Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by wysinawyg, Jul 23, 2018.
Nikon | Special Event 2018
Lots of information about the mirrorless FF bodies over on the Nikon Rumors website.
Yes it talks a good talk and if it delivers it will be superb. However, whether Nikon can get top notch on sensor phase detect straight off the bat is a big ask. Also, they need a really good f-mount to z-mount adapter, again going to be difficult.
I'm not sure how bothered I'd be about using F-mount on a mirrorless bodies as I didn't really bother when I had micro 4/3 despite a full range of 4/3 lenses as the SLR lenses were bigger anyway and much more so when they needed the adapter as well.
I was thinking to myself what would appeal to me with a Nikon mirrorless system over a Sony one, a good range of compact primes would probably do that although Sony's 28mm F2 and 50mm F1.8 now make their system a lot more appealing to me.
I think the compatability is important to ease the transition for current Nikon users. I very nearly swapped to Sony but the cost to change was too much. If Nikon don’t allow f-mount (with top notch performance) the cost to change will be as equally severe as the switch to Sony and far less people will be inclined to do so.
I don't see much point in using a Nikon mirrorless body with F-mount lenses, the body isn't going to be much smaller and lighter so with F-mount lenses there's going to be little benefit using a Nikon mirrorless body with the F-mount lenses. Video is the big advantage a mirrorless camera could offer over a DSLR but the lenses aren't great for video as their AF motors aren't designed for it.
I guess to be fair though, Canon DSLR lenses seem popular with Sony mirrorless cameras so I'm probably underestimating the demand for that sort of setup?
I think if went to a Nikon setup I'd be wanting native lenses anyway so that's not a benefit to Nikon for me being able to use my existing lenses.
TBH most people are becoming aware that if you want full frame then you’re not going to save a significant amount of weight. Depending on the body you’re coming from you may only be saving 100g or so, FF lenses are FF lenses and are going to be roughly the same size and weight. Barring the weight of an adapter using f-mount lenses isn’t going to add any significant weight (like for like).
Where I’m interested in the mirrorless is the 24-70mm f4 lens. This paired with the slighter lighter body will make for a much better travel/lightweight setup than the D750/D850 with 24-70mm f2.8, or 24-120mm f4. This could then mean I have a one body system rather than having m4/3 for travel. Tbh I’ve never understood why they’ve never made a 24-70mm f4 for f-mount.
I agree you're not going to save a significant amount of weight which is why I think native lenses are all the more important as that way you're saving as much weight/size as you can plus you can benefit from quieter CDAF optimised motors and continuous apertures. Native lenses should be able to be smaller and also won't need an adapter which makes the setup bulkier as well. If I'm going to use F-mount lenses I'd just stick with them on an F-mount body as they were designed for.
I'd assume the reason Nikon didn't produce a 24-70mm F4 is because they had the 24-140mm F4 and the two lenses would be too close to each other.
Of course, in an ideal world you’d use the correct mount lens for the camera, but as swapping would be very expensive most Nikon users I’m sure would benefit from being able to make a gradual transition. I know for a lot of people the only thing preventing them from swapping systems is the cost. If Nikon want a large portion of users to move across to mirrorless they have to provide good f-mount compatibility.
When I was looking at Sony I’d have to sell all my Olly stuff and all of my Nikon stuff (2 camera’s and 7 or 8 lenses off the top of my head) and would’ve been able to afford a Sony body and two lenses. No way was I willing to do that, and no way would I be willing to do this with Nikon. If I could gradually change lenses over a few years as and when then I would consider the change.
As for Nikon’s lens line up obviously they know better than me their market, but canon obviously feel there’s a market for a 24-70mm f4 alongside the 24-70mm f2.8 and the 24-105mm f4. Likewise they have a 400mm f4 option.
Looking at the Sony e-mount they’re only a few grams lighter than the A-mount equivalent which may be attributed to newer materials and if they did new a-mount versions maybe these would be lighter too?
I'm still not seeing what the benefit in using a Nikon mirrorless camera with a Nikon F-mount lens is though if you've a decent Nikon F-mount body? I just don't see the point in purchasing a Nikon mirrorless body unless you're going to get native lenses for it which will likely be smaller, lighter and offer advantages for video which is where the DSLRs are weak.
Going back a few years I had a decent 4/3 (the original DSLR standard) and then also invested in micro 4/3 with the same thinking as you've mentioned that I could use my 4/3 lenses to fill in the gaps particularly as at the time the micro 4/3 lens range was sparse (as I assume the new Nikon one will be as well). Even putting aside the reduced functionality which shouldn't be as bad on the Nikon system, I quickly just didn't bother with the 4/3 lenses as they were mismatched on the micro 4/3 bodies as well as needing an adapter (which on its own was bigger than some of the micro 4/3 lenses) instead just kept using the 4/3 lenses on their own bodies which they were better suited to.
