel distortion into the lenses, but then you either tolerate the light fall-off and distortion or you correct them, and either way image quality suffers.
I agree, this has always been a key point for image sensors. I clearly remember the battle with this back when I got the D1
Leica has take this to the extreme in order for their lenses to work as best as possible, yet several of their older lens designs are useless on their Digital series of Leica M cameras.
If it comes to be, How will Nikon's rumoured Z-mount really differ from that of the F mount?
-
I'm with you, Frank. I handled a couple of mirrorless cameras and they felt very cramped. The lenses are not significantly smaller than some of the offerings for DSLRs. Then there is the electronic viewfinder.....
A Leica would work for me, too, but my wallet says "no." :P
Our hands are a certain size and therefore cameras need to be a certain size. So I'm not sure what problem mirrorless cameras are trying to solve except to be different.
The manufacturing costs, as they need less components and less adjustments. When you at the same time can get a premium over DSLR, it is profitable if you make the hype that they are better ;)
-
A most interesting thread. Stimulating.
Indeed :)
It's basically a question of how well our purchase decisions are aligned with the future :o
Manual focus? No worries (adapters have little effect on function).
Auto-focus? Big worries (adapters have significant effect on function).
It is clear the camera companies have made their decision, but DSLRs will persist for many years. As suggested in an active thread on DPR, DSLRs are analogous to crocodiles in an evolutionary context. They will thrive in key ecosystems, especially as their designs incorporate key +ve traits as mirrorless cameras innovate. This could well see exploiting mirror lockup for silent shutter and faster fps IF needed https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4271743?page=4#forum-post-61007265 (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4271743?page=4#forum-post-61007265)
The only 'advantages' DSLR cameras have are because CaNikon haven't really entered the realm, seriously. (Their main technology is still ensconced in DSLRs).
Sony utterly failed in their pathetic DSLR venture ... but they're picking up steam in their mirrorless venture!
As I mentioned, Sony is dwarfed by CaNikon in lens development. All CaNikon would have to do is create different lens mounts, to their existing lenses, and "whollah!" they have a complete line of lenses, new mounts, no problem. Sony/Fuji/Panasonic/Pentax are nowhere near this stage of lens development :-[
And, at the end of the day, lenses are everything, after all ...
However, Sony has proven certain limitations of using a mirror ... and certain undeniable freedoms of dropping the mirror.
It is clear as day, to anyone with eyes to see, that the archaic mirror is only an impediment to future progress.
Are the current, mirrored D5/D850/D500 SLRs already great now? Yes indeed 8)
However, as new technologies develop, retaining the mirror will only hold DSLRs back ... whereas dropping the mirror entirely will give future prototypes a level of freedom DSLRs can never enjoy.
So DSLRs and Mirrorless will coexist in the same ecosystem, with the former in key trophic niches, the keystone camera for pros. The DSLR serves a vast diversity of genres rather well.
There is a saying in biology: "No two organisms can occupy the same role in an ecosystem." (One will eventually take over, while the other will become extinct.)
The current mainstay is the DSLR; however, the 'new kid' (the mirrorless) has all of the environmental advantages for future development (evolution).
The truth is, if/when CaNikon decides to pour ALL of their technology into mirrorless (which, IMO, they will, shortly), the existence of a 'mirror' in future camera designs will become unjustifiable.
The interview with Yamaki-san, Sigma CEO, is an interesting read. Really warm to this guy :-)
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/2150589362/sigma-interview-this-is-just-the-beginning
A great article indeed ...
If it comes to be, How will Nikon's rumoured Z-mount really differ from that of the F mount?
Which brings us to the point of my original thread: Nikon should make an entirely new lens mount, to deal with the pending contemporary paradigm shift in technology.
However, they should also borrow from Sigma's GREAT innovative idea, and that is to offer a lens mount conversion service, to dampen the shock of the forthcoming transition.
The advantage of this idea (credit to Sigma) is 1) it enables a much better solution than 'adapters', and 2) it makes a person's lens investment decision now entirely 'risk free' for the future ... which is a big concern for anyone wanting to buy 'new AF DSLR glass' ... in an age where DSLRs are headed into extinction :-X
-
Outside the box maybe? But I think if Nikon brought back the DL concept, but with a 20mp FX sensor....those bad boys would sell. And no mount worries.
