Nikon CEO confirms they are working on a pro mirrorless system.

snerkler said:
I think we're going around in circles here. I've said several times that there are advantages of EVF's that can't be denied. The simple fact is that I prefer looking through optics and that's all there is to it. It's not a debate or argument, just my preference (y)
Click to expand...
Me too
 
Riz_Guru said:
Yes, you could use slower and clumsy DSLR/A7 bodies to shoot many different kinds of photography, you can even use film camera's if you really wanted to, it comes down to what the individual wants really, this can be a combination of needs and wants.
The first and second generation A7 bodies were not quite good enough when comparing them to the tried and trusted DSLR, the Fuji XT-2 is a far quicker/easier body when compared to the A7's but lacks the FF advantages... one of the reasons I went back to Sony.

Do I need to invest £5-10k, does anybody really need to invest anything when a iPhone/Compact can take great photos? Again it comes down to individuals really, I have already done this once before with the Sony A7RII's, I regret moving away from Sony to Fuji, should have kept the lenses and waited for the Sony A9.

The Sony A9 for me is the turning point for Sony, the lightening quick AF, 20fps, silent shooting, Eye-AF...... for me these features make the art of taking a photo easier and quicker especially with Eye-AF (AF-C)...... when doing paid work its vital for me to nail every shot with less headache.

The Sony A7 paired with the 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 is a great setup, and small compared to DSLR equivalents, hopefully you'll be ok with the slow AF. IQ is excellent. :) However I would never use it for paid work, but that's just mean, doesn't mean the body is inadequate at all. I wouldn't even consider the A7II for paid work although I have seen some photographers use these without issues.

I think it'll be great to see Nikon enter the FF mirrorless market..... can't wait :D
Click to expand...
im glad we've got people like you and Johnny,it saves me a lot of money with you being the testers for the new stuff:)
 
OK, I've realised now that I don't need the latest stuff. Just LOTS of stuff. Picked up a black X-T10 from LCE to go with my silver X-T20. They will look great together on the shelf, but alas I will need some sort of retro strap for the black one now. Maybe a red and white one?

Need to decide what to do with the silver X-T10 now. And the graphite X-T1. And through black X-T1.

Help.

#awks
 
Pink straps?
 
HoppyUK said:
Pink straps?
Click to expand...

Now we're cooking! Speaking of which, what about a sheepskin strap?

411L%2BNX0fmL.jpg
 
Huge year for Nikon with their anniversary etc. We'll probably see a mirrorless ff body, will defiantly keep f mount. I wouldn't want to lose the optical finder, I'm hoping for a wonderful ttl hybrid viewfinder, that will crush all the opposition.
Expect announcements any time soon!
 
hobodan said:
Huge year for Nikon with their anniversary etc. We'll probably see a mirrorless ff body, will defiantly keep f mount. I wouldn't want to lose the optical finder, I'm hoping for a wonderful ttl hybrid viewfinder, that will crush all the opposition.
Expect announcements any time soon!
Click to expand...

An 'official' announcement from Nikon, though it doesn't seem to say much more
https://www.dpreview.com/news/91481...n-currently-developing-new-mirrorless-cameras

A Nikon FF mirrorless will certainly be fully compatible with existing lenses, probably via an adapter. In which case, they could have a completely different mount on the camera body itself, if needs be, and gradually introduce new lenses for it.

Mirrorless needs an electronic viewfinder though, and a hybrid TTL optical-electronic is not possible. I guess they could reinvent the twin-lens reflex ;)
 
Last edited:
Hopefully it comes out with all the bells and whistles that wopps the Leica SL ass, and st half the price........ let's wait and see :)
 
stevelmx5 said:
Doesn't the Sony A9 (and arguably the A7Rii) already beat the Leica in all but EVF resolution and red dot for less money?
Click to expand...
i can't comment on the Sony A9 but would argue the A7 experience over the SL. I hated the A7 user experience. The menus and buttons are terrible and the IVF of the A7 compared to the SL ........ there's no comparison.
My wife has the A7 and loves it so my comments above are my own personal preference.
I'm definitely excited about what the new Nikon has to offer though...... especially if they have a new mirrorless lens lineup :)
 
HoppyUK said:
An 'official' announcement from Nikon, though it doesn't seem to say much more
https://www.dpreview.com/news/91481...n-currently-developing-new-mirrorless-cameras

A Nikon FF mirrorless will certainly be fully compatible with existing lenses, probably via an adapter. In which case, they could have a completely different mount on the camera body itself, if needs be, and gradually introduce new lenses for it.