The situation then was different though as micro 4/3 as the only mirrorless system on the market whereas this time the Nikon system will be going against the more mature Sony FE-mount which after a bit of a rough start has a reasonable choice of lenses now.
It's certainly a nice sweetener and all if all else is equal between Sony/Nikon but I don't think that will be the case and would rather choose the system that has the better body and native lenses.
I'm looking forward to seeing what Nikon offer though to see what's on the table.
I’m not sure why it’s hard to see that a lot of folk will want a gradual phase across tbh? I understand it didn’t work for you, but if Nikon do it right it could be more seamless. Plus I have no issues using TC’s so an adapter wouldn’t be any different.
Take my own situation, I would love a one system do it all scenario and in an ideal world I’d have FF for everything. So when the time comes that Nikon release a FF mirrorless that has the performance I want I could sell my Olympus gear and my DSLR and buy the Nikon mirrorless with 24-70mm f4. Therefore straight off the bat I’ve got a one system do it all, something lighter and more compact for travel and still a full lens line up. Over the years I could gradually look at swapping my 70-200mm f2.8 for a z-mount one, which going by the prices to do the same for the Sony e-mount would be around a £1k outlay. Swapping my wide angle would’ve been another £500 outlay, swapping my super tele would have been a £1500 outlay (only one Sony option) and then another few hundred here and there.
Some folk may be able to stump up £3-4K to swap over systems just like that, but I’d guess most people won’t. IMHO if Nikon don’t make a decent adapter they will not get the number of people shifting across that they want. As you rightly say, why not just stick with DSLR rather than having a ‘bodged’ system that’s clunky.
So why would I consider a swap apart from the one system do it all scenario I mention above? Well, again for me mirrorless lends itself better for travel as I tend to use live view a lot on holiday to reach above grounds, get around awkward angles etc etc. I do like live exp preview (ie WYSIWYG), and of course I like shiny new things Don’t get me wrong I have absolutely no intention of making the switch on launch, or any time shortly after. I will let everyone else do the bug fixing and I will make sure I get my full use out of the D850, but I do think that mirrorless will eventually be the future for most folk
Because you get the worst of both worlds, you don't get the advantage of either F-mount or the new mirrorless format but you get the downsides of both. That's why I'm still struggling to understand why you'd want to do that when the lenses will work better on their original F-mount bodies and even if Nikon implement a good adapter, the F-mount lenses are still going to be a crutch for their mirrorless system. The advantages of mirrorless are size, weight and video but using F-mount lenses you mean you don't get any of those.
If you're going to dump the F-mount bodies entirely and switch to one system then I'd rather dump the f-mount lenses at the same time and switch fully to make it worth doing.
Admittedly I'm still not entirely sure if I want an FF mirrorless system or just all the hype about the A7 series is making me want one. I think I'm coming from a different point of view as I'm seeing the Nikon FF mirrorless as something to compliment my F-mount setup as I can't see the mirrorless really rivaling it and I'm not fussed about using video with those big lenses. Instead I'm looking for something to replace the Nex-6/E-mount setup that can offer a good all round setup that's a bit smaller and lighter than the D750 setup plus can do decent video.
I've never got on with the NEX-6 as the body is so badly mismatched with its lenses so I've been toying with an A7III, 28mm F2, 85mm F1.8 and a 24-240mm. I've tried an A7RII and the handling is a lot nicer than the Nex-6 although I recently bought an RX1r which makes the 28mm F2 less useful. As I now have four separate mounts I'm really wary about investing in another.
I'm also assuming Nikon are going to go with something to rival the A7 series but maybe they're more thinking of an A9 rival for high speed performance since mirrorless cameras can go very fast which would make sense to use F-mount lenses with.
I wouldn’t be able to run both FF DSLR and FF mirrorless, therefore if I want to switch I would have to sell the DSLR to fund the new body. As already stated, to swap the whole system initially would would be too costly therefore needs to be done in stages. If I used your philosophy of wanting to do the swap in one go, or even run two FF systems for some reason it would never happen. Well, not unless my six numbers came up
I don’t see it as the worst of both worlds, if done right. In theory the new mirrorless with adapter will be no heavier, and maybe even lighter than my D850, so worst case scenario is that I have a mirrorless version (size and weight) of what I have already but with the option to make it smaller and lighter at some point. On top of that I gain the benefits of EVF and much better live view at the expense of looking through optics. Realistically I think Nikon need to bring something out that at least matches the A7iii performance, in which case it most certainly will be able to replace and even supersede many DSLRs. The advantages of mirrorless are not just size and video, there’s so many more possibilities with AF, displaying DX view that fills the frame, silent shutter, shutter speeds well above anything a DSLR can reach (handy for the 0.95 aperture lenses that the z-mount will be able to use ), faster FPS, zero blackout, peaking, zoom focus, and a host of other things. I have no doubt that mirrorless will eventually trump DSLR in all areas.