-
Outside the box maybe? But I think if Nikon brought back the DL concept, but with a 20mp FX sensor....those bad boys would sell. And no mount worries.
I agree ... I think Nikon would have killed it upon the release 8)
I had 2 on order (the wide and the mid-range) for my work as an investigator.
Can't think of any Nikon shooter who did not have one of these on order, come to think of it ...
Oh well, can't go back in time ...
The hope is the concept is not entirely dead ... but, rather, being re-branded as mirrorless (and/or with upgraded technologies).
-
An even more basic argument as predictions blossom on non fertile ground:
I want the job done.
I require a tool.
I get the best tool for my purpose I can justify to afford.
I watch the market and test new tools.
If better tools for my purpose become available I buy them.
Currently I do not see any mirrorless that serves my purpose better than what I already own
-
Currently I do not see any mirrorless that serves my purpose better than what I already own
"Currently," yes, as has been agreed.
This thread topic, however, has to do with the future ...
That said, if Nikon (1) develops a D850 mirrorless equivalent ... with a brand new lens mount ... and (as it previously-ditched the DL) abandons any further 'E' lens development for DSLRs ... and 2) begins developing everything new toward the mirrorless paradigm ... you will be left 'holding the bag' in the end.
While those who 'waited a year,' to see the final direction-switch, can invest in the new era with confidence ...
But if Nikon develops a 'mount conversion service,' this will help bridge the gap between today and tomorrow ... and facilitate more confidence in current Nikon lens purchase decisions.
If the point of this thread is missed again, then I will give up ::) :o ;D :-X
-
A mount conversion is only realistic if the lens is originally designed so that the electronics and rear part of the barrel are replaceable.
Secondly, for mirrorless (AF to work well) you need a different kind of focus motor (or two motors), a suitable optical design where the focus group is light and/or only needs to move a short distance.
Finally, DSLR lenses typically have the rear element further away than in a short flange distance mirrorless camera, and Nikon like to optimize the PDAF sensors to the native lens exit pupil position.
For third party lenses there is also the issue that sensor optics stack has different thicknesses in different brands of camera so you get something of a compromise if the lens designs are used on several brands of cameras.
Personally I think ideally each lens should be used on its native platform.
I don't see mirrorless as the "successor" of DSLR but just a different type of camera. I prefer optical viewfinders and am staying with them.
-
Personally I think ideally each lens should be used on its native platform.
We agree.
I don't see mirrorless as the "successor" of DSLR but just a different type of camera. I prefer optical viewfinders and am staying with them.
I hope that you are right. I fear that you are not.
-
There is a huge industry rummaging "mirrorless is the future" to people's minds because what these web sites make money of is advertiser clicks and making people feel insecure and dump their system and switch to another is an effective way to make money for these sites. The enemy is people happily focusing on their photography using the gear they have because then these sites make no money. But the photographer's best interest is usually just that: use what you have a make the most out of it rather than buy new gear.
Furthermore a system switch is especially effective because the user generally ends up with less than they had, so they have to save and spend a lot to try to catch up with what they already had working for them. It's basically manufacturers and gear sites making money without the photographer gaining anything but the temporary smell of new gear and loss of their previously reflexive ability to instinctively use the camera effectively.
Mirrorless is basically making a still camera out of a video camera and vice versa. This is especially in the interest of those companies who failed to produce a competitive still camera system. IMO video and stills are shot in a fundamentally different way and have little in common. Lights are different, the camera position, focus, zoom, aperture etc. cannot change instantly but they have to form a smooth continuum that is easy to watch in video. In stills you can do whatever you want between frames and so it's very liberating. Instead of needing a crew (or a thousand people as in some movies), in still photography, one photographer can do a lot by themselves.
I would not take these gear-switch pushing websites too seriously. I do not believe their views have photographers' best interest at heart but their wallets. Having to view the world through an EVF would be a total loss for me and it would lead into my withdrawal from photography because there would be no joy in it. If you look at CIPA stats they show mirrorless to have a 35% share of the ILC market in Jan/Feb 2018 whereas in 2017 it was about 40%, if I recall correctly. DSLR and mirrorless can share the ILC market just fine. Both have advantages and disadvantages and we should enjoy what is offered rather than try to force other people into the same mindset as some are intent on doing.
