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

Msmoto

It would have to be a square 31mm format to keep the diagonal at 43.5mm, the coverage of FX lenses.

manhattanboy

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

my vote is this one, but nikon would probably have a pop up flash to check a box against a canon competitor. Also, if they made the screen flippy like on the 750, they could stick a second dial on the left in place of the LCD for easier controls.

It would have to be a square 31mm format to keep the diagonal at 43.5mm, the coverage of FX lenses.

That would give us ~40.5 MP, which is not too bad.

haroldp

It would have to be a square 31mm format to keep the diagonal at 43.5mm, the coverage of FX lenses.

@msmoto:

You are of course correct, apologies to you and Euclid.

Even at 31mm sq, it would be boon for event photography.

.... H

haroldp

Actually, If we do not need a square final image, a 36 mm square sensor with 36 X 24mm center crops (portrait or landscape) could be covered by current FX lenses, viewfinders can show the crop the way that Nikon FX cameras can show a DX crop and mount DX lenses.

Also many lenses have a fair bit of over coverage.

Nikon's 17-55 / 2.8 DX lens actually covers an FX frame at lengths above 26mm or so and many lenses cover more as you stop them down.

... H

FrenchRiviera

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....

...This density is about equivalent to 70 MP on a Hasselblad.

Let's see how Olympus manage to get a 40MP picture out of a 16MP sensor on next OMD5 , I wish it has very few limitations and Sigma-like colors

heartyfisher

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.

for DX shooters we have that already and more in FX cameras ;-)

sevencrossing

Given that most people look at, and share their photos on a computer, which typically has a ratio of approx 16:9 . Changing to square format seems unlikely. I do not think any video camera has a 1:1 ratio. The trend seems to be the other way

Back on subject. If Nixon were thinking of abandoning the F mount, in the near future, I don't think we would have seen the 20mm f 1.8 or the 300mm f 4

The Nikon DSLRs and the F mount, are here for the foreseeable future

haroldp

I am not talking about a final square aspect ratio, but a 36mm square sensor would allow 36 X24mm crops in portrait or landscape without re-orienting camera and lights. This would be a great boon to event (read wedding) photographers and worth the additional cost for sensor area. It would save costs on vertical grips and swing flash mounts (and elbow surgery) .

In the film days, many event photogs shot 6 X 6 mm, and most prints were 8X10 ratio.

... H

haroldp

I should add that a square sensor is more practical in a mirrorless because it would not need a correspondingly larger mirror, which would then increase the flange to focal plane distance.

6 X 6 slrs (hasselblad, bronica etc) were slow partly because a massive mirror had to move.

.... H

snakebunk

Or the sensor could be a cross and you could change between landscape and portrait with a button.

Well, maybe not so cheap to make when I think about it...

retread

If the sensor is square you can take your rectangle from anywhere. It does not have to be from the center. Top, bottom, left, right or center it would not matter.

haroldp

Taking it from the center, landscape or portrait, reduces the image circle that the lens must support.

A cross shape could be cheaper than square if they cut in a pattern to get more yield from the wafer.

... H

sevencrossing

Is there any reason a sensor could not be circular

WestEndFoto

You will through away almost 25% of the chip, but otherwise no.

PB_PM

Is there any reason a sensor could not be circular

Manufacturing primarily. Silicone wafers are produced round and square chips (CPUs, GPUs, image sensors) are cut out of them. There would be a lot of additional waste if the sensors were round, which would drive up manufacturing, and thus product prices. Basically sensor prices would double, due to increased waste of material.