What is up in Thom Hogan-land?

haroldp

I have an M9 and two M8's, but now often use most of my Leica lenses on a Sony a7II.

The superwides have problems in the corners on the Sony, but the WATE (16-18-21), the MATE (28-35-50), and anything 35mm and above (summicrons, summiluxes, elmars, elmarits etc.) are flawless on the Sony, and in camera VR to boot.

I like and use M9's for lenses 28-90mm through it's optical finder, but for wider or longer, I dislike auxiliary finders, and the evf of the Sony is much better than leica's m240, nd better MF aids.

None of the above for anything that moves, since it is all Manual Focus.

For wildlife (most of my current photography) I still use Nikons.

... H

donaldejose

It is long past time for Nikon to offer a rangefinder type mirrorless body which accepts F mount lenses.

PB_PM

Obviously Nikon disagrees, because they haven't made one yet. Mirrorless is overhyped and overrated IMO.

BVS

Obviously Nikon disagrees, because they haven't made one yet. Mirrorless is overhyped and overrated IMO.

Mirrorless done right has a lot of potential benefits though:

- On sensor PDAF and CDAF
- Focus points can be spread over the whole sensor area.
- Less need to fine tune lenses since sensor does the focusing and not a separate chip.
- In-body stabilization, meaning all your lenses suddenly have IS, and the lenses can be made smaller/lighter since they don't need IS in them anymore.
- Faster potential shutter speeds since the shutter could be all electronic.
- No mechanical shutter means camera can be made smaller, lighter, more robust, less complex.
- No mechanical shutter means completely silent shooting.
- Electronic shutter mean reduced/eliminated image smearing.
- Easier to do things like face detection when shooting through viewfinder.
- Easier to do focus peaking.
- Ability to have more info or customize info in viewfinder.
- Wide angle lenses can be made smaller with shorter flange distance.

Just to name a few.

Obviously, there are issues that need to be worked out too such as battery life and viewfinder lag?, but I think the potential pluses outweigh the minuses in the long term.

Msmoto

My only experience with the Leica M was in its Japanese counter part, sort of, a Canon 7 as I remember. (In the 1860's) I do think we will be seeing at some point in the near future a camera like the Sony, possibly from Leica, which has an EVF indistinguishable from the appearance of a ground glass.

This will be my time to buy...

donaldejose

Me too . . .

PB_PM

Obviously Nikon disagrees, because they haven't made one yet. Mirrorless is overhyped and overrated IMO.

Mirrorless done right has a lot of potential benefits though:

- On sensor PDAF and CDAF
- Focus points can be spread over the whole sensor area.
- Less need to fine tune lenses since sensor does the focusing and not a separate chip.
- In-body stabilization, meaning all your lenses suddenly have IS, and the lenses can be made smaller/lighter since they don't need IS in them anymore.
- Faster potential shutter speeds since the shutter could be all electronic.
- No mechanical shutter means camera can be made smaller, lighter, more robust, less complex.
- No mechanical shutter means completely silent shooting.
- Electronic shutter mean reduced/eliminated image smearing.
- Easier to do things like face detection when shooting through viewfinder.
- Easier to do focus peaking.
- Ability to have more info or customize info in viewfinder.
- Wide angle lenses can be made smaller with shorter flange distance.

Just to name a few.

Obviously, there are issues that need to be worked out too such as battery life and viewfinder lag?, but I think the potential pluses outweigh the minuses in the long term.

Lets just pick this apart a little. Keep in mind I have owned and used a few mirrorless cameras, which is why I hold to the comments I made before.

- On sensor PDAF and CDAF -> Works well, but still falls behind in low light compared to a DSLR, although I'm sure it will improve.
- Focus point spread --> Yes that is an advantage, but there is a reason DSLR makers keep points in the middle. The edges of optical glass suffer from more optical and light distortion, which reduces focus accuracy. Same applies to mirrorless, although it can be somewhat mitigated by programming for the potential errors. BTW shorter flange distance only makes this issue worse. Nikon picked the flange distance of the F mount for a reason, and optical and light distortion is part of it.
- In body stabilization --> Has been proven to be inferior time and time again (particularly for telephoto lenses). I don't get why people think it's wonderful.
- All electronic shutters --> Have issues as well, at least as long as we use CMOS sensors. Why? You know the jello effect that bugs out video files? Yeah that happens to stills as well. Physical shutters negate this issue, which is why DSLR's and all mirrorless cameras still have them.
- Face detection --> Sucks, it focuses on noses and cheeks way too often. In other words it has a long way to go for any real usability, unless you stop down to F8 all the time. Is it really that hard to point a focus point at someones eye anyway?
- Focus peaking --> Is nice, but I've not found it overly useful beyond macro work.
- More information in the viewfinder --> Possible with DSLR's via the already included transparent LCD/OLED in the optical viewfinders. Even the D1 from 1999 had one. The camera makers just haven't taken advantage of the possiblities it for whatever reason.
- Wide angle lenses can already be made smaller --> Just look at the 16mm F2.8D Fisheye, or 20mm F2.8D. Lenses are big because people demand optical perfection at the expense of compactness.

WestEndFoto

Obviously Nikon disagrees, because they haven't made one yet. Mirrorless is overhyped and overrated IMO.