As far as the use for an f-mount adapter though I just get the impression that we are coming at it from different perspectives
I just don't share your optimism about how well they can make F-mount lenses work with the mirrorless bodies as no other company has been able to do that so I don't think your worst case scenario is anywhere close to the worst case at all. Realistically you're going to have a setup which is worse than your D850 for a slight size/weight benefit which given how much better the D850 is than the D750 seems an odd loss to take, as I wouldn't take that hit on the weaker D750.
Those features you've mentioned are nice touches but they're not the fundamental benefits that size and video are, at least not for some time yet and I can't see Nikon leaping ahead of Sony in that regard either. I just can't see Nikon being able to produce something that trumps both the D750 and A7 series even putting aside the F-mount compatibility issues, I guess I see your point of view if you're hugely optimistic but I'm really not. I'm not sure Nikon even want to produce the system you've mentioned unless they ready to hand in the towel with their DSLRs which given the strong sales of the D850, I don't see happening. Also as far as I'm aware, Sony will not sell their stacked sensor technology to others which is what Nikon would be in dire need of to produce such a fast system.
Also the benefits of mirrorless don't come for nothing, in particular they're very poor at power efficiency and thermals which is unavoidable when you have to constantly power a sensor and either a high resolution EVF or screen. Sustained high speed shooting quickly pushes up the temperatures even in the cold Scottish climate. I was shooting with the D750 in Germany where it was very hot and the camera didn't miss a beat getting hammered all weekend. I have many of the benefits you mention on other cameras and many sound great on paper but I don't find that much benefit in reality, do you find 1/8000 shutter a limitation? I've tried shooting at 1/32000 but even at F1.8 and during bright sunshine I needed to go to high iso and the results I'm not convinced are any more useful than the DSLR at max shutter. Similarly the ultra high speed bursts I find quite difficult to use and actually the DSLR's sustained performance is more practical (aside from the D750's little buffer)
I guess they did get the BSI tech for the D850 which was indirectly competing with some of the Sony's, I wonder though if Sony would be less keen when it's a direct rival to one of their cameras.
Reading their press release it's certainly vague but it implies to me they're aiming it as a companion system rather than a DSLR killer, particularly:
Yes I don't see them dropping dslr in the near future - they will want to see the take on rates and demographics for the mirrorless first for sure
Well tbh I'm skeptical about the adapter hence why my posts have always said IF Nikon can make a good adapter. Going by their attempt at an adapter for the V1 I'm not very optimistic at all, however I still maintain that if they want the new mirrorless to persuade DSLR users to migrate across they HAVE to make a good adapter. Obviously this is just my opinion (well maybe not just mine, there's plenty on TP that share this opinion ). If they don't the new mirrorless won't have substantial sales (imo) and it will take a long time to get it off the ground.
Battery life on mirrorless is getting there tbh, some A9 shooters are getting well over 1000 shots per battery charge.
Do I need more than 1/8000 shutter? Not now I can shoot at ISO 64, but then I've never shot at f1.4 in sunny conditions. That being said, in Dubai I had to shoot at 1/32000 at f1.8 on the Olly, but this is only 200 at base ISO.
My plus points about mirrorless weren't necessarily things that I need or want though, all I was trying to point out is that mirrorless don't have some of the limitations that DSLRs have and therefore they can push tech further and further (granted beyond what most folk may need). One big plus though will be when they eventually make global shutters. You can use full electronic shutter with no drawbacks, but not wearing out the shutter.
I don't think anyone's expecting it to be a DSLR killer tbh, and I think there will always be those who shoot DSLR. It does feel a bit like when Digital first came out though, people still preferred film but as DSLRs got better and better eventually most people switched to digital. I think within 10 years or so most people will be shooting mirrorless, although there's always a chance that someone will drag this statement up in 10 years and I'll have egg on my face
I've personally not been fussed about mirrorless.... mirrorless in of itself won't meaningfully open new doors for me (especially given size/weight savings seems limited), what'll interest me is when they'll get a sensor (say a far more advanced variant of the sony A9 sensor) that can readout the entire frame instantly at which point electronic shutters (and indeed electronic everything makes more sense). That would open up doors as you could potentially overpower the sun with something much weaker than a studio sized monolight
I agree, mirrorless offers no fundamental advantage for me nor do I think it ever will. I'll inevitably feel the need to upgrade my body at some point (because clearly the D850 isn't all the camera I ever need ) at which time I believe that mirrorless will likely have surpassed DSLR.