-
Consider features like face / eye-detection AF, full-frame autofocus coverage and 4K video". That's it?
What do you mean, "that's it"?
Those are no small advantages, if you get real for just a moment.
The truth is, a "mirror" offers exactly ZERO advantages.
It slows the potential for FPS, it increases the distance between sensor and lens, and it impedes the workability of video.
Remove the mirror, and even if you add only "these three" assets to what is (already) great about Nikon DSLRs, you will have improved the overall package greatly.
In other words, the Nikon D850 is 'almost' perfect.
Remove the mirror, increase its AF performance, as well as its video performance (and remove the noise it makes), and you thereby make it the perfect camera.
-
I would not take these gear-switch pushing websites too seriously. I do not believe their views have photographers' best interest at heart but their wallets. Having to view the world through an EVF would be a total loss for me and it would lead into my withdrawal from photography because there would be no joy in it. If you look at CIPA stats they show mirrorless to have a 35% share of the ILC market in Jan/Feb 2018 whereas in 2017 it was about 40%, if I recall correctly. DSLR and mirrorless can share the ILC market just fine. Both have advantages and disadvantages and we should enjoy what is offered rather than try to force other people into the same mindset as some are intent on doing.
I am not going to "switch" to anything. I thoroughly enjoy my Nikon products.
What I am doing is taking my foot off the "buy" pedal for a moment to assess where Nikon is going.
I had ordered the D850 last week (still on backorder, due to popularity), but cancelled the order for the time being.
I was going to order the 28 f/1.4E and 105mm f/1.4E as well ... but am holding off on any AF lens purchases for at least a year now.
I want to see what Nikon's intent is before I buy anything further (esp. AF lenses) from Nikon.
If Nikon comes out with a D850-level mirrorless, plus some good new primes, I will buy these instead.
If they come out with nothing new by Christmas, then I will get the D850 for a better price than what's going on right now.
In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy what I have ... D500 + 300 PF / D810 + Zeiss/CV primes.
-
I think Ilkka made some great points, esp the getting used and getting better by becoming accoustomed to your gear. I felt cameras like the F4, FM2, F100, D3, D500 & D850 became like body parts over time and I do not even use the display over a day of shooting. Reliability, Dependability, Reproducability .... I shot shiploads of film from 1983 till 2004 ... with the D500 and D850 I feel the display has its merits but for normal shooting I simply do not need it.
The state of mirrorless is generations from that.
I watch and wait ...
-
I think Ilkka made some great points, esp the getting used and getting better by becoming accoustomed to your gear. I felt cameras like the F4, FM2, F100, D3, D500 & D850 became like body parts over time and I do not even use the display over a day of shooting. Reliability, Dependability, Reproducability .... I shot shiploads of film from 1983 till 2004 ... with the D500 and D850 I feel the display has its merits but for normal shooting I simply do not need it.
The state of mirrorless is generations from that.
I watch and wait ...
I agree. Learnt a few more things. Thanks for all the valuable inputs
I try and be agnostic over DSLR vs MLS. As has been said before by several users, DSLRs embodied in the D850 demonstrate how we can expect future DSLRs to pull in key innovations from mirrorless (not only video which i confess I've yet to try on any of my Nikons)
I too watch and wait and am very largely happy with my gear. It's never been better; yet on the other hand, the FM2 and F3 sure seem to have been so much simpler :-)
Here's a post i put out earlier on one of these mercenary forums aimed at emptying wallets and worse ;)
This thread is having fun trying to outguess the future of the industry that's shaping out into the digital photography of 2020 and beyond. As with all economic models trying to forecast the future, errors are our only surety. To quote the great statistician, George E. P. Box (son in law of the legendary R.A. Fisher) "All models are wrong. Some are useful" [Journal of the American Statistical Association, December 1976, V ol. 71(3)]
Considered overall, Nikon is very hard to match. Consider the range of great glass from the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8E thru to the 800 f5.6E. it's impossible to match in diversity and overall versatility of performance. Alone, the 2 sets of Three-dragons [14-24 f2.8; 24-70 f2.8E;70-200 all f2.8E FL and 16-35 f4G, 24-120 f4G, 70-200 f4G] cover a great deal of genres. Then there's half a century's accumulation of primes. They include quite a few that continue to work surprisingly well on today's DSLRs. Some of the extant Nikkors are very very good indeed. If it's not here, there are 3rd party Nikon-fits if you can afford Zeiss etc
The diversity of Nikon DSLRs is unique: from the Df through the affordable D610, D750 and D810 to the new tripartite: D500, D850 and D5 + several DX choices. And the Used market holds no lack of high-performing bargains.
