Nikon mirrorless definitely on the way

This is a tough one. While I like the idea that standard F mount lenses should be compatible, at the same time I find the mount crude and awkward to use compared to almost any modern design - it might be the opportunity Nikon need to change to a better mount design, while providing an adapter to help users make the change.
 
They will definitely produce an adapter because that will be a big seller but it will not allow full functionality like the new lens line up will.
If it did there would be no point in the new mount.
The reason to switch to mirrorless is for advantages the concept gives over the DSLR format but they want to maximize sales not just to a body but to lots of new lenses as well.
 
They will definitely produce an adapter because that will be a big seller but it will not allow full functionality like the new lens line up will.
If it did there would be no point in the new mount.
The reason to switch to mirrorless is for advantages the concept gives over the DSLR format but they want to maximize sales not just to a body but to lots of new lenses as well.

You make an adaptor to shift bodies, keep people in the ecosystem.

You then shift your manufacturing to new mount, slowly replacing all your existing lenses over the next decade or so.

People will buy the new lens, people already buy new mk2 or mk3 lenses, it’s what people do. I went from 35L mk1 to mk2, I mean they both offer full functionality, why did I upgrade? Because it’s better, because it’s what people and consumer do.

History has shown that it works, EOS line is proof.
 
True, but the notion that lenses for mirrorless cameras can be smaller and lighter than their equivalents for DSLRs only really applies for wide angle lenses. Looking at Sony full frame zooms for example, the 12-24mm f/4 is pretty small and light, but the 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm are all pretty much the same size and shape as Canon/Nikon lenses.
Errr Panasonic/Leica 100-400 kind of throws that one in the bin
 
I think it could possibly go the other way. If Nikon have 1000's or 1,000,000's of users invested heavily in their current lens line up and they are not compatible with the new mirrorless cameras, why would they switch.

The only thing that has prevented me from switching to mirrorless is the cost of selling up and replacing all my lenses, I'd loose a fortune. If Canon brought out a great mirrorless camera but didn't make it compatible with my current lenses, I wouldn't switch.

Then you are not their target market! They are looking at capturing new photographers or current DSLR users who do want to switch.

If the Nikon offering is as good as the Sony offering (but no better) and Nikon made an adapter to give good (but not all) functionality with their F mount lenses which make would you pick if you decided to switch now?
 
You make an adaptor to shift bodies, keep people in the ecosystem.

You then shift your manufacturing to new mount, slowly replacing all your existing lenses over the next decade or so.

People will buy the new lens, people already buy new mk2 or mk3 lenses, it’s what people do. I went from 35L mk1 to mk2, I mean they both offer full functionality, why did I upgrade? Because it’s better, because it’s what people and consumer do.

History has shown that it works, EOS line is proof.
That's kinda exactly what I'm saying Raymond.
 
Then you are not their target market! They are looking at capturing new photographers or current DSLR users who do want to switch.

If the Nikon offering is as good as the Sony offering (but no better) and Nikon made an adapter to give good (but not all) functionality with their F mount lenses which make would you pick if you decided to switch now?

Lucky your not the CEO of Nikon then. Do you really think they aren’t interested in capitalising on their millions of existing customers. That would be very foolish.

Like I said in my post (if you’d bothered to read it fully), I am a DSLR using wanting to switch, but not at the cost of thousands of pounds to replace my lenses. I’m a hobbyists can’t justify it, but if Canon brought out a great mirrorless body that’s was on par with the current offerings of Fuji and Sony and offered an adapter so I could use my existing lenses, I switch tomorrow, upgrading my lenses over time.
 
Last edited:
And that’s exactly what I said so now I’m even more confused about you last reply to me.

I think he is basically saying for some reason Nikon will purposely gimp the adaptor user like certain AF modes won't work just to annoy the existing users. He thinks that will force users to to dump all their existing glass for new ones, as opposed to allow the users to upgrade naturally and organically as new versions comes out and in the meantime allow them to use their current glass.
 
