A couple of questions showing my ignorance

[tommiejeep]

 
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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[tommiejeep]

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

[tommiejeep]

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

[Erik Lund]

...
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

[Jan Anne]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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 Lund]

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...

[Frank Fremerey]

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?

[Airy]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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).

[Erik Lund]

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.?

[Frank Fremerey]

Erik. Why is that so? And why should it not be possible on a Sony?