Nikon D6 is coming?

[Akira]

That's true but the movement range is really small; I'm unconvinced that one can really compose with that kind of precision based on the optical viewfinder, anyway. Much of the time I refine the framing in post-processing, rather than work really hard to try to align everything perfectly in areas close to the edges of the frame when things are happening and miss more essential parts such as composition, subject expression, emotion etc.

Personally I don't need this feature but I will use it when the situation benefits from it, if made available. I believe this has been one of the most popular innovations of the recent decade among many users. One can always turn the in-camera VR off.

I remember reading an interview to Pentax engineers, and they said that the sensor would move about 5mm.  That was not long after Pentax released their first APS-C format DSLR with IBIS, and there wasn't even any rumor of them releasing a full-frame DSLR.

Although I would believe that they meant +/-2.5mm (not +/-5mm) around the center of the optical axis, it could be safe to assume that a full-size sensor would move 1.5x more, which should be more significant than the level of "precision framing".

[Seapy]

You should be able to work out the amount of sensor movement from the amount of image blur it can remove.  I think it will be microns, not millimetres, the energy required to move the sensor sufficiently quickly and the inertia involved with 5mm of movement would be untenable.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I read this on another forum "The Pentax K-1 has sensor-shift image stabilization, allowing movements of up to 1.5mm in any direction — so, the sensor can be within a space of 36+1.5+1.5 by 24+1.5+1.5, or 39×27mm. That means the minimum image circle diameter to avoid problems is 47.4mm "

1.5 mm off-center is not that much so that it would ruin a photograph, I usually try to have much more margin of error around the edges of my composition than that. But the compositional error that results from in-camera VR use is likely to be much smaller than that.

There is no way typical full-frame lenses have 5mm extra image circle for in-camera VR implementation either in radius or diameter. On APS-C the situation is different as the sensor is not only lighter (thus more easily moved about) but the user then uses lenses that cover full-frame sensor so that creates the opportunity to larger range of compensation that's not available when using full frame sensors, unless of course one mounts medium format lenses on the camera.

This video shows Sony's version and its range:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ncye37e6xM

Since in a DSLR, there is no point in moving the sensor during optical viewfinder viewing, the sensor should start at zero shift just before the shutter opens, and only move during the exposure. (At this point there should be no error between sensor position and what the viewfinder shows). The aim of the stabilization is to keep the content steady in the sensor plane, so any framing error would be small. How much start-up time the system needs, I don't know, if it is substantial then there could be a slight framing error, but it is not likely to be anywhere near the limit of the movement of the system since then it would not be able to move in all directions to correct for movement.

The drawback that I can see from in-camera VR combined with OVF is that the user cannot optimize their hand-holding to work together with the effect of the VR system to produce the best overall stability of the image; the user has to try to keep the viewfinder steady without the help of in-camera VR and then the VR system has to try to correct for the residual movement on its own, without co-operation of the user. When using a lens with optical VR, the VR system is active during viewing and at least my hand-holding technique adopts to the VR available so that the view is held steady but I don't try to compensate for the micro-vibration that I would try to compensate for when using a lens without VR. So, the system might not work as optimally together with the photographer as it can when the viewfinder shows the effect of the stabilization. But that remains to be seen, how effective the system is.

[Akira]

You should be able to work out the amount of sensor movement from the amount of image blur it can remove.  I think it will be microns, not millimetres, the energy required to move the sensor sufficiently quickly and the inertia involved with 5mm of movement would be untenable.

I think that the amount of the blur should be in millimeter order, judging from the movement of the image in the OVF when I hold the camera with 200-300mm telephoto lenses.

This video shows Sony's version and its range:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ncye37e6xM

Since in a DSLR, there is no point in moving the sensor during optical viewfinder viewing, the sensor should start at zero shift just before the shutter opens, and only move during the exposure. (At this point there should be no error between sensor position and what the viewfinder shows). The aim of the stabilization is to keep the content steady in the sensor plane, so any framing error would be small. How much start-up time the system needs, I don't know, if it is substantial then there could be a slight framing error, but it is not likely to be anywhere near the limit of the movement of the system since then it would not be able to move in all directions to correct for movement.

Apparently (or obviously), the sensor is moving more than 1.5mm, especially horizontally and vertically.  It would need to move that far to compensate for the image blur.