Lucky your not the CEO of Nikon then. Do you really think they aren’t interested in capitalising on their millions of existing customers. That would be very foolish.

Like I said in my post (if you’d bothered to read it fully), I am a DSLR using wanting to switch, but not at the cost of thousands of pounds. I’m a hobbyist.

Hi Elliot - what I am trying to say (obviously not very well!) Is that Nikon will definitely produce an adapter that will allow you to switch and use your current glass but it would be commercial suicide for them to produce an adapter that allows the old style F mount lenses to work as well on the new camera as their new lenses will otherwise there wouldn't be an incentive for you to buy their new mount glass.

Nikon will continue to produce & develop F mount glass for some time; they have an excellent DSLR line up but they will also want to maximize sales of the new mount lenses so there must be an advantage to using these on the mirrorless system.

Hopefully this clears things up?
 
I think he is basically saying for some reason Nikon will purposely gimp the adaptor user like certain AF modes won't work just to annoy the existing users. He thinks that will force users to to dump all their existing glass for new ones, as opposed to allow the users to upgrade naturally and organically as new versions comes out and in the meantime allow them to use their current glass.

Gimp - if you want to call it that but most refer to it as marketing.
 
I call it the truth, not marketing BS.

If Nikon do not make as much money as possible then profits slide.

If profits slide less is spent on developing new products and the manufacturer falls behind the competition leading to bankruptcy.

As consumers we want the best products so have to accept certain marketing strategy to ensure the company can continue - to expect everything a manufacturer can offer here and now is short sited IMO.
 
If Nikon do not make as much money as possible then profits slide.

If profits slide less is spent on developing new products and the manufacturer falls behind the competition leading to bankruptcy.

As consumers we want the best products so have to accept certain marketing strategy to ensure the company can continue - to expect everything a manufacturer can offer here and now is short sited IMO.

I think annoying your customer and not allowing them to grow and move over naturally and organically is short sighted.

What you are suggesting is forcing the current user's hands in order to get full functionality to sell everything they've got to get all new body and glass. Why would I do that? The Nikon body and new glass will have to be better than the more established Sony because i am selling up to start from Square 1, i am not held back by my glass. Unless Nikon comes out of the gate with a dozen Nikkor level glass.

Once you start from scratch your loyalty goes out the window.

If you want to play the long game, you make a good body with the current user using all their glass with full functionality, then they would buy the Nikon body, then slowly will buy newer glass, and the user STAYS with Nikon.
 
Last edited:
I think annoying your customer and not allowing them to grow and move over naturally and organically is short sighted.

What you are suggesting is forcing the current user's hands in order to get full functionality to sell everything they've got to get all new body and glass. Why would I do that? The Nikon body and new glass will have to be better than the more established Sony because i am selling up to start from Square 1, i am not held back by my glass. Unless Nikon comes out of the gate with a dozen Nikkor level glass.

Once you start from scratch your loyalty goes out the window.

Yup. I still own a Sony APS-C camera, but none of my Sony/Minolta FF lenses would fit an A7 without an adapter, so there was no compelling reason to stay with the brand.
 
Nikon needs users to stay within their ecosystem. To do that, they need to produce an adaptor, that offers very good (perhaps not perfect), compatibility with their f mount lens. Over time, they will produce versions specifically for their mirrorless cameras, that give the user sufficient reason to upgrade from their f mount lens.

In their 100 year history, they have shown that they can be very arrogant, when it comes to the end user. I hope their elitist attitude is not their undoing.
 
For a while it's been suggested that the F mount is limiting scope to produce high-end, fast lenses and a new mount would open up some interesting possibilities.
 
Errr Panasonic/Leica 100-400 kind of throws that one in the bin
Do please try to keep up. I was comparing full frame mirrorless with full frame DSLR. Of course the Panasonic is smaller, but that's because it's for a system with a smaller sensor.
 
If you want to play the long game, you make a good body with the current user using all their glass with full functionality, then they would buy the Nikon body, then slowly will buy newer glass, and the user STAYS with Nikon.
I think that's exactly right. Nikon have to play catch-up here, and they're starting from a long way behind, so they absolutely have to make the most of their existing assets. Anything else would be suicidal.

