New Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless Being Field Tested Now!

sevencrossing

And, doesn't a mirrorless camera has to be about the same size as a dslr if it uses the f mount?

similar depth but as it does not need a pentaprism, the height can be reduced
Nikon might make a mirrorless F mount "pancake lens"

Msmoto

About holding the 400/2.8, with any body......when moving the lens/body one pushes the front of the lens around the monopod or tripod mount especially if shooting action. This works better for me at least as some of these motorized things move quickly. Even when hand holding, the idea is to point the front of the lens, the camera body is sort of hanging on.

I really do not think the weight of the body will make much difference except in possibly how one holds the big lens/body combo. Maybe with the advent of EVF which can be remote, and eye level finder mounted on the lens itself, along with a shoulder pad which would make shooting the big lens/body similar in some respects to shooting a rifle. Albeit, the weight of 10 - 12 lbs, may be a bit heavy for a rifle.

A 400/2.8, non FL weighs in about 10 lbs 3 oz..so the difference in body weight of 2 lb 10 oz or 1 lb is really not that much.IMO

haroldp

A smallbore 'free rifle' can be (and therefore always is) 8 kilograms [17.6 lbs.] for NCAA, NRA or ISU competition.

This was my primary competitive event. It is fired in 4 stages , prone, sitting , kneeling and standing (offhand).

I was 40 years younger at the time.

... H

PB_PM

And, doesn't a mirrorless camera has to be about the same size as a dslr if it uses the f mount?

Not even remotely. Have you seen how small some of the film era Nikon SLR's were? Some were as small as the D3xxx series cameras in terms of hight, and much thinner.

WestEndFoto

And, doesn't a mirrorless camera has to be about the same size as a dslr if it uses the f mount?

Not even remotely. Have you seen how small some of the film era Nikon SLR's were? Some were as small as the D3xxx series cameras in terms of hight, and much thinner.

Which is why I don't think small size is a compelling argument in favour of mirrorless.

haroldp

The arguments for mirrorless that get more compelling with each advance are:

Shorter flange to focal plane, and no mirror to clear will allow simpler designs for lenses with FL less than 58mm.

The mirror is a complex mechanical device which must be precisely timed with the shutter. Mechanical devices are inherently more expensive and less reliable than electronic, and require lubrication, creating debris and lubricant spatter which winds up on the sensor.

They are not there yet, but improvements in EVF and sensor based autofocus will one day soon shift the question to: 'what are the arguments for a mirror' ?.

... H

PB_PM

And the list against mirrorless isn't too shabby either:
1. Poor battery life (average 350 shots per charge vs 900+ for DSLR)
2. Tend to have poor ergonomics (DSLR like bodies aside)
3. EVF still not as nice as an optical viewfinder for some subject matter
4. Poor/inferior super wide angle lens performance, due to the shorter flange distance (it's a matter of physics)

Not that I'm against mirrorless, those are just some humps that need to be overcome. Some of the advantages of the mirrorless systems offer a benefit to some types of photography.

WestEndFoto

Sure. I enjoy my Coolpix A. If Nikon had a mirrorless medium format camera, that and 3 or 4 primes would be my landscape kit (and I would be broke).

kanuck

And, doesn't a mirrorless camera has to be about the same size as a dslr if it uses the f mount?

No this is why the announcement is so attractive, the identical F lens mount will be used but it fits on a smaller FX Mirror-less body. Judging from the early stage field test pictures of the body, it has the same CPU contacts, meter coupling lever and normal mount as any other Nikon body has had. Although the various images posted under the news are certainly just ideas, you can clearly see that it is a normal F mount. Its kind of funny actually because I would say that the mount with lens probably covers over 60% of the body overall hahaha

Still not sold on using a 4kg bad boy on this system though funtagraph...

haroldp

And the list against mirrorless isn't too shabby either:
1. Poor battery life (average 350 shots per charge vs 900+ for DSLR)
2. Tend to have poor ergonomics (DSLR like bodies aside)
3. EVF still not as nice as an optical viewfinder for some subject matter
4. Poor/inferior super wide angle lens performance, due to the shorter flange distance (it's a matter of physics)

Not that I'm against mirrorless, those are just some humps that need to be overcome. Some of the advantages of the mirrorless systems offer a benefit to some types of photography.