The problem is that the image magnification factor of the full-frame format is 1.5x greater than that of the APS-C format, which means that the amount of the compensation (=sensor movement) should be larger.

Moving the sensor prior to the shutter release in a DSLR would be pointless, but, the sensor centered when the shutter is released should mean that the image is not stabilized.  Also, if the stabilization process starts with the centered position, the sensor is inevitably off-center at the moment of the image capture.

[Roland Vink]

I read this on another forum "The Pentax K-1 has sensor-shift image stabilization, allowing movements of up to 1.5mm in any direction — so, the sensor can be within a space of 36+1.5+1.5 by 24+1.5+1.5, or 39×27mm. That means the minimum image circle diameter to avoid problems is 47.4mm "

This also means the mirror box and shutter curtains need to be bigger. As others have said, when using the OVF, the sensor is likely to remain centred until the shutter is tripped so maybe the amount of sensor travel required is reduced further (+/- 1mm?).

There could be some restrictions on when IBIS can be used. For example, it might only work in 4:5 or DX crop modes, which means the image remains within the 43.5mm image circle that FX lenses are designed for. Or it might only work with telephotos which tend to have larger image circles (and need image stabilisation more). Or maybe IBIS only works in live view mode? It will be interesting to see how the Nikon engineers solve this one

[Netr]

The announcement: http://www.nikon-asia.com/en_Asia/about/product_news/da-d6-af-s-nikkor-120-300mm

Marketing fail.  No details on the D6 except that they are developing one, which we already knew.

The new 120-300mm f/2.8 FL lens will be F mount, so don't write off the DSLRs yet.

[chambeshi]

http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-pre-announces-the-d6.html

[Ann]

As I remember it, the Nikon pattern with D# models has been:

September (in Pre Summer Olympics Year): Preliminary announcement.

Fall: Teaser-advertising of the "It's coming" variety.

December: Pricing and full specifications are announced and a small number of the new model may be released.

Early months of Olympic Year: Intensive advertising and examples from images shot by Beta testers.

End of March: Production in full-swing and Shipments begin.

I am rather expecting that the same pattern will unfold for the D6.

[Mexecutioner]

Are you getting one Ann?

[Ann]

How nice to hear from you!

The D5 has handled every situation that I have thrown at it so a D6 is not currently on my front-burner.
I am so thoroughly content with my D5 and can't imagine that a D6 could be sufficiently better endowed to persuade me to make what I expect to be rather expensive purchase.

If I was currently using something older than the D5, it would be a different matter!

[golunvolo]

If I remember correctly Ann, you keep using happily two D3S until the D5 was available?

[Ann]

You do remember correctly!

There comes a point where the leap is too big to ignore: the D5 when compared to the D3S (still a very fine camera*) was a case in point.

The D3 was an earlier great leap: its arrival was the tipping point between film and digital for me.

I expect the D6 will be a fabulous machine but find it hard to believe that it will be such a major advance over the D5 that it becomes an essential purchase.

* I recently passed on a D3S to a young biologist (who is also an aspiring Professional photographer) and she is doing wonderful things with that camera!

[Mexecutioner]

I think I enjoyed the D3 more than any other camera. It opened many doors for me and I always looked at the files in amazement. Right when it came out I was convinced there were many scenarios no other camera could handle so well and the most challenging shots became way easier. I agree with you, at this point in the game the incremental evolution calls for skipping one generation, however one has to wonder if the D6 will be the last true pro DSLR Nikon will offer?

[MILLIREHM]

I entered the line with the D4S and skipped the D5, waited for a D5s which did not come
But the D6 probably will be the next step.
Not easy to say whether it will be the last one - i hope it wont because i dont think Mirrorless makes SLR/native F mount Cameras  obsolete. The F6 was the last one but that does not need to be prejudice.
Currently there are no mirrorless competitors for the D5 series at least in house with maybe the Sony A9  as an exception. We will see if a Nikon Z9 will manage to match

[pluton]

I think I enjoyed the D3 more than any other camera. It opened many doors for me and I always looked at the files in amazement.

I had a similar experience with the D3.  It was a very good imager in a great body.  Too bad I needed more pixels;  in 4.5 years, I had only put about 35,000 shutter cycles on each of the 2 D3's I had before I sold them.