Canon will do the same, probably, though it's not so difficult for them because the EF mount isn't as restrictive as the Nikon F mount.
 
For a while it's been suggested that the F mount is limiting scope to produce high-end, fast lenses and a new mount would open up some interesting possibilities.

There has already been rumours that there will eventually be a new range of f/0.95 noct lenses for the new mirrorless bodies, Nikon have filed a patent for these. I would expect some f/1.2 lenses as well.

This wasn’t possible with f mount and this is how they will likely people into switching to the new lenses. Every rumour around suggests that the f mount adapter will be very sophisticated and that there aim is that the current f mount lenses will work just as well on the new mirrorless bodies as they do on the current dslrs. There has been no rumours at all that the adaptor will be hamstrung in any way. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
 
Last edited:
True, but the notion that lenses for mirrorless cameras can be smaller and lighter than their equivalents for DSLRs only really applies for wide angle lenses. Looking at Sony full frame zooms for example, the 12-24mm f/4 is pretty small and light, but the 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm are all pretty much the same size and shape as Canon/Nikon lenses.


Do please try to keep up. I was comparing full frame mirrorless with full frame DSLR. Of course the Panasonic is smaller, but that's because it's for a system with a smaller sensor.

In your first sentence, where you actually make the statement, you do not mention FF ... just 'mirrorless' - no need to be so smarmy because someone picked you up wrong. Maybe be clearer about what you're trying to say? The 'equivalent' thing gets used a LOT when talking about M43 in comparison to FF also. Tiring, but it happens.

Yes, but that’s for m43 NOT for full frame.

What I just said ^

Stewart didn't make it completely clear in his initial statement, I can see right away where the crossed wires comes from. Saying mirrorless, does NOT specify FF mirrorless. There's a lot more non FF mirrorless cameras
 
Last edited:
Nikon needs users to stay within their ecosystem. To do that, they need to produce an adaptor, that offers very good (perhaps not perfect), compatibility with their f mount lens. Over time, they will produce versions specifically for their mirrorless cameras, that give the user sufficient reason to upgrade from their f mount lens.
I suspect there will be different “levels” of compatibility.

The “E” lenses will work perfectly (especially the longer ones) and these will remain in the Nikon system for a long time - if you want anything longer than 70-200 then they will be selling you an F mount “E” lens and adaptor for a long time to come (also means one lens can be sold to ALL Nikon users). Look at Nikon’s recent launches, they have been longer E lenses - the only G lens in FX lenses now is the 80-400 ... to my thinking indicative of the way Nikon are thinking.

I doubt there will be Nikon “mirrorless native” telephoto lenses for the foreseeable future as Nikon have covered from 300-600mm (as well as the 105) in recently launched E lenses.

G lenses will be more limited in compatibility and over time and the current G lenses in Normal and Wide Angle will be the last ones for F mount (IMO). Older non AF-S lenses and before will be even more limited in compatibility.
 
Mirror-less has been around a over a decade now.... as a way to make a camera, its more convenient to the manufacturer, than it probably is the user. Doing away with the periscope in the lens-mount and porting the sensor display to a back-screen and or electronic peep-hole view-finder, takes away an awful lot of the compromises inherent in the mechanics of an SLR design, while still providing What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get through the lens composition... and possibly doing it slightly better, as the lens mount and mirror wont mask any of the view-finder as it usually does in most SLR systems.

Personally I am NOT convinced that there are an awful lot of 'advantages' to mirror-less for the consumer... its less compromised than a purely optical TTL view-finder; this does mean that lenses can have true focal length, and not be, as most wider angle SLR lenses, 'retro-focus' and have potentially quality reducing elements to compensate for the image plane (sensor) actually being further away from the lens, to make space for the mirror and pentaprism....

