New Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless Being Field Tested Now!

funtagraph

I measured 16 mm on the D750, about 4 mm on a Yashica, at the times those distances with normal back were more or less the same. One could say, the D750 has a tilt display which needs more space. The D810 hasn't and here I measure 20 mm without the plastic cover.

So, to say the difference of 25% … 31% of the whole body depth is "negligible" makes the whole discussion about similar sizes a little bit, hmm, less seriously? Of course you're right, all the mentioned things like AF are not behind the sensor - but below the mirror and with a mirrorless the AF would be different - so another piece of electronics not longer needed.

Anyway, I don't want to debate body depths with you. All I have to say: I'd welcome a clever designed FX mirrorless. No more troubles with AFMA, less shutter/mirror noise, an EVF which could amplify low light would be my reasons. I'm not in urge, so far I'm happy with DSLR.

But more compact size would be the least of MY reasons to buy and I don't want to have all those compromises/trade-offs "usability sacrificed for small". You recall the small FF film cameras? Olympus XA or Rollei 35 S or T? I nearly needed tweezers to change settings…

MY FF mirrorless is allowed to be bulky and not fitting into a shirt's pocket. I've enough camera bags to carry it.

Msmoto

A note about size...it seems the older my arthritic hands get the larger controls I desire. Or, at least my iPhone 6 Plus seems easier to see and operate than my old iPhone. So, a new full frame mirrorless I would like would be to have a nearly D4 configuration, with possibly 1/3 of the weight shaved off and a movable tilt display.

I really do not care how small it is...I have several small cameras.

Having said this, if Nikon made a Leica M size full frame mirrorless with an EVF which looked like a prism/ground glass image, this I would go for..... of course the optics are the big difference, Leitz glass being less bulky in general.

PB_PM

So, to say the difference of 25% … 31% of the whole body depth is "negligible" makes the whole discussion about similar sizes a little bit, hmm, less seriously? Of course you're right, all the mentioned things like AF are not behind the sensor - but below the mirror and with a mirrorless the AF would be different - so another piece of electronics not longer needed.

I didn't exactly get out a proper measuring device, so you'll have to forgive my lack of precision. The entire point of the series of posts was simply to say that it is fully possible to make a compact F mount camera, not to compare the exact dimensions of a film camera to a DSLR.

No matter what you do, you have to give something up to make the camera smaller, whether it be battery life, controls or comfort in operation. Personally I think Nikon would be better off ignoring the smaller just for the sake of being smaller crowd and making a camera that is reasonably compact, comfortable to hold, decent sized buttons, has advanced controls, and good battery life (450-550 CPA), so you don't need to carry a DSLR's weight in spare batteries to use it for day.

donaldejose

Agreed about the size!

snakebunk

@PB_PM: I have read your posts many times and I simply do not understand. Are you still saying that I am wrong when I say that a f mount mirrorless wouldn't be much smaller than current f mount dslr cameras? Please try to answer without refering to old film cameras because they are so different (no lcd screen just as an example).

CaMeRaQuEsT

Be careful what you wish for. Mirrorless' main benefit is the short flange distance to the lens, allowing placement of lenses closer to the focusing plane, thus permitting compact lens designs that further compliment a mirrorless cameras' inherent compact design. But, and here is the real reason why I think Nikon has not brought a larger than 1" sensor mirrorless ILC, such type of lenses cast their light rays onto the focusing plane at steep angles of attack toward the edges, instead of closer to perpendicular, which is how digital sensors by nature prefer to receive light, as the photo sites are deep buried down layers of IR, UV and A-A filters, micro lenses and silicon etchings (this later taken care of on BSI sensors). To compensate for this phenomena, angled micro lenses can be used, but then the sensor won't be able to work correctly with long flange lenses, like adapted SLR lenses. It's either or, you can't have both. There is a lot of mention about color shifts toward the edges on almost all APS-C and larger mirrorless forums. So if Nikon is leaning toward using the F mount on their mirrorless camera while keeping its long flange distance, there is more than just marketing reasoning behind this logic and Nikon really cares about maintaining top performance of all their F mount lenses whether there is a mirror or not in the camera. But, obviously, the main advantage of going mirrorless, which is system-wide size and weight savings, is loss. Think of Pentax's K01, which was basically a DSLR minus the mirror and the pentaprism that kept use of the K mount.

manhattanboy

There is a nice discussion on this on mirrorlessrumors.com which echoes many of the points made by others above.

The distance between the bayonet and the focal plane (sensor) is mount-specific. Nikon's F mount requires 46.5mm, which is practically the minimum thickness of any F mount camera. Of course, Nikon could use a different mount for its FF mirrorless and make its SLR lenses compatible using an adapter. However, from an optical point of view the ideal flange focal distance is in the vicinity of the sensor's diagonal (43mm in the case of FF). Thus the F mount is a sound design for such sensors regardless of the viewing method the camera incorporates.
For comparison, Sony's FE mount is characterized by an exceedingly short flange distance (18mm) which poses heavy constraints on lens design and compromises corner sharpness at large apertures. I was not aware of the development of a traveling sensor (though Contax introduced the same idea two decades ago), but the limitations of the FE mount would prevent using it in a Sony body. Indeed, The idea of achieving AF through sensor movement along the Z axis is much more practical in an F mount mirrorless (although the camera body would have to be even thicker).

funtagraph

@CaMeRaQuEsT said "Mirrorless' main benefit is the short flange distance to the lens, allowing placement of lenses closer to the focusing plane, thus permitting compact lens designs that further compliment a mirrorless cameras' inherent compact design."