Mirrorless done right has a lot of potential benefits though:

- On sensor PDAF and CDAF
- Focus points can be spread over the whole sensor area.
- Less need to fine tune lenses since sensor does the focusing and not a separate chip.
- In-body stabilization, meaning all your lenses suddenly have IS, and the lenses can be made smaller/lighter since they don't need IS in them anymore.
- Faster potential shutter speeds since the shutter could be all electronic.
- No mechanical shutter means camera can be made smaller, lighter, more robust, less complex.
- No mechanical shutter means completely silent shooting.
- Electronic shutter mean reduced/eliminated image smearing.
- Easier to do things like face detection when shooting through viewfinder.
- Easier to do focus peaking.
- Ability to have more info or customize info in viewfinder.
- Wide angle lenses can be made smaller with shorter flange distance.

Just to name a few.

Obviously, there are issues that need to be worked out too such as battery life and viewfinder lag?, but I think the potential pluses outweigh the minuses in the long term.

Lets just pick this apart a little. Keep in mind I have owned and used a few mirrorless cameras, which is why I hold to the comments I made before.

- On sensor PDAF and CDAF -> Works well, but still falls behind in low light compared to a DSLR, although I'm sure it will improve.
- Focus point spread --> Yes that is an advantage, but there is a reason DSLR makers keep points in the middle. The edges of optical glass suffer from more optical and light distortion, which reduces focus accuracy. Same applies to mirrorless, although it can be somewhat mitigated by programming for the potential errors. BTW shorter flange distance only makes this issue worse. Nikon picked the flange distance of the F mount for a reason, and optical and light distortion is part of it.
- In body stabilization --> Has been proven to be inferior time and time again (particularly for telephoto lenses). I don't get why people think it's wonderful.
- All electronic shutters --> Have issues as well, at least as long as we use CMOS sensors. Why? You know the jello effect that bugs out video files? Yeah that happens to stills as well. Physical shutters negate this issue, which is why DSLR's and all mirrorless cameras still have them.
- Face detection --> Sucks, it focuses on noses and cheeks way too often. In other words it has a long way to go for any real usability, unless you stop down to F8 all the time. Is it really that hard to point a focus point at someones eye anyway?
- Focus peaking --> Is nice, but I've not found it overly useful beyond macro work.
- More information in the viewfinder --> Possible with DSLR's via the already included transparent LCD/OLED in the optical viewfinders. Even the D1 from 1999 had one. The camera makers just haven't taken advantage of the possiblities it for whatever reason.
- Wide angle lenses can already be made smaller --> Just look at the 16mm F2.8D Fisheye, or 20mm F2.8D. Lenses are big because people demand optical perfection at the expense of compactness.

While I may question a few of your points, are generally agree with you.

spraynpray

"Focus point spread --> Yes that is an advantage, but there is a reason DSLR makers keep points in the middle. The edges of optical glass suffer from more optical and light distortion, which reduces focus accuracy."

Very good point. Explains why D7xxx has better focus point spread than FX too.

heartyfisher

"Focus point spread --> Yes that is an advantage, but there is a reason DSLR makers keep points in the middle. The edges of optical glass suffer from more optical and light distortion, which reduces focus accuracy."

Very good point. Explains why D7xxx has better focus point spread than FX too.

I dont think thats the reason.. I think its probably the physical limits of the second mirror and a place to house the af sensor assembly at the bottom of the camera body. If you think about it the af sensor needs to be the size of the sensor if it you want the af sensor spread to be across the whole frame of the sensor. Yes, you can reduce the physical size of the AF sensor via lenses infront of the AFsensor but that must have limitations like AF accuracy and IQ. its like putting a magnifying glass infront of the AFsensor.
So I think that the mirrorless has the advantage of a widely spread afsensor grid. And it will get better, though a dedicated AF sensor array will always be better.. However, it will have the issue of calibration and physical discrepancies. (Though I think auto calibration is possible )

BVS

Lets just pick this apart a little. Keep in mind I have owned and used a few mirrorless cameras, which is why I hold to the comments I made before.

- On sensor PDAF and CDAF -> Works well, but still falls behind in low light compared to a DSLR, although I'm sure it will improve.
- Focus point spread --> Yes that is an advantage, but there is a reason DSLR makers keep points in the middle. The edges of optical glass suffer from more optical and light distortion, which reduces focus accuracy. Same applies to mirrorless, although it can be somewhat mitigated by programming for the potential errors. BTW shorter flange distance only makes this issue worse. Nikon picked the flange distance of the F mount for a reason, and optical and light distortion is part of it.
- In body stabilization --> Has been proven to be inferior time and time again (particularly for telephoto lenses). I don't get why people think it's wonderful.
- All electronic shutters --> Have issues as well, at least as long as we use CMOS sensors. Why? You know the jello effect that bugs out video files? Yeah that happens to stills as well. Physical shutters negate this issue, which is why DSLR's and all mirrorless cameras still have them.
- Face detection --> Sucks, it focuses on noses and cheeks way too often. In other words it has a long way to go for any real usability, unless you stop down to F8 all the time. Is it really that hard to point a focus point at someones eye anyway?
- Focus peaking --> Is nice, but I've not found it overly useful beyond macro work.
- More information in the viewfinder --> Possible with DSLR's via the already included transparent LCD/OLED in the optical viewfinders. Even the D1 from 1999 had one. The camera makers just haven't taken advantage of the possiblities it for whatever reason.
- Wide angle lenses can already be made smaller --> Just look at the 16mm F2.8D Fisheye, or 20mm F2.8D. Lenses are big because people demand optical perfection at the expense of compactness.

True, current state is not perfect. I was thinking more potential future state. Also, anything electronic related - shutters, viewfinders, etc. are sure to improve, and I bet it'll be sooner than later.