Mirrorless needs an electronic viewfinder though, and a hybrid TTL optical-electronic is not possible. I guess they could reinvent the twin-lens reflex ;)
Click to expand...

....The linked "official" statement from Nikon says "new mirrorless products" without any mention of whether FF etc. However it is very likely that they are developing mirrorless FF and they would be stupid not to. Also, examining what mirrorless technology Canon's EOS M5 has, the development into FF bodies is a natural progression.

Either Nikon or Canon would be stupid in my opinion to change the size of lens mount and consequently exclude use of any of their very extensive ranges of high quality lenses. A mirrorless FF body doesn't have to be so small that it needs an adapter and anyway, with a smaller lens mount they would then need to produce a whole new set of lenses and be behind their competitors. It takes the industry many years to develop sophisticated lenses for digital cameras.

EVFs have improved in leaps and bounds and will continue to do so - Technology never stands still. I hated EVFs until the Canon EOS M5.

I know I keep mentioning the Canon EOS M5 mirrorless but it's relevant in that all Canon would have to do to compete with a Nikon mirrorless FF is size up their M5 so it no longer needs an EF lens mount adapter and so it can contain one of their own FF Dual Pixel sensors. Build the carcass to be pro standard robust and weatherproof and job done! The carcass and controls of Canon's crop-sensor 7D Mark II (a minor variation of which the M5 has) is virtually identical to their FF 5D Mark IV.

Do you see where I'm going with this? - It's only a matter of Canon mixing various components already in existence to get them to base camp and then upwards and onwards. They might even be ahead of Nikon on this climb and although we can only speculate (as always) it seems pretty obvious that it's only a matter of time before Canon/Nikon launch new mirrorless FF bodies.
 
I've heard all this before in my youth when people were decrying the Miniature Format (as FF was then known) compared with the essential advantages of Roll Film and larger ;-) .
Forget the size of camera bodies, sensors are shrinking and will only get better. Software is taking over from hardware. If CaNikon don't cannibalise their own products others will. That was the genius of Steve Jobs, he cannibalised his iPods with the iPhone and Apples' modular desktops with laptops and iMacs and iPads and so on.
 
I think FF will always be the ideal choice of photographers. Even if smaller sensors get much better DR and resolution, they still can't get the d.o.f falloff that FF has. I know some moan about the overuse of shallow d.o.f, but there are many a time that it adds a certain look to a photo and is a great tool for drawing attention to a certain focal point. Smaller sensors can do it, just not as well as FF.
I was disappointed that Fuji went to Medium format and not FF. I'm not interested in MF, but would without question have bought a FF Fuji.
 
I know little about how to design, or how one works for that matter. How much of a size / weight saving would there be by having a FF mirrorless system over the SLR concept? Surely it is only the mirror and prism that is being lost, so not a huge saving in weight - and the lenses will weigh exactly the same, so the benefit is minimal. I can't see enough of an advantage to ditch a D4 or D5 for a similar mirrorless body - can someone explain where the SIGNIFICANT advantage would be please?

I am considering going the Fuji route, having to replace a full D4s system and the major attraction for me is the reduced weight and reduced size - for stowing a mobile system being compact is very useful. The bit I am struggling to get my head around is the off camera flash, but that will come clear once the actual body route is decided upon - so for me, this development is of great interest, but not if it is only 10% smaller than the SLR. That isn't enough of a draw - for publishing the Fuji size sensor produces more than adequate pictures with plenty of detail. Dealing with the RAW files is another thing I need to get sorted. The Nikon Capture NX2 is ideal for what I need, I hope there is something equally as simple for the Fuji.
 