I disagree as that's only one of other benefits. I don't want to repeat them, basically it's getting rid of every downside of the mirror design and there are quite some big ones.

Also, most mirrorless cameras have the disadvantage you were talking about. Some "repair" parts of it by software, others use a stack of plane glasses in front of the sensor to turn the light beams a last time into a more perpendicular direction and I could think of other counter strategies. If those "problems" remained unsolved, there wouldn't be a success for the mirrorless systems.

To read more, I recommend Roger's blog about glass in front of a sensor and it's effects or different types and thicknesses of such glass.

These findings are valid for all sensor sizes.

sevencrossing

I am right in thinking it is not the flange distance that matters but the distance from the rear element. With a DSLR this is restricted, by the mirror box
Remove the mirror and lens designer has more flexibility
Nikon have adapted the the 55 year old F mount, to incorporate auto focus, automatic exposure etc . I am sure they are capable of adapting it to mirror less

Problem with that idea is, it is possible that one day the mirror-less range will bring about the end of the mirrored SLR's and at that time, it would not be wise to still be using designs that were optimised for a different technology - especially if they are the only option.

Which is why they introduced a new mount for the Nikon 1
But Nikon don't need more mounting systems at present

kenadams

Oh boy... my head is spinning... if one more person says "flange", a term probably not known to mankind even three years ago, I'm going to keel over. Has to be new buzz word of the year..

donaldejose

Flange is a generic term for an external or internal ridge on an object. Plumbers have been using it for as long as they have been joining one pipe to another at the flange. It is not a new term or unique to photography.

Ironheart

The word flange has been in use since at least 1735 in this context, according to the OED. Not sure if you are kidding or what :-)

sevencrossing

Oh boy... my head is spinning... if one more person says "flange", a term probably not known to mankind even three years ago, I'm going to keel over. Has to be new buzz word of the year..

This is the real reason Nikon are keeping the F mount
They know photographers are not wordsmiths and hate learning new terminology

heartyfisher

That Pentax K01 is not horrid. could be nice in Nikon colours :-)

CaMeRaQuEsT

That Pentax K01 is not horrid. could be nice in Nikon colours :-)

Surely Giorgetto Giugiaro will do a better design effort than the K-01 guy did, especially after stamping it with his signature red accent line, bar, swoosh, halo, etc...

kennychick

I'll buy it if they made it look like a Fujifim XT-1 or Olyumpus OMD mirrorless.
I won't care how much it is, because it will be my ultimate travel/street photography camera especially if it's F mount I'll already have the lens

Msmoto

In order to create more confusion, here is what I proposed over two years ago:


What we get in the end should be fairly close, but this is only a guess from me.

rmp

What I want is the ultimate travel camera. I'll be happy with the new small mirrorless ff or a new V4 with with low-light IQ.

sevencrossing

What I want is the ultimate travel camera. I'll be happy with the new small mirrorless ff

+1

the critical element for me will be a small lightweight wide angle, to go with it
I wonder if Nikon will update the AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D

haroldp

A nikon FF with a flange distance small enough to take leica adapters would be perfect.

I am using A Sony A7II that way (currently mounting a 12mm voigtlander) and love it, but it has no native mount lenses worth having. I would much rather it come from Nikon.

.... H

Ironheart

Why do you think I chose 26.5mm (20mm less than the F mount). The leica flange depth is 27.8mm. That gives 1.3mm to make a nice adapter.

sevencrossing

So which leica lenses would people use, if an adaptor was available

PB_PM

I wonder if Nikon will update the AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D

They did, it's called the AF-S 28mm F1.8G.

heartyfisher

I wonder if Nikon will update the AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D

They did, it's called the AF-S 28mm F1.8G.

or the coolpix A :-)

WestEndFoto

You don't need f/1.8 if you are doing landscapes. I don't consider the 1.8 an upgrade to my 28mm 2.8 Ais. It certainly won't be any sharper at f/5.6 where it is, incredibly, diffraction limited - this lens was a legend when it came out in 1983 (or was it 1981?) The D, which came out a few years later, is the same optics. The 1.8 will just be bulkier, which makes it a downgrade if you are packing it around. So if I was buying a 28 and I was using it for landscapes and money was no object, I would buy the 2.8 Ais, not the 1.8G. I don’t regret buying it brand new about a year before the 1.8G came out.

Heartyfisher, good point on the Coolpix A. My Coolpix A has produced some pretty amazing shots.

If I was doing night sky shots, I would consider the 1.8G to be an upgrade as it is faster, and most importantly, does not have coma wide open.