Nikon mirrorless definitely on the way

Brazo said:
I think that misses the point of mirrorless. It would just end up being mirrorless for the sake of it with zero size saving.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I wonder (and I’m only guessing) if removing the mirror (and pentaprism) would allow a more efficient usage of space. If Nikon could produce something around the size of the FE perhaps (or Canon the size of the AE-1) ... barely bigger than an A7 type body.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
I think that misses the point of mirrorless. It would just end up being mirrorless for the sake of it with zero size saving.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Smaller size isn't really the point of mirrorless. Things started out that way because that was the only advantage they had at the time but the full potential is for lighter, cheaper cameras (with no costly mirror/shutter or heavy pentaprism) that also out-perform DSLRs in significant areas.
 
If the question is, would you buy a D850 or 5D4 size mirrorless with the AF and number of focus phones like the Sony. The answer would be yes.

For 1 thing, you won't need an adaptor!
 
Lens design have improved, better CA control, sharper, higher resolution, and auto focus.

It's not really any news that older, simpler design lenses with less elements, less groups, no AF motor is smaller.
 
HoppyUK said:
Smaller size isn't really the point of mirrorless. Things started out that way because that was the only advantage they had at the time but the full potential is for lighter, cheaper cameras (with no costly mirror/shutter or heavy pentaprism) that also out-perform DSLRs in significant areas.
Click to expand...
So if not size then what?

Lighter? Cheaper?

Sony A7 series is light(er) but not cheaper. In terms of full frame I don’t see the benefit to the consumer but I do see a benefit to the manufacturer.
 
alfbranch said:
Some of the aguments are nuts DSLR's have become huge. They compare to medium format film cameras in size.

Here is a 35mm film SLR next to a small mirrorless camera

E-M5II compared to OM2sp 2 by Alf Branch, on Flickr
Click to expand...
My EOS 5 film camera is the same size as the 7d and so much larger than my 6d.

Like for like, that’s comparing cameras with sophisticated (for their time AF) and they take the same lenses.

The EOS M5 OTOH is tiny in comparison to all of them, particularly with proper M lenses.
 
Brazo said:
So if not size then what?

Lighter? Cheaper?

Sony A7 series is light(er) but not cheaper. In terms of full frame I don’t see the benefit to the consumer but I do see a benefit to the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Lighter? Yes, mirrorless should be, and nine times out of ten that's a good thing.
Smaller? Yes, if only in the thickness of the camera body. But a marginal benefit at best IMHO. In practical terms, the size of an outfit is determined by the sensor format and lenses. Smaller is good right up to the point when you actually want to use the camera, when most people want something they can get hold of with readily accessible controls. Personally, I don't care if that means my camera bag is perhaps an inch bigger.
Cheaper? For sure, at least for the manufacturer (once development costs are recovered).

And several other key performance advantages, as Raymond points out above, plus a few more that have not quite come to fruition yet. The goal is a solid state camera with no moving parts, and a global all-electronic shutter. The technology exists, but it's not yet been put together as a viable product aimed at us just yet.
 
Maybe eye control focus could be re-introduced as we were always told there wasn't room in a digital mirror box. Maybe greater dynamic range. For me size isn't important, I struggle to grip small cameras and I don't like cramped ergonomics, plus I want evf not a rear screen, less weight would be a bonus especially if it also meant lighter lenses. AF needs to be at least comparable with a 1DX.
Given the above I might consider mirrorless as a main camera but I like the shape and size of a modern DSLR.
 
twist said:
.... they've grown because the lenses have grown... let's see how well that om2 handles a 70-200 2.8 AF lens.
Click to expand...
Not got a comparison, but I suspect the original Vivitar Series 1 70-210 would be similar size to a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I used one of those on a AE-1 which isn’t much different in size to the OM2.
 
MatBin said:
Maybe eye control focus could be re-introduced as we were always told there wasn't room in a digital mirror box. Maybe greater dynamic range. For me size isn't important, I struggle to grip small cameras and I don't like cramped ergonomics, plus I want evf not a rear screen, less weight would be a bonus especially if it also meant lighter lenses. AF needs to be at least comparable with a 1DX.
Given the above I might consider mirrorless as a main camera but I like the shape and size of a modern DSLR.
Click to expand...