As a camera user, this is a rather tentative 'benefit', from my point of view; I do appreciate that same difference, with my old Konica C35 film camera, that has 'true' focal length lens, thanks to no SLR mechanism... but.... even there.... how much of the better optics I might perceive IS actually attributable to that 'better' less compromised lens, and how much due to it being rigidly mounted not interchangeable, and how much 'better' are photos taken with it compared to my 35mm XA2 compact, with its 'equated' 35mm lens, with the lens actually mounted closer to the film plane than the focal length to make it so compact, or compared to my OM10, or any other of my SLR's, with a retro-focus lens to account for the mirror-box.... most of which would be comparing apples with oranges as they generally take more comprised anyway 'zoom' lenses.... probably the closest comparison would be the M42 Pentacon 29mm on my Sigma MK1, as its a very rigid lens mount.... but even there; the main benefit was in 'cost', as much as anything..... and the Sigma and 'budget' Pentacon 29, when new were still as expensive as the made in greater numbers Konica..

The less compromised mechanics, WOULD suggest that the camera maker can possibly make a better lens for the same money... but significantly more likely to make as good a lens for less money, and save more still, on the camera body, not having to make such an intricate pentapsism mechanism, or tolerate having to engineer its grade to a higher level of reliability.....

So, would the camera maker take that opportunity of savings from to not having to make a more expensive pentaprism and mirror mechanism to make a 'better' camera and lens for the same price... or would they make the camera and lens down to the same acceptable quality level, and cream a bit of extra profit, or a bit of both, optimizing sale-ability and profitability? As they historically have done.......

Idea of an alternative to F-Mount... I think that that is where they flopped with the Nikon-One... there was small support for the new lens mount, few lenses and what there was was expensive... brave of them to try... but not the great hit they might have hoped.

The company have sold on the notion that they have maintained their backwards comparability with the F-Mount since 1959, and any F-Mount lens, since then, will fit and work on any F-Mount camera to date..... and that is probably now such a legacy expectation that they HAVE to maintain it, hence the adapter idea.

But How many, even die hard Nikon users have all Nikkor lenses? And in the age of the long-range zoom, how many lenses is that actually likely to be?

Three? Maybe? Short-zoom, long zoom, and maybe a prime, or maybe an UWA or maybe a very long zoom.

Would it impact sales all that much to completely switch mounts? Even if target market is significantly existing f-mount camera users?

Canon have done it. Pentax has done it. Olympus sort of did it.. but none of them had the 'heritage' in the market place that Nikon does....

Ambiguous comment in the propaganda, was suggestion that it was to be an 'Entry-Level, Full-Frame-Sensor' camera.....

Is that an entry level camera to full frame? In which case not many full frame owners, with high end SLR's that likely to come 'down' to a lower grade body? Given the small proportional number of sales of Full-Frame cameras, more likely it's an 'entry' level camera, equivalent to current APS-C offerings... and the large savings of not making an expensive pentaprism mechanism put into offering a much cheaper, but more wow-inducing larger sensor as substitute feature... so more aimed at complete beginners and APS-C users.

How many APS-C users would 'upgrade' to a mirror-less full-frame, described as an 'entry-level' camera, and of them, again, how many would be able to employ 'legacy' lenses they had acquired for an APS-C camera? A lot would have to 'start over' anyway to acquire lenses with an image circle large enough to cover a full-frame sensor....

Personally; I would! The Kit 18-55 that came with my camera wouldn't cover a full-frame sensor, neither would the 55-300. Other two lenses I have, one's 4.5mm fish... would work on full-frame.... but I'd just get a smaller circle in the middle of the frame, and waste even more pixels! UWA I think would work, but I'd loose a lot of the wide I bought it for. In either instance, even where I could use existing lenses, on a mount or not, switch to Full-Frame would beg rationalization of those lenses to best suit at some point.

And IF a real 'entry-level' camera aimed at the same market as current APS-C sensor SLR's; its probably a non-issue. They will most likely never buy anything other than the Kit normal angle zoom that's packaged with the camera; and if they do, odds is they wont buy a Nikkor lens anyway, but a 3rd party one.

