SLR versus mirrorless - the gap is closing fast.

JustForFun

And what about the remaining issues, will the Nikon 1 system solve them, or will it suck even more then other mirrorless systems? How will it work in low-light situations (dark church, dungeon, etc.) - will it be comparable to APS-C?

Also, in my country this "1 Nikkor 70-300" is nearly twice as expensive as Nikkor 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR, about three times as expensive as Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 VR and four times as expensive as Nikkor 55-300 f4.5-5.6 VR... Another reason why I am not really into the mirrorless.

Ironheart

Like anything in life, you get what you pay for. The N1 70-300 is easily worth the $$ in my book for the improved image quality over the FX 70-300. I own both, so I feel qualified to judge. The Nikon 1 V3 comes with a grip, that is pretty much glued on for me, but it's nice to be able to slim it down too. A far as battery goes, it is rated at about 1/2 the shots (300 vs 600). However I find that using the EVF brings it closer to 2/3 of the power (screens suck power). The V3 has built-in wifi, and the included FT-N will let you use any F mount lens. The ISO 12800 on the V3 is pretty clean, and the 171 focus points work in near darkness. I would say from a low-light perspective it is on par with DX.

If you read more of this forum you will see that I agree with you in principle that the gap ain't closing that fast, but I wanted you to know that some of your points are already well addressed by the mirrorless market, at least in the N1

mikep

i think its not right to say there is a gap, ie dslrs are ahead and mirrorless is playing catch up. rather that there are good choices in each sector, and it just depends on our needs/desires. in some ways mirrorless are ahead now.

remember that sony makes the sensors nikon uses. the d800 was a success largely due to that sony sensor, and now that sony is going after the camera market more aggressively, i doubt they will let nikon release the next generation sensor first. so instead of d800 then a7r, we are likely gona have a sony coming out first. if rumours are to be believed mid February should see the announcement of a 50mp sony pro mirrorless, the a9. its one to watch for sure.

i watched this yesterday, i think he works for sony but the idea is valid i think



at least we are seeing some shake-up in the market. it will drive companies to be more competitive, and ultimately thats good for the consumers.

henrik1963

We all love to talk about the extreme cases where we need an extreme camera.

If you think about it - most shots are not very demanding - we do not need a D4s or a D810 for most of the shots we do. (If you are one of the few who print huge pictures of fast moving subjects in the dark all the time - please skip this post :-)

So for a lot of people a mirrorless will do just fine.

I dont think that small is good in a camera. Cameras har tools and you need to be able to operate them. And you may be able to make very small camera bodys but the lenses will be the same size as DSLR lenses.

Ironheart

And you may be able to make very small camera bodys but the lenses will be the same size as DSLR lenses.

The FX 70-300mm is 143mm long and 745g
The CX 70-300mm is 108mm long and 550g

If you consider that the CX lens is equiv to a 189-810 FoV, the closest FX lens comparison would really be the Sigma 150-600mm which is 250mm long and 1900g. Did I mention the VR gives a 4.5 stop advantage at the wide end?

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-1-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6-vr

WestEndFoto

But resolution is ultimately determined by lens format, bigger being better. This will become more obvious as sensors continue to improve.

Mikep, Nikon has never made its own sensors. Before Sony it was Kodak, Fujifile etc. The real secret sauce is too a small degree, the post sensor image processing, and to a large degree, the lens. The camera is just a system that integrates the user, sensor/film and lens.

If you want great IQ, you need big lenses and cameras to match. There is no getting around this derivative of the laws of physics.

Ironheart

Its actually easier to make sharp small lenses. The larger the lens, the more time, glass, and precision is required. The advantage is that larger sensors have more light gathering ability and produce a shallower DoF. I'm not sure of which laws of physics you are thinking.

JustForFun

@Ironheart - The Sigma 150-600 is f5-f6.3 FX lens. The 1 Nikkor 70-300 f4.5-5.6 is a CX lens - which means it is probably around:

- 190-800 f12.5-16 in terms of FX camera system (how do you want to compare it to the Sigma in terms of price and size?)
- 130-540 f9-11 in terms of DX camera system

If I remember correctly:

- comparing DX to FX - multiply focal by 1.5, add 1EV to f-stop
- comparing CX to DX - multiply focal by 1.8, add 2EV to f-stop
- comparing CX to FX - multiply focal by 2.7, add 3EV to f-stop

Tokina 11-20 f2.8 attached to Nikon 1 becames 20-36 f5.6 in DX terms (which is extremely dark kit lens with a very poor zoom capability and lacking stabilization), the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 attached to Nikon 1 becames 32-63 f2.5 in DX terms (might be usefull, but it is, well, rather odd and definitely too big/heavy for the capabilities). Have fun using such set...

[update] The rating of the D5100 battery is also underestimated if you are using the viewfinder - so far the most I have done was nearly 700 photos during a single day and I didn't have to change the battery. What is the maximum with my shooting style, I don't really know (I didn't care to test it).