Eye Control Focus, assuming you mean the old Canon system (that knew what you were focusing on by the reflection in your eyeball) was dropped because it either didn't work or was erratic at best. But now we have subject-recognition AF and Sony's Eye AF that will follow the subject around the frame and focus reliably and accurately. More to come from that technology and it really needs mirrorless (reading directly off the sensor) to show its full potential.
 
HoppyUK said:
Lighter? Yes, mirrorless should be, and nine times out of ten that's a good thing.
Smaller? Yes, if only in the thickness of the camera body. But a marginal benefit at best IMHO. In practical terms, the size of an outfit is determined by the sensor format and lenses. Smaller is good right up to the point when you actually want to use the camera, when most people want something they can get hold of with readily accessible controls. Personally, I don't care if that means my camera bag is perhaps an inch bigger.
Cheaper? For sure, at least for the manufacturer (once development costs are recovered).

And several other key performance advantages, as Raymond points out above, plus a few more that have not quite come to fruition yet. The goal is a solid state camera with no moving parts, and a global all-electronic shutter. The technology exists, but it's not yet been put together as a viable product aimed at us just yet.
Click to expand...

Lighter yes but when you add glass there is nothing in it. My D750 with 70-200 is 30g heavier than its Sony counterpart.
 
JJ! said:
Lighter yes but when you add glass there is nothing in it. My D750 with 70-200 is 30g heavier than its Sony counterpart.
Click to expand...

A mirrorless system can do a pretty good impression of a smaller format body with the right lenses, which is a nice option to have even if you opt not to take advantage of it.
 
Eloise said:
Not got a comparison, but I suspect the original Vivitar Series 1 70-210 would be similar size to a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I used one of those on a AE-1 which isn’t much different in size to the OM2.
Click to expand...

Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm was f/3.5 and under one kilo. Today's 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms are around 50% heavier. That famous old Vivitar was more like a modern 70-200/4.

I think DSLRs are bigger than their film counterparts because they have far more controls, like a couple of dozen knobs and buttons vs a handful on a film camera, plus a whacking great rear LCD. And the other thing is we, as consumers, have just allowed them to grow unchecked. DSLRs don't have to be huge (eg Canon 200D is tiny) and if the move to mirrorless prompts a bit of all round scaling back that'd be welcome. There's not much can be done about lenses though and if we want a 70-200/2.8 it's always going to be a lump that needs a certain size of camera to get to grips with. Sony A7 and Fuji XT-2 are pretty neat IMHO :)
 
I don’t think the Vivitar mentioned had auto focus or OS.

HoppyUK makes a great point about the plethora of buttons and controls. My OM1 had very few. Batteries are huge now too.
 
I would guess the first Nikon Mirrorless will be high end and expensive. Kind of a showcase
 
HoppyUK said:
Eye Control Focus, assuming you mean the old Canon system (that knew what you were focusing on by the reflection in your eyeball) was dropped because it either didn't work or was erratic at best. But now we have subject-recognition AF and Sony's Eye AF that will follow the subject around the frame and focus reliably and accurately. More to come from that technology and it really needs mirrorless (reading directly off the sensor) to show its full potential.
Click to expand...
ive got an eos30 with eye focus-its brilliant works very well. i wander if its more to do with having way more focus points now, so its possibley not sensitive to that degree.
tbh 10 or so well placed with eye control would suit me as i tend to focus recompose anyway.
 
It will be fascinating to see how Nikon approaches it. I would assume they need a new sensor as their Nikon sensors probably don't use mirrorless features well and their Sony sensors are getting a bit old. Sony has a good lead in the ff mirrorless market and Nikon will need to sell their cameras quickly as I don't think they have the resources to make large losses. Maybe they'll aim smaller, but then they are then competing with Olympus and Panasonic.
Of course the best solution is to come up with something really innovative and create a whole new market. These things do happen and I'm sure Nikon are capable of it. It is hard to see how they can do well by just following Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and the like.
Canon's philosophy is different again - but we can't talk about that in this thread. :)
 
Last edited:
Regardless of how things pan out Sony are winners here. Years of high end mirrorless sensor development in the bank which at the very least Nikon will likely be buying into heavily.

I'm sure it's wrapped up in very tight confidentiality agreements, but Sony will know exactly what one of the big two have planned in the next year as they will no doubt be a fundamental part of that supply chain.
 