Nikon gear exhibits a tendency to hang around, even out living its first owner(s)
It is hard to believe Nikon will abandon this legacy. Oh! did I forget about Nikon CLS? Well do google Jeff McNally for further info
Welcome to the Greater Nikon Ecosystem One only lives once, after all
-
The short flange focal distances of current mirrorless designs have the disadvantage of creating severe peripheral light fall-off and a tendency for peripheral colour shift. The light fall-off is mitigated by designing severe barrel distortion into the lenses, but then you either tolerate the light fall-off and distortion or you correct them, and either way image quality suffers.
My speculation:
On short-register mirrorless, the classic barrel distortion vs. peripheral illumination issue may be less determinative than with the deep mirror box of the SLR.
My two Fuji X lenses---14/2.8 and 23/1.4---have a very, very low amount of barrel distortion, yet the peripheral illumination seems nominal.
I checked them on the Fuji X camera, but with tape covering the body-lens contacts, so neither camera nor raw converter 'knew' what lens was attached.
-
Just because a camera has a very short flange distance, the designer can still build wide-angle lenses with retrofocus optics to improve corner illumination and so the ray-angle is nearly perpendicular to the sensor. However they have the option of using corrective optics much closer to the film plane (compared to SLR lenses) to improve performance. The same is true on a mirrorless camera with a long flange distance, but that could mean some lenses have rear elements which protrude far into the mount, with very little real-estate out front for focus, aperture and zoom rings (consider the old Nikkor-O 2.1cm lens), so handling would not be so good, not an elegant solution.
Also, I am sure it is only a matter of time before sensors are better able to handle oblique light, so that really compact wide lenses (such as Leica) are viable on mirrorless cameras.
-
A mount conversion is only realistic if the lens is originally designed so that the electronics and rear part of the barrel are replaceable.
This.
Also, IF the prophesied adapter worked really well and reliably (unknown possibility), AND was priced comparably to Sigma's mount conversion service (another unknown), then the adapter would be the 'conversion'.
A lot of unknowns, but if the adapter didn't work well in use, we'd all know in pretty short order.
-
This.
Also, IF the prophesied adapter worked really well and reliably (unknown possibility), AND was priced comparably to Sigma's mount conversion service (another unknown), then the adapter would be the 'conversion'.
A lot of unknowns, but if the adapter didn't work well in use, we'd all know in pretty short order.
If history is any indication, there is a good chance a Nikon designed adapter could work really well, looking to the FT-1 adapter for the Nikon 1 system. The adapter has a very solid construction including a tripod attachment. The limitations in use with that adapter (only center focus point available, longest shutter speed about 1 sec with most bodies without mechanical shutter, and newest bodies cannot use the exotic long lenses) seem to in the body, introduced by Nikon for unknown reasons or no reason at all. Except for those limitations, it works flawlessly whether the lens is AFS or manual focus (no screwdrive focus though), has VR or not, has E-aperture or aperture controlled by the internal actuator (the FT-1 has a built in motor that controls the mechanical aperture coupling).
-
Just because a camera has a very short flange distance, the designer can still build wide-angle lenses with retrofocus optics to improve corner illumination and so the ray-angle is nearly perpendicular to the sensor.[...]
Also, I am sure it is only a matter of time before sensors are better able to handle oblique light, so that really compact wide lenses (such as Leica) are viable on mirrorless cameras.
Yes, but the point of mirrorless design is that lenses do not need retrofocus or complex corrections so they can be small and light.