I agree that current mirrorless cannot yet replace DSLR's for the most demanding use, that is why I still use my D810 and D3x. however :

1- Mirrorless will always use more power because EVF uses more power than OVF, Current designs attempting to be as small as possible, use smallish batteries, a D810 battery is twice the size of a Sony A7II or or Fuji x-t1 battery, but either grip could easily accommodate a D810 size battery. Then 350 shots per charge becomes 650, not 900, but good enough for most purposes.

2- Why are DSLR like bodies aside, that is how 'pro' mirrorless will evolve and the latest Sony and Fuji designs have ergonomics as good as anyone's.

3- You are correct, EVF are still not as good as an optical viewfinder for some uses, but they are getting better every generation, and soon will be.

4- This is simply wrong. It is true that digital sensors do not like acute light angles from close in optics.However shorter flange distance does not require close in optics, it merely enables it. Modern superwides for digital such as Leica WATE or super angulons (for M9 etc.), or Fuji's latest designs, or Zeiss Touit's are tele-centric for that reason, and are as good as wides get. They are still much smaller and lighter than equivalent SW's for DSLR.

Also consider that while fast moving subjects are still best served by DSLR's today, a fully developed mirrorless with phase detect AF elements on the sensor, and electronic shutter, can have shorter or no blackout times to the AF sensors and VF, and ultimately surpass DSLR performance even for that use, and have higher frame rates as well.

Not there yet today, but maybe in 2-3 years, certainly in 5.

They are all still a long way off from having Nikon or Canon lens inventory, which is why a Nikon Mirrorless that incorporated best practices is so attractive.

... H

snakebunk

And, doesn't a mirrorless camera has to be about the same size as a dslr if it uses the f mount?

Not even remotely. Have you seen how small some of the film era Nikon SLR's were? Some were as small as the D3xxx series cameras in terms of hight, and much thinner.

Let me tell you how I am thinking so you (or anyone) can point out my error.

The current mirrorless cameras (e.g. Sony cameras) are smaller than DSLRs because they have a shorter flange focal distance, which is possible because there is no mirror. I am thinking that if Nikon makes a mirrorless camera with an F mount the removal of the mirror will create empty space inside the camera, but its hard to use that space to make the camera smaller.

The viewfinder will indeed be smaller in a mirrorless, like sevencrossing pointed out. But if you look at the Sony Alpha models the difference doesn't seem to be very large.

Other than this I don't know of anything that would make a Nikon F mount mirrorless camera smaller. I won't comment on the comparison with film cameras because it is such a different design from current mirrorless bodies.

sevencrossing

The negative comments about mirrorless, remind about the arguments against digital, in the days when Kodak ruled the roost

My Nikon F did not have a built in OVF. You could change the view finder, the same way as you could change the lens

Nikon have a patent for an interchangeable sensor . Put that in a F mount mirrorless and they might have a winner

snakebunk

Nikon have a patent for an interchangeable sensor . Put that in a F mount mirrorless and they might have a winner

That would end a discussion that I don't dare to mention . It would also be a lot easier to send in only the sensor for cleaning, or easier to clean it yourself.

haroldp

The optimum design for a Nikon F mount mirrorless camera would be a short native flabge with f mount adapters.

sevencrossing

Adapters are, by their nature, compromises

They are usually the result of a poorly designed product and something else to buy, jamb, fail, lose, go wrong, break or just have the wrong one.

