Wondering Wheather The inevitable Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless Will Be An F Mount.

FrenchRiviera

I just wonder what the utility will be.

- no need to operate fine tune AF
- almost 100% coverage AF
- possibility to master and correct live exposition through EVF
- much less noise
- smaller , lighter
- cheaper

FrenchRiviera

...
I just hope the SLR continues for at least a couple of generations more alongside any mirrorless that appears.

If it's worth , it's bought , if it's bought , it lasts .

No reasons for traditional DSLR to disappear , the 2 systems may continue alongside

Ironheart

You can still buy a horse carriage and horses. And the laws still permit driving them on regular roads. SLRs are still available new in the box; I think DSLRs have a long happy life ahead, and will co-exist with mirrorless, and cell phones, approximately forever.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@FrenchRiviera "No reasons for traditional DSLR to disappear , the 2 systems may continue alongside."

In the FWIW category, Nikonusa.com shows 2 formats for DSLRs (DX and FX), at least 2 for the Coolpix along with some underwater cameras, the V/J cameras (which I wish were M4/3 - Alas, Babylon), and two film cameras - it seems like that is sort of already happening,

@WestEndFoto

"I just wonder what the utility will be. Eliminate the mirror mechanism and save a hundred bucks. That would be valuable to a budget user. It might be thinner and save a bit of weight. But take my battery pack off of my D800 and it feels as light as a feather. "

Saving weight.

Again. If you haven't slogged it, you don't get it.

In one of my latter units we needed to make a 15 mile run every Friday in full field gear before breakfast. My best guess is that the D800 would be little less of a feather then, because for me, everything in my pack was heavier than crap.

When you're in a long-term assignment in the field, especially with a combat team, even far more so with Infantry soldiers moving by foot, every ounce becomes a strain on your shoe leather. For those photographers in uniform, they have to carry everything their fellow soldiers carry plus their photo gear, too.

That adds up.

If I were the head of a photographic team now (as I have been in the past), I would look hard at the Sony mirrorless because of the weight savings.

My best,

Mike

retread

Hi all, .

If I were the head of a photographic team now (as I have been in the past), I would look hard at the Sony mirrorless because of the weight savings.

My best,

Mike

I was a photographer in the army engineer corps. I carried my own slr as I it was better for the job than the army's 4X5. I was in the rear at headquarters so no long hikes but fully realize every job has its own tools.

WestEndBoy

Thanks for your thoughtful response FrenchRiviera.

I don't quite understand why the fine tune of AF is effected by Mirrorless vs DSLR? But I admit that I have not extensively researched this particular issue. Do you know of a good technical article on this that explains why – not one that merely states it as a truth.

100% AF coverage is certainly one of my biggest bones to pick with Nikon. But this was not an issue with SLRs. I don’t see how the mirror design effects this with DSLRs but not SLRs.

For mastering and correcting live exposition, press the depth of field preview button on a DSLR and you have that. Sure it is not as bright stopped down, but with experience that is not an issue. And there is nothing about the design of a DSLR that precludes having an EVF in conjunction with the optical viewfinder.

How is noise related to this?

Smaller and lighter? Hmm…..the DF is pretty small and it seems to me that ergonomics are the biggest factor in limiting “camera depth”, not the flange to focal length distance. Upgrade the D3300 to FX and let the weight and volume increase ONLY by the extent absolutely required by the increase in sensor size, you will still be left with a pretty small camera.

Cheaper? How much does that mirror mechanism cost? Based on the price of the cheapest DX DSLR in production, not much. Double the price for the premium version on a D810 or D4s – still not much. This might be an issue at the low end, but not the mid to high end.

And Mike Gunter, it is always a pleasure to hear from you.

How many of us are doing 15 mile runs with cameras? I doubt that there are many so I am not sure that this is relevant.

But let’s assume something shorter that might be more real world. How about hiking from the rim of Crater Lake to the boat launch, climbing up Wizard Island, down again, and back up to the rim of Crater Lake which amounted to a 4 hour 2,000 foot vertical strenuous hike. That is one example of how I have slogged it. My D800 with the MB-D12 and RRS L clamp was the least of my worries compared to my shoulder bag with 4 of the following: 20mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.4 and 200mm 4.0 – plus accessories. I didn’t bother taking my SB-910 out. Or how about a similar kit trudging around Chinese cities for 14 days. It is an erroneous assumption that I have not slogged it.

Not sure how shortening the flange to focal length and ridding myself of the mirror mechanism is going to influence my thinking in the above scenarios?

DJBee49

Of course, we have been here before in the past with camera formats and equipment.