Accepting for the sake of argument that a technological fix to the oblique light issue can be developed, what assurance is there that it will be developed? The alternative, telling people it is not a problem and only fuddy-duddies worry about it, is easier, cheaper and therefore more attractive. That is what we have been seeing for several years in the music reproduction business, and if you read the dpreview article linked to in the first post of this thread, you can observe it in camera marketing.
-
Interesting thread and a lot of opinions some of which I share as a photo aficionado
, This is serious & funny at the same time. I really love it!
+1 a tiny camera is a nice curiosity , but not very user friendly, I like my V1 , but it does take effort and some times can be rather frustrating if I forget this is just a fun camera without the flexibility of my D800
Outside the box maybe? But I think if Nikon brought back the DL concept, but with a 20mp FX sensor....those bad boys would sell. And no mount worries.
Interesting concept, more so if it is revived with interchangeable lenses, instead of forcing to buy multiple bodies just to have different angle of view
....
What I am doing is taking my foot off the "buy" pedal for a moment to assess where Nikon is going.
....
I want to see what Nikon's intent is before I buy anything further (esp. AF lenses) from Nikon.
....
I've been in that mode even since I got a D300, took me a while to replace it with a D800, did it once I was convinced it really was a step forward (for me). Something Nikon doesn't do very well is communicate it's intentions going forward, so planning a move is difficult
If history is any indication, there is a good chance a Nikon designed adapter could work really well, looking to the FT-1 adapter for the Nikon 1 system.
...
My personal preference would be an adapter, with full functionality and not intentionally reduced like the FT1. I'll rather keep my lenses usable with F mount cameras and the new system via an adapter.
I can write my wish list but so far Nikon has not read my mind the last few times I did it, so, I'll wait and see, if I had to replace my D800 today, I'll likely buy a D850
Anyway, this is a nice discussion
-
Well, if customers largely stop buying "to wait and see" then Nikon won't be launching anything pretty soon after (since they won't have any money to pay salaries). It sends the message from customer to Nikon: "what you make today is not useful to me". If something that they make is in fact suitable and useful, buying it sends the correct message. Of course, one should not buy what one does not need.
-
Well, if customers largely stop buying "to wait and see" then Nikon won't be launching anything pretty soon after (since they won't have any money to pay salaries). It sends the message from customer to Nikon: "what you make today is not useful to me". If something that they make is in fact suitable and useful, buying it sends the correct message. Of course, one should not buy what one does not need.
Yep, it returns to the question of: what is good enough? The gear these days is really good, so the incremental changes in feature set aren't necessarily very enticing, so "wait and see" becomes a rational strategy. Or this is in the realm of Thom Hogan's "last camera syndrome." For a lot of people, they're all set with what they have.
I understand mirrorless is the trend, but I'm not positive it's the ultimate end point. Count me in the fully functional adaptor crowd as I like the lenses I have and have no interest in starting a new lens family in a different mount. And...I'll use my D750 until it croaks as well, so maybe I'm one of the "last camera syndrome" kind of guys at this point. But then again, I'm only a hobbyist, I don't require the latest and greatest to make a living, it's all for fun for me.
I'm actually still blown away by the quality of modern gear, it's really quite awesome.
-
Well, if customers largely stop buying "to wait and see" then Nikon won't be launching anything pretty soon after (since they won't have any money to pay salaries). It sends the message from customer to Nikon: "what you make today is not useful to me". If something that they make is in fact suitable and useful, buying it sends the correct message. Of course, one should not buy what one does not need.
My duty is not to Nikon, Nikon's duty is to me (all its customers).
I can decide to spend my money (or not spend my money) how and when I want, whenever it pleases me, however it pleases me.
When a company charges as much as Nikon charges for its products, that's a lot of <bleepin'> money, added-up, and I have the right to be concerned regarding which direction the future is likely to hold when I make my purchase decisions.
The offering (and then sudden retraction of) the DL series shows that Nikon is willing to shut-down production of an entire line at the blink of an eye ... if it feels the line is not headed in the right direction.
On the other hand, the release of the D850 also shows Nikon is willing to pull out all stops and produce what is arguably "the greatest single camera" available in today's market place.
My opinion is Nikon makes the best cameras, and the best (super-telephoto) lenses in the market today. And I intend to keep spending money with Nikon ... but I just want to know where?
The trouble is, almost all of Nikon glass is the outdated "G" physical diaphragm ... which I would never purchase today.