We all fall into the trap of new tech etc though and I find it fascinating how many people 'justify' mirrorless by saying how good EVF's are in that you see what you get before you shoot, but for me it's just bells and whistles that don't actually add anything. I have a DSLR and mirrorless (EM1) and when I think about it my keeper rate due to correct exposure of my EM1 is no better than that of my D850. So does the WYSIWYG viewfinder help me in any way? Not really. I can see the benefit of focus magnification and peaking if you're that kind of shooter, but they don't help me. Silent shutter? Never been in an environment where I needed it. I've never maxed out by shutter speed of my Nikon so having 1/32000 shutter speeds etc isn't necessary (for me). Eye focus AF? I can see it makes things easier, but lets be honest it's not like you can't take a portrait without it
So when you break it down, all these so called advantages aren't really necessary and I wonder how much of it is the brilliance of marketing making us think we 'need' these things? The one big advantage of mirrorless for me is the AF in live view, but the only time I really use live view is on travels (sight seeing seems to lend itself to live view for me) and for landscapes, and of course for landscapes AF speed matters not
I think the big advantage of mirrorless initially was the size/weight advantage but as the A7 has proven, there is very little advantage when you compare like for like.
I see there's an official countdown campaign now, which we are assuming is for a FF mirrorless camera (imagine the PR nightmare if it reaches 0 and they launch a new printer!).
Nikon | Special Event 2018
Really hope Nikon knock it out of the park with this. Aside from the change in mount, which everyone has an opinion on, and getting live view right there's no reason to think they won't as they already have some of the best DLSR's in the world.
One of the most interesting questions to be answered will be how they handle the ergonomics, and if they are an improvement over what Sony have offered. Although, I wonder if it's a limitation due to the smaller overall body size. With lenses staying basically the same size as DSLR counterparts, it wouldn't be difficult to make the case the the ergonomics are more important than ever with the shift in balance. Sadly, they don't feature on a spec sheet, so I doubt it's ever really been high up the priority list.
From what I've read Nikon are concentrating on ergonomics, and wanting to enhance the overall user experience, whatever that means. I hear a lot about how people like to use Fuji as it feels so organic, yet Nikon and Canon feel clinical. To me they're all just cameras, you use them all the same. Sure some feel more comfortable (which is important) but why some feel more "organic" I have no idea
Whilst Nikon do make arguably the best DSLRs at the moment (from all the usual brands), they've not shown anything that makes me confident that they will have class leading on sensor PDAF. Time will obviously tell. I just hope they get it right and don't release something half baked just to get into the market. Canon got away with it with the M system, but I'm not sure Nikon can.
That's one of the 'advantages' of mirrorless that I find a disadvantage. When I'm out with my 150-600 I don't want a small, light body on the end as it feels unbalanced. I know it's a smaller system than the FF but my Olly with the kit 40-150 is lot less stable than my D750 with twice the reach.
Mirrorless bodies don't have to be smaller, but that seems to be the trend. I assume that you mean the 40-150mm f2.8 as the other one's lighter than a light thing? I'd probably still rather carry the EM1 and 40-150mm f2.8 than the D750 and 150-600mm though
No, I meant the kit lens rather than pro. The weight of the pro would make it feel more unbalanced for me, as the EM10 is so light.
I'd rather carry a M4/3 setup, but I'd rather use the DSLR setup. It's the extra weight that stabilises the whole system and transfers less of my own shaky hands.
Ahh so you meant less stabilised rather than unbalanced? I find the 150-600mm tricky to stabilise, especially with slow panning. I’ve never tried with something like the EM1 and 40-150mm R so don’t know if this is too far the other way, ie too light. With my arms getting worse I’ve just bought the new Nikon 70-300mm AF-P to save weight over using my 70-200mm f2.8 or 150-600mm. The price has just been slashed plus there’s £90 cash back at he mo so it’s actually pretty good value. I just hope it’s not too light as it’s about 300g lighter than the D850 without battery grip
Yeah, stabilised is probably more apt. Maybe I need to invest in the pro 40-150 (by need I obviously mean .hey I've not bought anything recently!), but I tend to mainly use the Olly for gigs with the Panasonic 25mm.
Never panned much with the 150-600, outside of birds in flight, but the missus probably gets a better hit rate than me with the Tamron 70-300 for the same, so it's probably a good investment for the Nikon equivalent.
Should have a look for tripod collars maybe?
The 150-600mm comes with one, I just don't get on with tripods (except landscapes) and monopods
Separate names with a comma.