They make some sense with the Nikon 1 as it only has a small CX sensor

There is no need for one with an F mount and an FX sensor. The rear element can be behind the main flabge or flange. Which probably why, Nikon have patents for F mount mirrorless lenses

(see the early Nikon F mount fish eyes, that had to used with the mirror lock up)

snakebunk

I kind of like the idea of a new mount. If Nikon doesn't change it now they will have to live with larger cameras than the competitors. Sometimes a large camera is good but sometimes you want a small one.

If Nikon introduces a new mount, will it be possible to use adapters both ways, i.e. one adapter for old lenses with new cameras and one adapter for old cameras with new lenses?

WestEndFoto

I kind of like the idea of a new mount. If Nikon doesn't change it now they will have to live with larger cameras than the competitors. Sometimes a large camera is good but sometimes you want a small one.

If Nikon introduces a new mount, will it be possible to use adapters both ways, i.e. one adapter for old lenses with new cameras and one adapter for old cameras with new lenses?

No, for the same reason you can put Nikon glass on Canon cameras but not the other way around.

WestEndFoto

If Nikon produces mirror less, I hope they have the foresight to use a square sensor. They don't do that with DSLRs because the mirror would not fit.

snakebunk

I kind of like the idea of a new mount. If Nikon doesn't change it now they will have to live with larger cameras than the competitors. Sometimes a large camera is good but sometimes you want a small one.

If Nikon introduces a new mount, will it be possible to use adapters both ways, i.e. one adapter for old lenses with new cameras and one adapter for old cameras with new lenses?

No, for the same reason you can put Nikon glass on Canon cameras but not the other way around.

Not even if they put a concave lens in the adapter?

I agree about the square sensor.

Edit: Or even better, a cross shaped sensor. But this has been discussed somewhere else.

sevencrossing

How big would you make the square?
lenses produce a circular image
with and FX lens this is approximately 34mm diameter
So a 36 x 36 sensor would have cut off at the corners
some lenses, Flashguns and lens hoods are designed for a rectangular image
as are most monitors

funtagraph

Agreed, a square would be cool - that might be a reason to buy this thing, if the square is at least 30 × 30 mm
30.5 mm would have the same diagonal as 24 × 36, so the lenses could be used like today. Some lenses will probably cover more area, but become weaker to the corners.
@sevencrossing yes the monitors are not sqaurish, but all RAW converters use a lot space for their tools. In most cases, a square would be better to see all.

sevencrossing

A square sensor would reduce increase the FOV on the vertical but decrease it on the horizontal
It would not be advantageous for Video
can see it happening any more than a D400

snakebunk

A square sensor would reduce increase the FOV on the vertical but decrease it on the horizontal
It would not be advantageous for Video
can see it happening any more than a D400

But think of a cross shaped sensor. In that way you can switch between portrait and landscape with the push of a button.

sevencrossing

Talking of square format. Anyone remember the Purma?

haroldp

Adapters are, by their nature, compromises

They are usually the result of a poorly designed product and something else to buy, jamb, fail, lose, go wrong, break or just have the wrong one.

They make some sense with the Nikon 1 as it only has a small CX sensor

There is no need for one with an F mount and an FX sensor. The rear element can be behind the main flabge or flange. Which probably why, Nikon have patents for F mount mirrorless lenses

(see the early Nikon F mount fish eyes, that had to used with the mirror lock up)

I agree that an adapter is another part and interface, and source of potential problems.

However, using an adapter for 'F' mount lenses and a new mount allows a thinner body, and allows 'native' lenses to be smaller. We can all agree call this new mount the flabje so I will not have mis-typed.

Rear elements protruding behind the body of the lens mount is optically correct but makes for difficult and dangerous handling and custom rear caps etc. Leica and Voigtlander do this and it is a PITA.

A clever design would be to produce native mount lenses with an adapter that is taken off to mount on an 'F' mount body as long as the rear element did not violate the mirror space or the mirror is locked up. Admittedly this is another part and interface, and source of potential problems.

Nikon could then optimize the new camera line in all respects. Perhaps a wider flange (or flabje) to sensor size ratio would be beneficial for digital, Olympus seems to think so, and their lenses are briliant.

... H