Although I purchased many of their AI-S MF lenses, I have/am selling them all to upgrade to Zeiss glass. (Hence my previous thread, Will Nikon Re-Invent the AI-S? (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,7246.0.html))
Further, while their new "E" electronic diaphragm AF glass is almost universally at the top its game, they're designed for DSLRs, not mirrorless ... which are coming sooner, not later.
Even if Nikon "stopped making" any future DSLRs, if they kept making the ones that exist now (D5 / D850 / D500), I think they could still keep selling these cameras for many years to come, because they are simply fantastic. (The negligible advances in sensor excellence over the last few years indicate image quality is reaching a plateau.)
In the same fashion, Nikon continued to make film cameras, even when film was essentially dead, so I want some assurances that DSLRs (and in particular DSLR AF lenses) are not going to suddenly stop in production, in favor of mirrorless.
In fine, I hope that Nikon brings out mirrorless as a companion to DSLRs, not as a full replacement, at least for the next 5+ years.
I also want to know if Nikon 'E' glass can be transcended to mirrorless format (by adapter or, preferably, by lens mount conversion), because then I will make certain purchase decisions their high-end 'E' AF glass.
In closing, I believe the D850 is so good its relevance will last for a very, very, very long time, even if DSLR production stops tomorrow. That said, I don't see a very long future for DSLR advancement at this point; therefore, I don't see a very long future for DSLR glass, either.
- The looming question is ... what about "right now" purchases?
- Will they be protected with some kind of "transition bridge" (adapters/lens mount conversions)? Or,
- Will they be abandoned?
My gut feeling is they will be protected, because Nikon protected its customers by keeping the F-mount in the film-to-digital transition (unlike Canon, which dropped its entire lens line).
However, this time Nikon is very clearly creating a different mount for their mirrorless (judging by the recent patents, as Roland pointed out), so I want to know if/how well any transitions are going to work with (what will soon be) the old way as it makes room for the new way.
But I still plan on spending my money with Nikon, because I am 100% confident they'll be producing high-quality, regardless.[/list]
-
How bout a "Ninon/Cankon" Pelix? Didn't the original F have a model for NASA that didn't have a mirror?
The big guys are doing a ton of PR just to get people to switch to a camera body that you cannot hold on to. The other side of the coin seems to be that Nikon is also in the game of planned obsolescence. They are shooting themselves in the foot no matter which way the advertiser sings.
(I had a wonderful time snatching up MF glass when AF went crazy.)
-
My speculation:
On short-register mirrorless, the classic barrel distortion vs. peripheral illumination issue may be less determinative than with the deep mirror box of the SLR.
My two Fuji X lenses---14/2.8 and 23/1.4---have a very, very low amount of barrel distortion, yet the peripheral illumination seems nominal.
I checked them on the Fuji X camera, but with tape covering the body-lens contacts, so neither camera nor raw converter 'knew' what lens was attached.
As a professional movie cameraman in Hollywood you could add some spice to the usefullness of still cameras for video production, Keith?
-
The big guys are doing a ton of PR just to get people to switch to a camera body that you cannot hold on to.
Agreed, the 'smallness' of mirrorless cameras is either 1) overstated, unless for a snapper's travel camera, and/or 2) an impediment to serious photography.
The other side of the coin seems to be that Nikon is also in the game of planned obsolescence. They are shooting themselves in the foot no matter which way the advertiser sings.
I don't think so.
One thing about Nikon (that even its detractors have to admit) is that they kick-ass in the QUALITY department.
(Best AF system; best Base-ISO image quality; best high-ISO image quality; and their new 'E' series lenses are, across-the-board, Best in Class (esp. their super-telephotos, but also the 70-200, the 28 f/1.4, and the 105 f/1.4).
No matter what anyone's preferences are, brand-wise, everyone knows this. So there is universal respect for Nikon quality, IMO.
Where Nikon is 'obsolete,' and really hurting, is in their MOUNT CHOICE. It is archaic and in sore need of an upgrade (which, as the new patents indicate, for mirrorless, they are changing ... arguably to be at the forefront of everyone).
I agree, there are certain clumsy decisions Nikon could make to guarantee its obsolescence.
