Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 75 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 51 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 762 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 180 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
I don't see weight as being a big factor for DSLR replacement, but mirrorless should ultimately support a trend toward lighter gear. We see that with tripods, lenses, and camera bodies. But when performance suffers materially, we won't accept the tradeoff. In reality, I will probably end up with a small light kit and a full sized body - each with a different purpose. To a large extent, I take that approach now to a point.
Contrast detect AF used for LiveView and mirrorless is inherently more accurate - but a little slower. Speed is getting faster and will come close to phase detect AF. Phase Detect AF - through the viewfinder on DSLR's - requires complex mechanisms that are difficult to align and slightly less accurate - but they are fast. There are mirrorless cameras that use phase Detect for speed of AF, but longer term it seems to not be necessary. At the end of the day, I require accuracy, but I might trade off for speed with some subjects. Why not let the camera be customizable? In sports or wildlife mode I might need fast, but I might want to switch to contrast detect to maximize accuracy for many other subjects.
I see the sensors as being largely the same, but there is room for a lot of advancement in processors and how pixels are used. When I see a 56 megapixel sensor, I have the view not all of those pixels need to be used for the actual image. Let me use 20% of those pixels for other things such as an underexposed channel to capture detail in lost highlights or deep shadows. Let the camera automation help decide what my extra pixels are used to accomplish. Let me have a choice to group active pixel density around the subject or AF sensor and reduce active pixel density elsewhere to reduce image size and pickup speed.
I could see the processor being used in a different way to optimize an image for viewing faster in the EVF if desired. Let me have a low res image immediately so I can better keep a moving subject in a viewfinder. A start is providing control for the resolution of the EVF image. If I'm shooting a burst at a high frame rate of 30 fps, how many frames per second do I need to see - maybe 2-3 per second?
I think of the EVF as a heads up display. Just as LiveView allows you to zoom in for precise focus, that capability should be in the EVF. Let me zoom in on a distant animal so I can precisely focus on the eye. The size of AF sensors no longer matters. Give me a histogram in the corner. Show me blinking highlights and lost shadows through the EVF.
The frame rate possible on a mirrorless design has tremendous possibilities. We've seen the ultra high speed video cameras used for sports, and with a mirrorless design, we have lots of possibilities for stills. Let me customize the tradeoffs on image size with speed. There are certainly disadvantages of high frame rate bursts - not the least of which is processing all the images. Why not have a mode where I automatically bracket and combine the images into an in-camera HDR - with the ability to turn off the mode as a creative choice.
Right now mirrorless designs are in their infancy. As you would expect, Canon and Nikon are certainly working on mirrorless designs, but it's the processor and software side that will take advantage of mirrorless capability with technology that is truly compelling. Right now, we're talking about small differences between mirrorless and current technology DSLR cameras. There is no compelling reason to choose a technology. But when the difference in images is compelling, you'll take the device that produces the images.
Thank you for a thoughtful and well presented analysis.
... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
"Advanced Hybrid AF system features 171 AF points tightly packed over nearly the entire frame to provide superb accuracy for any scene.
105 phase-detection AF points let you capture action shots with pinpoint precision.
Shoot full-resolution photos at 20 fps with continuous AF." In practice this seems unnecessary. The processor is more than capable of keeping up with the full-speed EVF at all times, even during 60fps bursts. 2-3 fps in the EVF would be quite limiting for high-speed objects (motorsports, BIF). This is how the V3 works today with manual focus. You can set the level of zoom and which part of the frame to zoom into. The live histogram and highlight blinkies would be good additions, but you can have the image review pop-up right after you shoot and review the highlights and histogram right in the EVF The Nikon1 series has built-in HDR, panoramic stitching, and host of other creative modes. I already do! The 60 fps is amazing for motorsports or wildlife. The 1200fps movies are great fun for filming water in motion, or bumblebees flying, or a ton of other creative possibilities. I think that future is already here.
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
Please note i have never written such a long note in any forum , i am doing this because i strongly feel about this subject ( & my luv for Nikon)
Pros & Cons - This is by no way an exhaustive list .