The F-Mount 'legacy' would be just that, and the national backwards compatibility, unlikely employed by very many... I mean, how many use Pre AI Nikkor lenses on an AF Digital camera? Value there is the idea you might..... even if actually, you probably cant, or the lens would have to be modified or adapted to do so!

The notion then suggests that Nikon have finally recognized that the F-Mount and the mechanical SLR probably have had their day, and that mirror-less is likely the only way to go in order to keep the costs, of particularly consumer grade cameras, competitive.

The Fifty-Plus year old F-Mount? PROBABLY has long had its day; the acclaimed forwards-backwards comparability HASN'T really been there for at least a decade if not more; The legend however remains, and without the need for a large mirror housing, a 'cheap' adapter to push an old lens forwards on the mount to mimic one, is then a fairly cheap way to keep that legend alive, and meet a customer expectation, that's probably not all that relevant.

Ultimate question is cost vs performance......

And just how good may be the camera and its lenses, compared to existing offerings...... and that full-frame sensor, and high mega-pixie count is likely to generate a lot bigger acclaim than its effect on image quality probably warrants.. question will ultimately come down to is it worth the money.... and both questions remain in speculation.....

But other than allowing expected TTL composition, and saving cost/complexity of a mechanical mirror and pentaprism... how much may be filtered down to the end user as 'added value', is just as much in question.

Mirror-less, architecture, alone, doesn't grantee anything, other than an alternative architecture!
 
I wonder if they'll support screw motor AF lenses. I doubt it.
 
I wonder if they'll support screw motor AF lenses. I doubt it.
The suggestion (via NikonRumors.com and iirc) is that the adaptor will have two motors - one for screw type AF lenses and one for adjusting the aperture.
Idea of an alternative to F-Mount... I think that that is where they flopped with the Nikon-One... there was small support for the new lens mount, few lenses and what there was was expensive... brave of them to try... but not the great hit they might have hoped.
Hopefully Nikon have learned from the Nikon1 ... its not enough to make a good camera; there has to be good lenses easily available for it and also have to market it at the right price.
The company have sold on the notion that they have maintained their backwards comparability with the F-Mount since 1959, and any F-Mount lens, since then, will fit and work on any F-Mount camera to date..... and that is probably now such a legacy expectation that they HAVE to maintain it, hence the adapter idea.

But How many, even die hard Nikon users have all Nikkor lenses? And in the age of the long-range zoom, how many lenses is that actually likely to be?

Three? Maybe? Short-zoom, long zoom, and maybe a prime, or maybe an UWA or maybe a very long zoom.

Would it impact sales all that much to completely switch mounts? Even if target market is significantly existing f-mount camera users?
I'm not sure its just about legacy. If you read my post above, you'll notice I observed that in the last few years, Nikon have been concentrating mainly on releasing new, "E" versions of their longer lenses. Now IF (and it is a big IF) an F to Z mount (NikonRumors and others have been referring to the new mount as being called "Z mount") can utilise those lenses as if native, then Nikon can boast that at launch they can offer everything from 24-70 and 70-200, through 300 to a 600mm lens all fully compatible with their new mirrorless system, leaving them to produce a new f/4 "kit" lens in Z mount and some wide angle Z mount lenses as priorities (the wide angel especially being where their is advantage to be taken in terms of size). The rumour is that Initially, three lenses will be announced: 24-70mm, 35mm and 50mm (I think the 35 and 50mm will be f/1.4). There is also talk about a 24mm, but it may come later. Any other lens will be adapted!

It all relies on the adaptor being (close to) perfect.
Canon have done it. Pentax has done it. Olympus sort of did it.. but none of them had the 'heritage' in the market place that Nikon does....
Pentax? I thought Pentax K-mount was (like Nikon) adapted through the ages to add AF, etc? (Sorry a bit off the topic and I'm asking to fill in my knowledge).
Ambiguous comment in the propaganda, was suggestion that it was to be an 'Entry-Level, Full-Frame-Sensor' camera.....