However, because of their class-leading quality, they could also make decisions to guarantee their leadership 8)
IMO, if Nikon comes out with D5 / D850 / D500-level mirrorless cameras ... removing the limitations of the mirror ... and adds with their transition lens adapters [or, preferably, a lens conversion service for legacy 'E' glass (you can forget about 'G' / 'D' mechanical glass)], they could quickly and effectively position themselves to be a more exciting choice than anyone.
If they add to that a complete face-lift of their AI-S MF glass, in design as well as the best they have in glass, they will truly be in a class by themselves.
(I had a wonderful time snatching up MF glass when AF went crazy.)
Yes, and I have enjoyed AI-S glass myself (and still have a few Pre-AI versions, if only for nostalgia).
I think Nikon is positioned to do either ruin itself ... or redefine itself ... if they seize the opportunity to do "everything better than anyone" ... and I have a sneaking suspicion it will be the latter.
They already have the majority of class-leading excellence down, as defined above, so with good transition choices Nikon stands a very real chance of moving from #2 to #1 8)
-
As a professional movie cameraman in Hollywood you could add some spice to the usefullness of still cameras for video production, Keith?
Still cameras that shoot video represent a chance for small budget, single operators to shoot a documentary or short film without a large cash outlay for equipment, or perhaps for a TV series whose budget does not allow for the rental of expensive digital cinema cameras and their many accompanying parts and accessories.
However: It would be rare for a professional camera person to prefer the still camera form factor if a video/cinema specific camera design was available.
Video-capable still cameras have been used on big budget feature films, where a small camera is needed to fit into a cramped physical space, or for 'crash cam' duties, where the possibility of destruction of the camera exists.
The 2013 Ron Howard-directed car racing movie "Rush" used Canon DSLRs crammed into the cockpit of Formula One cars to get extreme closeups of the driver while actually driving the car.
I know of, but have not seen, the Norwegian TV series 'Dag', which was shot with Canon 1Ds cameras as the main production cameras.
-
I don't see mirrorless as the "successor" of DSLR but just a different type of camera. I prefer optical viewfinders and am staying with them.
My guess and it only a guess is Nikon will release a mirrorless camera with a 46.5mm flange focus distance like original Nikon F. This would allow using both a classic dSLR/fSLR and mirrorless camera with the same set of lenses with no need for an adapter. The usual confusion over AI, AIS, AIP, AF, AF-D, G, E and so many more :) might cause a bit of consternation.
I still haven't seen the mirrorless camera feel I have to have. I hope there is a lot of life left in dSLR(s).
Just because a camera has a very short flange distance, the designer can still build wide-angle lenses with retrofocus optics to improve corner illumination and so the ray-angle is nearly perpendicular to the sensor.
This is an interesting point. Thank you!
But the photographer's best interest is usually just that: use what you have a make the most out of it rather than buy new gear.
The Nikon F mount has allowed me to keep most of my lenses that I bought from 1979 to 1999 and using them with dSLR that I bought starting in 2004. I've bought a few lenses from the pre-AI era and some from the AF-D to AF-G since. I mostly add lenses rather than replace them.
The smell of new equipment is enticing.
Mirrorless is basically making a still camera out of a video camera and vice versa. This is especially in the interest of those companies who failed to produce a competitive still camera system. IMO video and stills are shot in a fundamentally different way and have little in common.
I agree with the complete paragraph but it is nice to be able to dabble in video with my D800. To me a hybrid is fine if it doesn't compromise the still photography function and doesn't add too much R&D to the price.
I want a still camera first and foremost.
I would not take these gear-switch pushing websites too seriously. I do not believe their views have photographers' best interest at heart but their wallets.
A site needs income and so advertising. If they review camera equipment then I'm more comfortable with their reviews if the advertise something other than cameras and lenses, e.g. a website host.
Having to view the world through an EVF would be a total loss for me and it would lead into my withdrawal from photography because there would be no joy in it.
For still photograph a dSLR primarily and for candid people photograph a rangefinder (if I could afford one) would be my preference. I could see adding a mirrorless F bayonet camera for use where the mirror and shutter sound is undesirable or not allowed.
Thanks to everyone in this thread. I'm finding it quite interesting.
Dave Hartman