Pros
Small Form factor ( atleast of the bodies)
1.Ability to correct exposure & view change thro the EVF and see the histogram change
2. IBIS in case of A7ii& up - this is deal maker espy for hand held HDR - as in most historic spots , they do not allow you to use a tripod
3. Wifi , NFC inbuilt - Though i hardly use that - But plan to
4. I see a new feature in the firmware update in olympus - Focus stacking , focus bracketing : aka Ability to firmware update features - giving endless possibilities
6. Focus peaking with wonderful lenses like the Zeiss
Cons
1. Biggest Con for me & hardly ever mentioned - start up time- You miss that crucial two to three seconds which can make all the difference in candid & street photography - " miss the moment "
2. Less lenses in the native line up ( adopting lenses does not work)
3. Feel there are too many guys being sponsored by sony , who are praising the cameras to no end without giving a genuine review . Even though they claim they are not connected with sony.
4. Intricate & under developed menu system . Using the nikon is a breeze , as you have a set of buttons & menu options which have been developed over the years - Try using the sony or the olympus, i don't think it is easy , atleast for the trained nikon user and i have heard the same from Canon users.
So what should Nikon be wary off & do in my opinion
1. As of now there are not a number of Nikon users who have switched simply because the adapters don't autofocus & convey aperture etc info . Understand Comlite is making one & is in advanced stage of testing, once that happens , Nikon will loose some valuable customers
2. This is an age of compact solutions - Nikon to me ( an advanced amateur) seems to be going in two directions - It is producing compact telephotos like the 300 F4 and then releasing something like the bazooka 24-70 VR lens . Nikon has excellence in glass & they should focus on that . The mirrorless systems espy sony does not rock beyond a points , as the serious lenses are bigger than Nikkor - look at the 35 F 1.4 Sony Zeiss , look at the equivalent 24-70 F 2.8, When this happens esply with a small body the lenses don't balance on the body. ( its like a thin guy with a big tummy)
3. Nikon Survival: Immediately introduce a FF mirrorless with an F mount , so that people do not transition to mirrorless . My simple market math tells me there are more casual users & amateurs than pros and they will simply switch if lighter , compact & more technologically rich solutions are not given . When you have an FF mirrorless F mount , even the semi pros & pros with tons of wonderful glass can use both systems & transition when mirrorless has matured. It will be of no use if people have transitioned & then Nikon introduces it, as then people will feel even worse
Many thanks
I use Fuji, Sony A7II, or Leica for everything else which is about 75% of my photography.
If Sony gets the lenses before Nikon gets the bodies, this deal is done.
... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
Excellent insight PB_PM.
Most of the mirrorless users I've seen in Vancouver are from two groups, Asian tourists, and retired middle class seniors. Does that mean anything? Not really, other than that Asian tourists might be more open to new camera technology than North Americans. As for middle class seniors the answers are obvious, they tend to have a little more income set aside for "toys", and they are looking for smaller, lighter weight equipment that they can handle as age starts to affects them.
As for young people, most are more than happy with their smartphone's cameras and are not even buying separate cameras, unless they are looking for something waterproof. For example, I've seen a growing number of young people with Nikon 1 AW1's.
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
And about mirorrless not taking off: Isn't it?
The question is not how much you are willing to spend, it is how much the manufacturers are willing to spend.
Manufacture parts cost to retail price ratio is 5-1.
If a mirrorless camera that is functionally equivalent to a mirrored DSLR can sell for $100- $150 less, and most people are not willing to pay more for a camera that does no more and is bigger, heavier, and has wide angle lens issues because of mirror clearance, than you will not have the opportunity to spend more because they will not make them.
Today they are not yet functionally equivalent in all respects, but the Sony series II cameras are already there for anything but the most demanding wildlife (BIF) and sports, and are held back more by lens and peripheral (lighting etc) availability then by failings in the camera body.
At the current pace of development, in 2-3 years they will be at least the equal of mirrored DSLR's in all respects, and capable of higher frame rates because of fewer moving parts and timing issues.
... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
If I may give my two cents of purely user-oriented feedback, I have had a Fuji X-Pro1 and a series of Fuji lenses for two years (as well as a Novoflex adapter for Nikon F mount lenses).
The sole reason why I acquired this alternate photo kit was to save on weight and bulk for summer vacation, where I often go to foreign countries where it's very hot, sometimes quite humid as well. There came a point, two years ago, when I felt it would be nice to have a lighter kit to lug around, one that wouldn't require a dedicated photo bag but could comfortably fit into a more nondescript, smaller backpack such as a simple Eastpak.
I chose the X-Pro1 because the only three primes that existed at the time were rumored to be very good, and above all because the X-Pro1 featured an OVF, which I regard as an absolute must, particularly for outside photography in bright light. The body also had a fun form factor, particularly for someone like me who spent decades playing with rings and dials on film cameras.
I bought more fast primes as they came out, most recently the 16/1.4 and the 90/2. All those lenses have been excellent performers, even though I don't think they quite reach the quality I was used to at the time on D3-D3s bodies with pro Nikkors. The kit was certainly very light, a pleasure to carry, although the fact that many front caps are of different sizes does not make it any easier to change lenses on the go.
At the end of 2014, I bought a D810, decided to move away from Nikon's Holy Trinity and bought a complement of Nikkor and Zeiss primes, which I used since, and especially this summer in southern Italy where the weight and bulk were certainly more difficult to manage than the Fuji kit, but remained manageable after all.
And very recently, I used the Fuji kit again for a weekend of landscape and old stones photography in the countryside (I'm a resident of France), and when I looked at my photos in Lightroom, I was frankly appalled at the lack of dynamic range and at how highlights were overexposed... In general, my feeling was that the qualities of the vaunted Fuji sensor gave me results that were well below and behind those of the D810. Now, of course, that X-Pro1 sensor is now a bit old and I'm willing to give a chance to the upcoming X-Pro2, but however heavy and bulky the Nikon gear is, I have a feeling I will still go back to it. I have been loyal to the brand since I was in high school, in the 1970s.
So, to summarize this (too) long post, the Fuji can be very convincing in certain circumstances for certain types of photography, but in my personal experience, nothing on the market today beats the D810 for landscape photography.
I am also enjoying the civil discussion on this thread.
I also shoot a D810 and Fuji X system, and agree with your observations, particularly about highlight recovery. This becomes noticeable mostly at the high end of contrast in the image.
I also use the D810 for my most critical images.
This however is because of the sensor and it's firmware, and has nothing to do with there having been a mirror in the path.
The D810 probably has the best DR of any 35mm format camera regardless of configuration.
The Fuji X sensor being DX size, is less than half the size of the FX sensor.
I am waiting for credible comparisons of DR between the D810, and Sony's new A7RII 42mp BSI sensor, I suspect they will be comparable, particularly since Sony is now supporting uncompressed 14b raw.
All that being said, I use my fuji's lately more than any other system because most of my photo's are of the grandkids (if I had known they are so much fun, I would have had them first). These are usually under decent lighting conditions using either fill flash outdoors or bounce flash indoors so that contrast is well controlled.
The D810 is quite a bit of overkill for this purpose.
When they are moving fast I use A D5100 because it's AF is still faster than my X-pro1, but I do notice that Fuji's 18-55 kit lens is much better than Nikon's 18-55 kit lens. The 17-55 / 2.8 belongs on a D300 size body. I am now using a Nikon 18-70 3.5-4.5 which is quite good, but not as good as Fuji's.
I was limited to available light for my recent newborn hospital shots, and Fuji's 35mm F1.4 is good at F1.4 and spectacularly good at F2, I mean Leica class good.
Nikons 50 1.4 is not even close.
I do not think that Fuji will replace my Nikon's, but if they get the lenses, Sony might.
... H
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
Mirrorless is not taking off. The sales figures for mirrorless cameras have held steady, less than 15% of the market, since 2012. DSLR and camera shipments are falling, so over time that may change. I don't think it has anything to do with growing mirrorless sales, but rather a change in the camera market overall, as I already pointed out in a previous post.