In fact, telling about a closing gap you can compare Nikon DX / Pentax K / Canon EF-S / Sony A APS-C to Samsung NX / Fuji X / Sony A APS-C, maybe a little to Micro 4/3. Or Sony E full frame to a full frame DSLRs / SLTs. Definitely not to Nikon CX or Pentax Q.

manhattanboy

The N1 70-300 is easily worth the $$ in my book for the improved image quality over the FX 70-300. I own both, so I feel qualified to judge.

I second the above statement about it being better than the FX 70-300, which is soft at the long end. However, I still do not use the N1 70-300 for anything moving. At best I get one in 5 shots to be razor sharp under that scenario. The N1 70-300 also does not come close to IQ when compared to the 300f4 and a DX sensor (and is also not as rugged...mine already has a million barrel scratches). The N1 series sensors have a long way to go and unlike the situation where shooting with the FX 70-300 is limited by the lens, the reverse is true for the N1 70-300, where the pic quality (IMHO of course) is likely being limited by the sensor. I am still glad I have it, but my sentiments are similar to Thom's review, its a fantastic lens that just isn't quite as useful as one would hope.

WestEndFoto

Its actually easier to make sharp small lenses. The larger the lens, the more time, glass, and precision is required. The advantage is that larger sensors have more light gathering ability and produce a shallower DoF. I'm not sure of which laws of physics you are thinking.

Diffraction for one. The bigger the diameter of the front of the lens, the greater the light gathering power, the same reason that telescopes in Chile and Hawaii are so big, for two. Etc.

Your first sentence confuses "expense" with "engineering difficulty". Expense is difficult. The engineering is easier because the constraints are reduced.

heartyfisher

@justforfun the Fstop calculations are just for the DOF calculations. Fstop stays the same whatever format you are using it on, CX or DX or FX ... so the lens does not become "darker" if you use it on CX.

henrik1963

@Ironheart: However much I like the idea behind the Nikon 1 system - it is not a full frame camera. The fact that you can make smaller lenses for smaller sensor cameras has nothing to do with DSLR vs mirrorless.

Notice that the Sony R7 mk2 is a bit larger than the mk1 - that is a good move from Sony as the camera is a full frame camera. If you want to use longer lenses the bigger size and better grip will improve the handling.

Right now the difference between mirrorless and DSLR comes down to EVF vs OVF and AF. As I said I think mirrorless systems can take care of most tasks as is.

WestEndFoto

When DSLR users start using Liveview instead of the viewfinder for most applications, Nikon will know it is time for mirrorless. Until then, anybody that wants mirrorless can use Liveview.

ben_dmb

When DSLR users start using Liveview instead of the viewfinder for most applications, Nikon will know it is time for mirrorless. Until then, anybody that wants mirrorless can use Liveview.

It's not quite like that. Hand holding a dslr for live view shooting is a pain. With a mirrorless you have it through viefinder. And those EVFs are really amazing.
Also dslr autofocus in live view is terribly slow. Try a mirrorles with phase detect autofocus senzors incorporated into the main senzor and you will see the difference. Sony a6000 is crazy fast and accurate. Fuji x-t1 is really fast too. They are excellent cameras for most of the photographer's needs and they are light and small. And one more advantage with the EVFs is that you can see your actual picture before you take it. And you can record videos while watching through the view finder.

haroldp

When DSLR users start using Liveview instead of the viewfinder for most applications, Nikon will know it is time for mirrorless. Until then, anybody that wants mirrorless can use Liveview.

Liveview on the rear LCD is not a stable camera hold except on a tripod. Using a viewfinder (optical or evf) to the eye with a good support under camera or lens is much steadier. That is why the 'mirrorless' option that matters is centered on an EVF.

For FX sensor cameras, the lens size advantage for mirrorless is up to about 58mm FL so the rear element in a double gauss design can clear the mirrorbox. Above that the lenses are identical. Below that, lenses for SLR require a retrofocus design to clear the mirrorbox which makes them more complex. larger, heavier and more expensive.

Even that is somewhat limited since WA lenses for digital cameras should be somewhat retrofocus because digital sensors develop artifacts when hit by light at cute angles. All recent Leica wides are retrofocus for that reason.

.... H

WestEndFoto

OK Haroldp and Ben_dmb. Point taken. I shall retract and reconsider that statement.

Paperman

Ironheart said:
Its actually easier to make sharp small lenses. The larger the lens, the more time, glass, and precision is required. The advantage is that larger sensors have more light gathering ability and produce a shallower DoF. I'm not sure of which laws of physics you are thinking.

Its actually easier to make sharp small lenses. The larger the lens, the more time, glass, and precision is required. The advantage is that larger sensors have more light gathering ability and produce a shallower DoF. I'm not sure of which laws of physics you are thinking.

Diffraction for one. The bigger the diameter of the front of the lens, the greater the light gathering power, the same reason that telescopes in Chile and Hawaii are so big, for two. Etc.

Are you sure about this WestEndFoto ? That would also mean a 200mm f2.8 lens will have less diffraction ( let's say at f11 ) than a 35mm f2.8 ( at f11 ) because the tele lens is larger/wider in diameter.