HoppyUK said:
Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm was f/3.5 and under one kilo. Today's 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms are around 50% heavier. That famous old Vivitar was more like a modern 70-200/4.
Click to expand...

Pound Coin said:
I don’t think the Vivitar mentioned had auto focus or OS.
Click to expand...
I was only going on memory with the Vivitar Series 1 - I guess I was smaller back then. @Pound Coin s comment about AF and OS is irrelevant to my comparison as I was commenting we coped with lenses like that on bodies like OM2 in the past (though it appears my comparison was wrong anyway)
 
ukaskew said:
Regardless of how things pan out Sony are winners here. Years of high end mirrorless sensor development in the bank which at the very least Nikon will likely be buying into heavily.

I'm sure it's wrapped up in very tight confidentiality agreements, but Sony will know exactly what one of the big two have planned in the next year as they will no doubt be a fundamental part of that supply chain.
Click to expand...
Well unless Nikon buy their sensors off TowerJazz which they likely did for the D850...
 
Jase said:
I'd like to see some retro styling on the Nikon body similar to Fuji then I'll be happy.
Click to expand...

....I really don't get this fad for retro styling camera bodies unless it's to pose. Surely it's far more important that any brand of camera is designed and styled ergonomically and FEELS good and rewarding to use.

I shan't be interested in a mirrorless body unless it's similar in size to a D-SLR. I already have a small Canon EOS M5 with EF lens adapter and am not a fan of its handling with Canon L telephoto lenses.

Nikon (and Canon) would be missing a trick if they don't at least offer an adapter while they build up a range of new 'mirrorless' lenses.
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
Well unless Nikon buy their sensors off TowerJazz which they likely did for the D850...
Click to expand...
Nikon really need to start making their own sensors in-house to be able to reduce the costs of manufacture significantly, as mentioned.... its going to be interesting to see which way Nikon go with their mirrorless body..... there is no in-between option.
 
RedRobin said:
....I really don't get this fad for retro styling camera bodies unless it's to pose. Surely it's far more important that any brand of camera is designed and styled ergonomically and FEELS good and rewarding to use.

I shan't be interested in a mirrorless body unless it's similar in size to a D-SLR. I already have a small Canon EOS M5 with EF lens adapter and am not a fan of its handling.

Nikon (and Canon) would be missing a trick if they don't at least offer an adapter while they build up a range of new 'mirrorless' lenses.
Click to expand...

I also much prefer the handling of a DSLR. If they put the A7iii inside a D750 body I think I would be set!

Part of me still wants to give the A7iii another trial (I tried the A7R3 and the 42mp just didnt work for me!) but I'm still not convinced what it offers me over the D750 (not really interested in the Eye AF or EVF etc).
 
Raymond Lin said:
More focus points spread.

Silent shooting.

Higher FPS

Less moving parts.

EVF.
Click to expand...
I would like more focus points. Ironically I moved from mirrorless to dslr for better focus speeds and I may have to go back again for erm better focus speeds!
 
JJ! said:
I also much prefer the handling of a DSLR. If they put the A7iii inside a D750 body I think I would be set!

Part of me still wants to give the A7iii another trial (I tried the A7R3 and the 42mp just didnt work for me!) but I'm still not convinced what it offers me over the D750 (not really interested in the Eye AF or EVF etc).
Click to expand...
In your situation not requiring Eye-AF or EVF requirements takes away some big positives with the Sony A7 III body, however if Sony developed Animal Eye-AF it could be a "GAME CHANGER" lol ;)
I am loving my Sony A7 III, its a very nice bit of kit for the money. :)
That said, if Nikon pull something out of the bag the pushes the IQ/DR/ISO benchmark futher with some radical new sensor design, they could pull the rug from under Sony.
I am not talking about the 1 - 2 stops better than previous generations, I am talking 10 stops + with clean ISO usable images over 50K ISO etc.

Nikon A9. :D
 
Riz_Guru said:
Nikon really need to start making their own sensors in-house to be able to reduce the costs of manufacture significantly, as mentioned.... its going to be interesting to see which way Nikon go with their mirrorless body..... there is no in-between option.
Click to expand...
Actually manufacturing the sensors in house isn't going to happen for Nikon ... theres no way they have the resources required to start such a venture. Although not identical, look at AMD - they don't manufacture their own processors and have control of costs.

