The new Nikon mirrorless system

[MILLIREHM]

Shooting with two cards means you are twice as likely to have a card fail. This is the way math works.

coming to maths
You might be twice as likely to have ONE card fail. But the probability that TWO cards fail at the same time is something completely different

But maybe this was only an ironic statement and i didtn't get it

[Jack Dahlgren]

coming to maths
You might be twice as likely to have ONE card fail. But the probability that TWO cards fail at the same time is something completely different

But maybe this was only an ironic statement and i didtn't get it

A bit of both actually. People with two cards perceive card failure rate twice as often as those with one. Likelyhood that they both fail from independent causes at the same time is certainly very low. 

[JohnBrew]

Last year, I opened a thread "when my Df dies, ..."

It looks like my Df can die in peace. But as late as possible, please (I love it and besides, finances are low)

Right on!

[fish_shooter]

There are three (or just two) ways that I can think of to explain the f-stop issue discussed above. Nonetheless the aperture as defined by optics would remain the same, f/1.8 is f/1.8!
These three ways are:
1. reduced lens barrel vignetting
2. the cosine to the fourth power law was "broken" by the optical design

This paper suggest that negative distortion will do it:
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/39/jresv39n3p213_A1b.pdf

Distort then undistort in the design??? There are folks on this forum that know much more about optics than me so I leave it to them...

3. moving the exit pupil forward (this might be the same as or part of #2) so that image corner light rays are more perpendicular to the sensor

Reduced vignetting from either way would allow a greater light volume to pass to the sensor so the effective aperture if the new S lenses is greater than older lenses. Probably truer for older older lenses like my old MF 35/1.4. Newer older lenses like the current 35/1.4 presumably have more "digital friendly" designs.

Tom

[fish_shooter]

Maybe an example would help. If my old f/1.4 lens had a T-stop of 1.8 and the T-stop of the f/1.8 S lens was 1.8 then the Nikon statement would be true. They just failed to explain to us how their statement was true.

[Birna Rørslett]

No, the statement is not true as long as f-numbers are presented. That different lenses nominally with the same maximum aperture can yield [slightly] different exposures, due to different effective transmission, is basic photographic knowledge. However, depth of field etc. would be similar at the same set aperture. And no lens can be "faster" than what its design aperture dictates. So in no way can an f/1.8 lens "equal" an f/1.4 lens in terms of lens speed.

If one examines the complex optical designs of these new S-Line Nikkors with their large number of elements, it is impossible that their T-values be similar to the f-numbers. Even the best of coatings incurs some loss of transmitted light.

[Jan Anne]

Makes sense, I guess all that Nikon is trying to say is that the new Z 1.8 lenses are better IQ wise than the formidable F 1.4 lenses which is of course good news

What I've seen so far from the Z 35/1.8 is that it shares some of the character of the F 35/1.4 which was build for character and not for stunning Irmatests, for me this is good news as I'm not a big fan of the cold, clinical lenses which are too perfect.

[fish_shooter]

No, the statement is not true as long as f-numbers are presented. That different lenses nominally with the same maximum aperture can yield [slightly] different exposures, due to different effective transmission, is basic photographic knowledge. However, depth of field etc. would be similar at the same set aperture. And no lens can be "faster" than what its design aperture dictates. So in no way can an f/1.8 lens "equal" an f/1.4 lens in terms of lens speed.

If one examines the complex optical designs of these new S-Line Nikkors with their large number of elements, it is impossible that their T-values be similar to the f-numbers. Even the best of coatings incurs some loss of transmitted light.

Maybe I should have used a number > 1.8 in my example, ROTFL! Substitute 1.9 or 2.0. True that the T-stop will be > f-stop in spite of new coatings. Even with 99.999%(or whatever) transmission at a glass-air interface there is some measurable light loss especially as the element number increases. The T-stop for the new Noct may be > 1.0.

[Roland Vink]

If the lens was really under corrected for spherical aberrations the background bokeh would be larger (and softer) than a well corrected lens, so it might look like an f/1.4 lens... but that is unlikely to be the case here, the MTF charts are very high...

[longzoom]

coming to maths
You might be twice as likely to have ONE card fail. But the probability that TWO cards fail at the same time is something completely different

But maybe this was only an ironic statement and i didtn't get it

There is still a possibility that a second slot could be in the future grip. Let us wait and see. LZ

[tommiejeep]

LZ, I have seen this mentioned a few places on the NET.  I cannot think of any Grips, of any brand, that have had this feature. Any that you know of?  I am not really bothered by single card.  When I was shooting a lot of Soccer I only used for overflow but , in reality, always had time to change cards.  When I used to have great locations for birds used to use in same way.  My D700, Df, D300, EM1, a7ii and a7rii only had single card and never a problem. One of the tings I really like having the top LED.  Battery and shots remaining  .
Cheers,
Tom

[Nikfuson]

Sten, I thought you were our friend whom tried them all 

I have some friends. And yes, I have tried a lot in my very modest life. But this one is really from a friend who has access to more brands of camera gear than even our esteemed Birna. I guess the standard up to now has been the EVF of the Leica SL line.
My plan is to get rid of my Sony/Zony and start with the Z6/24-70/FTZ and take if from there.

[pluton]

Dual cards slots are reassuring, but since huge capacity cards are commonly available now, you have the free choice to change cards after several hundred shots, or several thousand shots.  Either beats having to change after 36 shots.

[Airy]

Standards, or requirements, may have changed. There used to be a risk of losing one film roll due to wrong manipulation in the darkroom, or possibly several due to drowning, massive X-Ray, etc.
I do not know how the figures compare with the probability of "losing" an SD card (usually not resulting in a total loss of contained pictures). I had two cases in 15 years (one CF, one SD, in the second case from a not-so-reputable brand), and only a few pictures were FUBAR.

The gang of US wedding photographers seems very voicy on Nikon Rumors though. But, given the overwhelming range of products, there is no need to get ballistic about any particular (missing) feature.

[Nikfuson]

The lack of a second card slot is what is presented to the market as of now. If that's unacceptable, get something with two slots.
Humans are obsessed with lack of features instead of being happy with what's available.