Lensflare said:
Dealing with the RAW files is another thing I need to get sorted. The Nikon Capture NX2 is ideal for what I need, I hope there is something equally as simple for the Fuji.
Click to expand...

Dealing with Fuji RAW files could be its own thread - in fact there may be a few that exist already :)

From what I have read (I have never owned a Fuji) - there can be some problems with certain editors.

It may have improved since I last read about it - but worth looking into.
 
Don't worry, I have been, in depth - but there isn't anything definitive anywhere. Not that I have found anyway, which is probably down to my inability to work a confuser very well. I can do the main things, it is the inner detailed workings like hidden searches and stuff that I don't know how to do. Google only gives you the main ones - and mostly ones that involve buying something, it is all sales pointers rather than information ones.
 
Lensflare said:
- can someone explain where the SIGNIFICANT advantage would be please?
Click to expand...

I really don't understand why people have a problem with this. Go to one of the comparison sites and compare the size of a mirrorless camera and various lenses and ditto a dslr and lenses, look at the bulk and read the weight figures. Better still if at all possible handle the kit and make your own mind up.

The only ff mirrorless slr type cameras at the mo are the Sony A7 and A9 and Leica. I have the A7 and it's about the size of a 35mm slr and with a small lens fitted it's a lot smaller than a dslr and lens. Fit a 70-200mm f2.8 to both and the differences may be less but even if the lenses are exactly the same there'll still be a saving in body bulk and weight, it's up to each of is to decide what is significant. One thing you can do is fit a compact prime to an A7 and if you do that it's a tiny package compared to a dslr. If you don't like small you can fit a grip :D
 
Last edited:
Lensflare said:
I know little about how to design, or how one works for that matter. How much of a size / weight saving would there be by having a FF mirrorless system over the SLR concept? Surely it is only the mirror and prism that is being lost, so not a huge saving in weight - and the lenses will weigh exactly the same, so the benefit is minimal. I can't see enough of an advantage to ditch a D4 or D5 for a similar mirrorless body - can someone explain where the SIGNIFICANT advantage would be please?

I am considering going the Fuji route, having to replace a full D4s system and the major attraction for me is the reduced weight and reduced size - for stowing a mobile system being compact is very useful. The bit I am struggling to get my head around is the off camera flash, but that will come clear once the actual body route is decided upon - so for me, this development is of great interest, but not if it is only 10% smaller than the SLR. That isn't enough of a draw - for publishing the Fuji size sensor produces more than adequate pictures with plenty of detail. Dealing with the RAW files is another thing I need to get sorted. The Nikon Capture NX2 is ideal for what I need, I hope there is something equally as simple for the Fuji.
Click to expand...

In theory a mirrorless system can be smaler overall *for the shorter focal lengths* because the lenses don't have to be designed to project the image onto the sensor from some distance - caused by the mirror otherwise getting in the way. There will be no significant difference for longer focal length lenses, although the camera body will always remain smaller and lighter.
 
woof woof said:
I really don't understand why people have a problem with this. Go to one of the comparison sites and compare the size of a mirrorless camera and various lenses and ditto a dslr and lenses, look at the bulk and read the weight figures. Better still if at all possible handle the kit and make your own mind up.

The only ff mirrorless slr type cameras at the mo are the Sony A7 and A9 and Leica. I have the A7 and it's about the size of a 35mm slr and with a small lens fitted it's a lot smaller than a dslr and lens. Fit a 70-200mm f2.8 to both and the differences may be less but even if the lenses are exactly the same there'll still be a saving in body bulk and weight, it's up to each of is to decide what is significant. One thing you can do is fit a compact prime to an A7 and if you do that it's a tiny package compared to a dslr. If you don't like small you can fit a grip :D
Click to expand...

But if you are using legacy lenses (very likely in the case of Nikon making a FF mirrorless camera), then the required adapter will invariably place the sensor at the same position relative to the lens flange as it does in a mirrored DSLR, thus negating the size differential.

If you are using lenses designed for the mirrorless camera then you don't have this issue.