Logically, one would think the size of the lens should matter but nowhere do we see lenses/lens sizes or focal lengths get into diffraction equations. All we see is calculations/tables based on f-stops ( + sensor size ). :-?

JustForFun

@heartyfisher Even the DOF itself is often an important factor, but in reality the FStop calculations are for two parameters: DOF and SNR (given the same shutter speed, lens light tramsmission and sensor technology level). Or even three - the DR.

Watch this, starting from 20m20s:

sevencrossing

3 pages on Dof here
http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/510/dof-fx-vs-dx/p1

3 more here
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2165

2 more here
http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2880/depth-of-field-calculators-are-they-all-wrong/p1

and another here
http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1446/factors-affecting-depth-of-field/p1

Msmoto

How does DOF relate to the difference between mirrorless and DSLR? Does not, IMO. The only issue I can see in the eventual shift to mirrorless cameras is the one of the EVF. When one looks into the eyepiece and cannot tell if this is ground glass or an electronic image, and the camera can focus in all situations better than a DSLR, we are there. Not yet, but close.

One of the issues we face in almost all industries is the timing of new technology. If Canon and Nikon are not somehow working in some way together on this I would be very surprised. When they both introduce a professional mirrorless system, we will have arrived. My thoughts are they want this system to utilize all the professional lenses they currently have so as to not really upset all those with huge lens inventories and also so as to maintain customer loyalty. If one must purchase all new glass it gives everyone an opportunity to move to a different manufacturer.

Presently, one can use a Nikon lens on a Canon, but the reverse is not true. One other issue may be in the determination of a flange to sensor distance which will preserve brand integrity and loyalty.

sevencrossing

and the camera can focus in all situations better than a DSLR, we are there. Not yet, but close.

A bit like Dx catching up with Fx

haroldp

A shorter flange to sensor distance will allow adaptation of other lenses.

I will probably purchase a Sony A7II body to use as a platform for my Leica lenses. With its focus peaking, sensor based VR and built in EVF, it is better platform for my Leica lenses than a Leica M240, and 1/4 the price.

Canon lenses will autofocus on this camera but not Nikon, don't know why ?.
.... H

WestEndFoto

Ironheart said:
Its actually easier to make sharp small lenses. The larger the lens, the more time, glass, and precision is required. The advantage is that larger sensors have more light gathering ability and produce a shallower DoF. I'm not sure of which laws of physics you are thinking.

Its actually easier to make sharp small lenses. The larger the lens, the more time, glass, and precision is required. The advantage is that larger sensors have more light gathering ability and produce a shallower DoF. I'm not sure of which laws of physics you are thinking.

Diffraction for one. The bigger the diameter of the front of the lens, the greater the light gathering power, the same reason that telescopes in Chile and Hawaii are so big, for two. Etc.

Are you sure about this WestEndFoto ? That would also mean a 200mm f2.8 lens will have less diffraction ( let's say at f11 ) than a 35mm f2.8 ( at f11 ) because the tele lens is larger/wider in diameter.

Logically, one would think the size of the lens should matter but nowhere do we see lenses/lens sizes or focal lengths get into diffraction equations. All we see is calculations/tables based on f-stops ( + sensor size ). :-?

Sorry, I was not clear. I was describing two separate issues, diffraction and light gathering power as two separate examples. I did not mean to imply that they were related.

haroldp

Diffraction is primarily a function of absolute aperture, not f-stop. The circumference of the aperture where diffraction happens is linear at 2 Pi R where the area (where light gets in) is Pi r square. That is why astronomical lenses are specified in size to determine resolution limits, their f stop (such as it is) becomes a function of magnification.

Modern telephoto camera lenses are similar in employing magnifying elements (like internal extenders), otherwise an 800mm lens would be at least 32 inches long.

Magnification, optical design, and placement of aperture all affect this in real terms which is hy you see the measurements you do, but the physics is simple, and all the lenses we discuss are 'small'.

This is also why the sharpest lenses are often the really big ones (200/2, 400/2.8), despite lots of glass, because the upper diffraction limit of a 6 inch lens (400/2.8) is so much higher than that of a 1 inch (50/2.0).

.... H

heartyfisher

@JustForFun lol he is right and he is wrong ... :-) F2.8 whatever the format is still F2.8 for the amount of light gathered thats where he is wrong. He is right that the DOF must be multiplied by the crop factor.
And the SN and the DR. but they are also multiplied independently .. Ie they are not added together / cumulative or summarised ... (cant find the word) you only multiply the crop factor to the criteria you want to consider. so if a 200mm F2.8 on an FX is what we have as the base line. on a M43 it is commonly shown as "equivalent" a 400 F2.8. which is true. for FOV. it is also true that its aperture is equivalent to F5.6 for DOF. the SN ratio crop factor calculation is for the sensor calculations ie ISO so the M43 system as we all know has weaker High ISO capability, and that is true. But what is not true is that the 200 F2.8 on FX at ISO 100 is equivalent to a 400mm F5.6 at ISO 400 ( and if you want to add DR by this logic you need to consider that its at ISO 1600. ). You still use F2.8 for the calculations for diffraction and number of photons, not F5.6.