Is that an entry level camera to full frame? In which case not many full frame owners, with high end SLR's that likely to come 'down' to a lower grade body? Given the small proportional number of sales of Full-Frame cameras, more likely it's an 'entry' level camera, equivalent to current APS-C offerings... and the large savings of not making an expensive pentaprism mechanism put into offering a much cheaper, but more wow-inducing larger sensor as substitute feature... so more aimed at complete beginners and APS-C users.
Again based on rumours ... but its suggested there will be two mirrorless bodies - a "entry level full frame" with around 24mp and a higher end with around 45mp. Similar to the division between the D750 and the D850 (and at similar prices) and almost identical to the Sony A7 and A7R positioning. APS-C will come later...
 
Mirror-less has been around a over a decade now.... as a way to make a camera, its more convenient to the manufacturer, than it probably is the user.

Hmmm. Dunno about that.

I initially went mirrorless to save bulk and weight but I later saw other advantages which include...
- WYSIWYG.
- Real time exposure and DoF in the VF.
- Being able to take a picture and check it without taking your eye from the VF.
- Being able to see things which would be invisible with an optical camera.
- Being able to see a greatly magnified view.
- Focus accuracy and consistency.
- Focusing just about anywhere in the frame not just around the central area.
I'm sure there are other things that'll appeal to other people and other consumers such as the advantages for video shooters etc.

Mirrorless may well be an advantage to the makers but I think also to the consumer too.
 
For a sensor that’s nowhere near FF ;)
As someone else picked up on Phil , no one initially mentioned full frame JUST mirrorless ,behave :banana::banana:
 
Will i5 happen of course it will ,the advances we are pondering here were being worked on several years ago ,it’s the nature of the beast they feed us snippets of advancements every year to keep us buying ,while knowing full well that they could bring out a full 3D mirrorless 300 mp sensor camera with 10 to 3000x zoom tomorrow if they wanted .( joking Phil V )
We are slaves to consumer advances in all fields and while we keep jumping on every new product and believe the reviews from paid lackies of the manufactures so will it continue ad infinitum
 
Last edited:
They should, IMHO, focus their efforts on developing a larger format system with a medium format type sensor with a new range of lenses. 35mm format is fine but there is more to be had from bigger sensors. It's not hurting Fuji or Pentax to offer such a superior system.
 
They should, IMHO, focus their efforts on developing a larger format system with a medium format type sensor with a new range of lenses. 35mm format is fine but there is more to be had from bigger sensors. It's not hurting Fuji or Pentax to offer such a superior system.

But that won't sell as well as a 35mm format?
 
I am keen to see this, I want to see Nikon survive, and to do this they need to adapt and move forward. I borrowed a Nikon One J5 recently and it did give some excellent images, but at the same time didn't feel quite right to me; I much prefer the mirror clunk and working process of a DSLR, so I will probably stick where I am for the time being.

I hope however that they don't try to go down the retro styling route, Fuji and Olympus camera are lovely looking things, but I would like to see something more up to date.
 
But that won't sell as well as a 35mm format?

Some of us want larger format sensors but would like to stay with the make. Imagine a larger body in the shape of a D810/850 with a sensor 4x the size with all the same controls with lovely larger/sharper lenses.

Think of the pictures you'd get off this. Drooooool....
 
Some of us want larger format sensors but would like to stay with the make. Imagine a larger body in the shape of a D810/850 with a sensor 4x the size with all the same controls with lovely larger/sharper lenses.

Think of the pictures you'd get off this. Drooooool....

I agree, it would be cool, just wouldn't make the manufacturer as much money.
 
I agree, it would be cool, just wouldn't make the manufacturer as much money.

Probably not but as a halo product :D

Nikon camera's, IMHO, have such an intuitive layout compared to many others (Canons are actually pretty good too) that a medium format one would be a top seller. One of the joys, or disjoys, of running workshops is helping people operate cameras in the field. The Sony/Fuji ones are unintelligible IMHO but the Canon, Nikon ones you can figure out without looking at the manual. These two makers are missing a big trick by not offering a superior system.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top