The first 35mm cameras, Leicas and Contaxes, were considered as inadequate toys for many years after their introduction. Most of my commercial work was on 4X5 format with some on 120 film, and I only used 35mm for theatre photography.... and family snaps. However, I was not a photojournalist and I think Mike's point is entirely valid. I would not like to be lugging my 4X5 monorail across battlefields in Vietnam (!) and these days I can entirely appreciate that a smaller, lighter, mirrorless camera system could be much more appropriate in, say, Afghanistan.

For my purposes now, the case is less clearly made I think. Some architecture, some studio product and still life, natural history, family snaps and landscape with me as a mixed self-indulgent amateur and professional makes my present camera, the D810 a perfect choice. It does everything that I need in a near miraculous fashion and I am constantly amazed at its capability. Furthermore, I very much enjoy the feeling of using it in a way that I am certain I would not with a mirrorless. This,for me, is very important as I am in the privileged position that the result is not the only important part of my photography, the pleasure of the process itself and the associated equipment is also fundamental. I think that we are amazingly privileged to have equipment that only a few years ago would have been unthinkable.

Chacun à son gout.

Ironheart

I don't quite understand why the fine tune of AF is effected by Mirrorless vs DSLR? But I admit that I have not extensively researched this particular issue. Do you know of a good technical article on this that explains why – not one that merely states it as a truth.

It is a truth. Since mirrorless by design focuses the image directly on the sensor (not a viewfinder/AF module), the autofocus system provides perfect focus without the need for any fine-tune. If this explanation doesn't suffice, LMK, and I'll dig up some scientific-y stuff to impress you.

WestEndFoto

Ironheart, I would be interested in that. Thanks.

PB_PM

Mirrorless cameras still have auto focus modules, but the location of the detectors are on the sensor, which means that the focus is determined at the focal plane, rather than at a different location, such as in an SLR system camera. The accuracy of the SLR system relies on the main mirror, the AF sub-mirror and the mirror box being totally aligned correctly. That doesn't even factor in focus issues with individual lenses. If any of these elements are even slightly off AF fine tuning is going to be required. Now a mirrorless camera could still have focusing issue, if the AF motor in the lens is not setup correctly, but it's far less likely.

Early compact cameras relied totally on contrast based systems, which was very slow and hopeless in low light. Most modern mirrorless cameras tend to use a hybrid system that uses phase detect sensors to determine focus distance (because it's much faster) and then fine tunes focus using slower, but more accurate contrast system.

haroldp

I don't quite understand why the fine tune of AF is effected by Mirrorless vs DSLR? But I admit that I have not extensively researched this particular issue. Do you know of a good technical article on this that explains why – not one that merely states it as a truth.

It is a truth. Since mirrorless by design focuses the image directly on the sensor (not a viewfinder/AF module), the autofocus system provides perfect focus without the need for any fine-tune. If this explanation doesn't suffice, LMK, and I'll dig up some scientific-y stuff to impress you.

@ironheart

What you are saying is true for contrast autofocus on the sensor, but phase detect whether on the photo sensor or focusing screen depends on predictive velocity matching of focus motor (usually in the lens). That is why in the same camera, some lenses may have a " correction and some a -.

I do believe that mirrorless will mstly replace SLR because as evf's get better (brightness, detail, delay etc.) and sensor based AF gets better, there will no longer be purpose for the swinging mirror,or an advantage to optical finders, but that is ;likely in a 3-6 year time from now.

At some point 96 mp FX senors and lenses resolving 400 lpm will also leave the MF market as a small niche.

.... H

haroldp

Mirrorless lenses mounted on Fmount lenses - this is what @haroldp is suggesting. I am saying that this needs an adapter with elements. he is saying there may be no need since if you make lenses with the same optical formula you can just mount it on the current fmount camera. (which i think is pointless)

The point is that I and many others are likely to have Nikon SLR and mirrorless co-existing in our kit for some time after Nikon's mirrorless FX comes out, and I would like it if I could buy a new lens and use it on all of my Nikons of the same sensor format.

Regards ... H

heartyfisher

Mirrorless lenses mounted on Fmount lenses - this is what @haroldp is suggesting. I am saying that this needs an adapter with elements. he is saying there may be no need since if you make lenses with the same optical formula you can just mount it on the current fmount camera. (which i think is pointless)

The point is that I and many others are likely to have Nikon SLR and mirrorless co-existing in our kit for some time after Nikon's mirrorless FX comes out, and I would like it if I could buy a new lens and use it on all of my Nikons of the same sensor format.