But thats not whats important, designing in house or at least in partnership with manufacturers is the way to go.
Riz_Guru said:
That said, if Nikon pull something out of the bag the pushes the IQ/DR/ISO benchmark futher with some radical new sensor design, they could pull the rug from under Sony.
Click to expand...
Maybe they were completely faked, but there were rumours of and pictures allegedly from Nikon cameras in ultra-low light level a year or so ago...
 
A camera with auto focus activated by your eye sounds horrific! What happens when your eye checks or inspects something in the viewfinder which isn't the small main subject you want in sharp focus? I don't like EVFs anyway.

Such a system sounds as horrific as auto-stop-start engines in cars and driverless cars.

Which would you rather have? - A fire breathing petrol V8/V12 (D-SLR equivalent) or a limp Toyota Pious (small mirrorless equivalent)?
 
Last edited:
Riz_Guru said:
In your situation not requiring Eye-AF or EVF requirements takes away some big positives with the Sony A7 III body, however if Sony developed Animal Eye-AF it could be a "GAME CHANGER" lol ;)
I am loving my Sony A7 III, its a very nice bit of kit for the money. :)
That said, if Nikon pull something out of the bag the pushes the IQ/DR/ISO benchmark futher with some radical new sensor design, they could pull the rug from under Sony.
I am not talking about the 1 - 2 stops better than previous generations, I am talking 10 stops + with clean ISO usable images over 50K ISO etc.

Nikon A9. :D
Click to expand...

Animal AF would be damn tricky with so many didderent shaoes, sizes and types lol! Then agian I do't generally focus on the eyes for equestrian action!!

I would still be interested in how the A7iii handles low light or badly lit indoor light sports. All the youtube sports videos seem to either be in day light or under super bright outdoor floodlights!
 
niko said:
ive got an eos30 with eye focus-its brilliant works very well. i wander if its more to do with having way more focus points now, so its possibley not sensitive to that degree.
tbh 10 or so well placed with eye control would suit me as i tend to focus recompose anyway.
Click to expand...
Focus and recompose is challenging on a very thin dof though
 
Well what sports are played under dim lighting?

In the real world shooting sport's.you would do so during the Day or under some sort of lights.
 
JJ! said:
Animal AF would be damn tricky with so many didderent shaoes, sizes and types lol! Then agian I do't generally focus on the eyes for equestrian action!!

I would still be interested in how the A7iii handles low light or badly lit indoor light sports. All the youtube sports videos seem to either be in day light or under super bright outdoor floodlights!
Click to expand...
Replied to this btw
 
JJ! said:
Animal AF would be damn tricky with so many didderent shaoes, sizes and types lol! Then agian I do't generally focus on the eyes for equestrian action!!

I would still be interested in how the A7iii handles low light or badly lit indoor light sports. All the youtube sports videos seem to either be in day light or under super bright outdoor floodlights!
Click to expand...
I haven't used a Nikon D750 so can't comment too much, however from what I have seen online, the Sony A7 III's 24mp BSI sensor is now the leader of the pack out of the 24mp lot. :)
 
Last edited:
For canikon to nail there first attempted they basically need to canabalise there existing DSLR family by offering a mirrorless body that rivals what sony has brought out with the tech and features and price point.
They also need to release a bare minimum a 24-70 f2,8 and an f4 lens along with a 35mm/50mm primes natively to start the ball rolling.
Then if they do that, The likes of a D6? or d750 mk dslr wont happen.
I do believe the d850 is the very last dslr nikon have released. There predecesors will be mirrorless ones
 
jonneymendoza said:
Well what sports are played under dim lighting?

In the real world shooting sport's.you would do so during the Day or under some sort of lights.
Click to expand...

Real world Equestrian - indoor show jumping, indoor dressage etc. A lot of the lower level arenas are pretty terrible light wise!
 
JJ! said:
Real world Equestrian - indoor show jumping, indoor dressage etc. A lot of the lower level arenas are pretty terrible light wise!
Click to expand...
I see some have decent lighting on those, it just depends on the arena.

If you shoot on those conditions all the time then fair enough.

However there are a lot of sports played in good light so it depends on what you shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top