FWIW I don't think anyone is really arguing here or missing points, but if you are going to make sweeping statements, then you should clarify that yes 'my Sony is smaller when it has a Sony Mirrorless Lens on it'

Neither Sony nor Fuji have as complete a lens range as Canon or Nikon, and if Nikon are serious about a FF Mirrorless Pro Camera, you can be sure that it will take the existing Nikon lens range either with or without an adapter.
 
ancient_mariner said:
In theory a mirrorless system can be smaler overall *for the shorter focal lengths* because the lenses don't have to be designed to project the image onto the sensor from some distance - caused by the mirror otherwise getting in the way. There will be no significant difference for longer focal length lenses, although the camera body will always remain smaller and lighter.
Click to expand...

That was my fear - as I am not getting any younger, finding a system which is CONSIDERABLY MORE COMPACT AND LIGHTER IS VERY APPEALING, but it has to come with superb imaging too. The Fuji certainly seems to fit the bill, but I am concerned at the number of adopters who then ditch their kit very quickly afterwards. It makes me wonder why they changed their minds.

The layout is familiar to me, having started with fully manual film, then I got smart and bought a motordrive unit! Actually using an aperture ring, to my mind, is an advantage over rotating a wheel, even after all these years of wheel rolling, I still don't like it, I just live with it.
 
Lensflare said:
I know little about how to design, or how one works for that matter. How much of a size / weight saving would there be by having a FF mirrorless system over the SLR concept? Surely it is only the mirror and prism that is being lost, so not a huge saving in weight - and the lenses will weigh exactly the same, so the benefit is minimal. I can't see enough of an advantage to ditch a D4 or D5 for a similar mirrorless body - can someone explain where the SIGNIFICANT advantage would be please?

I am considering going the Fuji route, having to replace a full D4s system and the major attraction for me is the reduced weight and reduced size - for stowing a mobile system being compact is very useful. The bit I am struggling to get my head around is the off camera flash, but that will come clear once the actual body route is decided upon - so for me, this development is of great interest, but not if it is only 10% smaller than the SLR. That isn't enough of a draw - for publishing the Fuji size sensor produces more than adequate pictures with plenty of detail. Dealing with the RAW files is another thing I need to get sorted. The Nikon Capture NX2 is ideal for what I need, I hope there is something equally as simple for the Fuji.
Click to expand...
Try
http://camerasize.com/compact/#649.353,487.87,703.498,ha,t
I've put D5, A7, X-T2 each with a 50mme 1.8 or 2 lens, you can put what you like ;-)
 
woof woof said:
I really don't understand why people have a problem with this. Go to one of the comparison sites and compare the size of a mirrorless camera and various lenses and ditto a dslr and lenses, look at the bulk and read the weight figures. Better still if at all possible handle the kit and make your own mind up.

The only ff mirrorless slr type cameras at the mo are the Sony A7 and A9 and Leica. I have the A7 and it's about the size of a 35mm slr and with a small lens fitted it's a lot smaller than a dslr and lens. Fit a 70-200mm f2.8 to both and the differences may be less but even if the lenses are exactly the same there'll still be a saving in body bulk and weight, it's up to each of is to decide what is significant. One thing you can do is fit a compact prime to an A7 and if you do that it's a tiny package compared to a dslr. If you don't like small you can fit a grip :D
Click to expand...
But you have to compare apples with apples. It's not good saying that the Fuji XT2 is significantly smaller and lighter than a D810 for example.

There's no doubting that mirrorless can be fairly compact, especially m4/3. I guess it depends on what/how you shoot. If you're a 50mm prime user then the A7II with 50mm f1.8 at 885g vs a D750 with 50mm f1.8 at 1026mm could be classed as a significant as it's a 14% weight saving. However, the 70-200mm f2.8 is one of my most used lenses. The Sony A7II with 70-200mm f2.8 is 2105g vs 2380g of the Nikon, a saving of only 8%, but it will probably 'feel' less of a saving as the Nikon will be better balanced.