Regards ... H

Good point.. but we already have this backward compatibility issue. Many lenses are not backward compatible. When mirrorless comes it will just be the same.. new lenses will not be backward compatible, however, the bodies will be ie A) rather than you will still be able to mount your old style lenses to the new bodies. so if you really wanted a to buy a new lense that mounts on both bodies you would buy an F-mount lense, no issue. In fact they will probably be much cheaper ! If you wanted to take advantage of the short flange and thus lense size and weight, you would get the new mrrorless lenses and only use it on your mirrorless camera.

I am already doing that. I use some of my Fmount lenses on my Nikon1 (with adapter) and my tiny Nikon1 lenses whenever that is appropriate. it works..

If you still wanted to use your new-mount lense on your old camera, there will probably be a special TC that converts between mounts [ type converter with lense elements]. It will probably be third party.

FrenchRiviera

I don't quite understand why the fine tune of AF is effected by Mirrorless vs DSLR? But I admit that I have not extensively researched this particular issue. Do you know of a good technical article on this that explains why – not one that merely states it as a truth.

According to my experiment with my D800E and because I like small DOF , all lenses had to be corrected

http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d4s_tips/af_fine-tuning/

sevencrossing

Is there any reason why Nikon's first mirrorless FX camera could not be based on an existing camera ?
eg The mirror box in the D900 is replaced by a mirrorless module
This would make it, silent and maybe give it the fps of a D4
Nikon could gauge the demand for mirrorless and give us an F mount with full pro controls
Lots of comment on weight but the heaviest thing in my camera bag is the collection of lenses
Some of you mention 5x4 cameras. my MPP Press was quite light, it was the double darksides that weighed you down, plus the battery pack for the flash

manhattanboy

Is there any reason why Nikon's first mirrorless FX camera could not be based on an existing camera ?

Nikon seems to be trying to dump the 610 with many recent price moves. Why not just convert it to the 610M and make it a mirrorless, or take the highly applauded D750 and make it a D750M mirrorless?

Lots of comment on weight but the heaviest thing in my camera bag is the collection of lenses

This is very true. One would think that with all the advancements in glass and sapphire, the lenses would have gotten lighter by now, but even the new 80-400 is still 3 and half pounds...that's what gym memberships are for I guess

Msmoto

Let's see, the new mirrorless based upon a current model:

or

haroldp

A manually operated mirror can be placed alongside the display to be flipped up and down by those who need it to feel better.

It can be any size.

... H

FrenchRiviera

...
Lots of comment on weight but the heaviest thing in my camera bag is the collection of lenses
...

I often go for a photographic walk with only 1 or 2 prime lenses , depending on the feeling of the day .

That's why I'm interested in lighter camera , stabilized for simple prime lenses

Msmoto

I suspect it is time for me to share my bias in this thread.....Of course this is my opinion based upon what I learned on in medium format, but also I like to use today, for whatever reasons....



It is easy to see, the mirrorless body, using "F" mount lenses (diagonal 43.2mm) could cover a larger format if it were in a 4:5 ratio. Thus, I would like to see a professional mirrorless body utilizing a format which takes up almost all of the coverage of current FX lenses, and yet allows a higher MP count at the same density as the d8XX series. This density is about equivalent to 70 MP on a Hasselblad.

WestEndFoto

Well done MSMOTO!

Msmoto

Thank you...

haroldp

Since lens coverage is circular, as sensor cost comes down, why not a square 34mm format so we can end the landscape / portrait orientation as a camera issue and deal with it in post. Many (Hasselblad, Rollei, Bronica) MF film cameras were 6cm X 6cm for this reason. If crops are taken from the center, both landscape and portrait crops would eliminate the corners. No ore side grips, raised elbows, flipping flashes and all FX lenses would work.

.... H

WestEndFoto

The mirror required to deal with this on a DSLR is not able to fit between the flange to focal length distance when it flips up. That problem would be solved.

manhattanboy

Since lens coverage is circular, as sensor cost comes down, why not a square 34mm format so we can end the landscape / portrait orientation as a camera issue and deal with it in post. Many (Hasselblad, Rollei, Bronica) MF film cameras were 6cm X 6cm for this reason. If crops are taken from the center, both landscape and portrait crops would eliminate the corners. No ore side grips, raised elbows, flipping flashes and all FX lenses would work.

.... H

I agree. It makes sense and no more issues with controls flipping the camera vertically. They should just do what the current FX cameras have and give us multiple crop modes to frame at the time of the shot. Especially for a mirroless where there would be no need to flip up a square mirror, the square sensor makes a lot of sense.