I know you're firmly in the mirrorless camp and it suits you which is great, but the advantages that you see might not be applicable for everyone (y)
 
Looking at the D4s compared to the TX2, even with a grip on it the TX is MIGHTILY smaller, not just a bit smaller, it is half the size. Put the 16-55 lens on and the 24-70 on the D4s and the difference is still vast, more than just a bit of a saving, but a huge saving. Put the 50-140 on the little camera (70-200 equiv) and it is only the same size as the D4s with 24-70.......I think this is going to be an eye opener for me when the TX2 and lenses are made available for me to trial.
 
twist said:
And? Not everyone needs ibis. There are vr, ois lenses, tripods, faster shutter speeds. Depends on user requirements.
Click to expand...
not my point. IBIS add to body bulk, the other two bodies don't have it. oranges vs. apples comparison.
Also not to mention one of the bodies has APS-C sensor.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
not my point. IBIS add to body bulk, the other two bodies don't have it. oranges vs. apples comparison.
Also not to mention one of the bodies has APS-C sensor.
Click to expand...
Obviously, so not to mention*! He did mention Fuji however and I guessed from the context he wasn't thinking of the Fuji GFX.

* This is a bit like those Dpreview reviews where they review, say, a fixed lens camera and then list fixed lens as one of the disadvantages :)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
not my point. IBIS add to body bulk, the other two bodies don't have it. oranges vs. apples comparison.
Also not to mention one of the bodies has APS-C sensor.
Click to expand...

Ibis doesn't add significantly to bulk. Look at a6300/6500 (same size), Olympus, Panasonic range.
 
Last edited:
If the performance of all mirrorless cameras were equal and I bought one I would buy the biggest one and then add a grip. Why? Because the ones that I have held in my hand are too small. Lighter weight, smaller size, 20FPS, focus peaking and all the other cobblers that seems to accumulate in bodies these days whether mirrored or not, it's no use when the damn thing feel like a dinky toy and I'd need to remove the top joints of my fingers just to hold it properly.

For some people a small camera body just doesn't work. I've got an old Canon EOS 600 which is probably something close to a ff mirrorless so I just went and dragged it out. Nearly had to dislocate my finger just to press the shutter button.

So fit all the tech into a D5 or similar. Use the extra space to pack in more processing power, quadruple card slots, or a battery big enough to start a Diesel engine in a car and then everyone has a choice.
 
Lensflare said:
That was my fear - as I am not getting any younger, finding a system which is CONSIDERABLY MORE COMPACT AND LIGHTER IS VERY APPEALING, but it has to come with superb imaging too. The Fuji certainly seems to fit the bill, but I am concerned at the number of adopters who then ditch their kit very quickly afterwards. It makes me wonder why they changed their minds.

The layout is familiar to me, having started with fully manual film, then I got smart and bought a motordrive unit! Actually using an aperture ring, to my mind, is an advantage over rotating a wheel, even after all these years of wheel rolling, I still don't like it, I just live with it.
Click to expand...

The problem with this place is that people change their kit on a whim, then change their minds. The EVF alone is a big change.

I know I've bought gear without even handling it in advance. For example, I bought a Sony A7 just after launch and really didn't get on with it. Bought a cheap Fuji setup and loved it, so sold it on and bought a more expensive Fuji setup :)
 
hobodan said:
I think FF will always be the ideal choice of photographers. Even if smaller sensors get much better DR and resolution, they still can't get the d.o.f falloff that FF has. I know some moan about the overuse of shallow d.o.f, but there are many a time that it adds a certain look to a photo and is a great tool for drawing attention to a certain focal point. Smaller sensors can do it, just not as well as FF.
I was disappointed that Fuji went to Medium format and not FF. I'm not interested in MF, but would without question have bought a FF Fuji.
Click to expand...

Why, if you want shallow DoF nothing does it like medium/larger formats. Full frame is fine, but its not like Phase One.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Why, if you want shallow DoF nothing does it like medium/larger formats. Full frame is fine, but its not like Phase One.
Click to expand...

Well that would be true if MF had a vast array of very fast glass...
MF for me is too limiting, it has a specific purpose (posed / studio shooting etc) and the price / value ratio isn't for me. If I had £10k to spend on one body and lens, I would probably end up with a Leica M10 & summilux.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top