It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Currently this looks so interesting I was adding up the total cost of body plus lenses, but will wait until Nikon comes through, and this may be sooner than we think.I think Nikon sensors have been quite successful for me to dates thus my reluctance to jump ship.....
@moreorlessSmall DSLR's currently have a price advantage over mirrorless, primarily because of their very high production volumes.Mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X-T10 are smaller still than a Nikon D5nnn and the X-T1 is about the same size, but they have the equivalent of Nikon's professional body UI and control system which I greatly prefer. Nikon's small bodies are clearly focused on those who will use them on automatic most of the time. Whenever I use (my wifes) D5100 on manual, I wind up wanting to throw either the camera or myself into the river, and I don't have a river.Mirrorless DX size sensor WA lenses are definitely smaller and optically simpler than DSLR DX WA lenses. Even though digital sensors do not like very acute impact angles, it is not as restrictive as clearing a mirror, particularly with modern microlenses.Nikon also made a design decision years ago which I agree with, but hurts them with DX WA lenses. Nikon policy is that all 'F' mount lenses can mount in all 'F' mount bodies which means that even DX lenses must clear an FX size mirror.Canon crop format lenses will not mount on Full Frame cameras or even APS-H (1.3 factor), so they can build them to barely clear a crop format (DX) mirror and move the rear element further back than Nikon can.
heartyfisher, I don't think that a 16mm f2.8 DX lens will be much larger than the current 35mm f1.8 DX, I mean it doesn't need to be a pancake lens which will look odd and not balance well on even a D5500, also Canon has shown that a 24mm f2.8 APS-C lens can be made pancake sized, be sold at $150 at volumes approaching those of the 35mm f1.8 DX (these two lenses are, btw, the best selling APS-C prime lenses ever) and still make a nice profit. Nikon could sure make a 24mm f1.8 DX of about the same size as the 35mm f1.8 DX, charge $200 for it and it will sell at the same volumes as Canon's while making an even fatter profit. The volumes Canon is moving with their 24mm should be enough of a business case for Nikon to go on and make their 24mm DX lens HAPPEN. 35mm FOV lovers like me might not be as many as 50mm FOV lovers, but if anything Canon is proving that the numbers aren't that far apart, and meanwhile Nikon is just loosing out on a great business opportunity. Hope Nikon has reacted to Canon's wake-up call.
I think there are real physical reasons why the D500 is almost as large as the D810.
@heartyfisherI did not say an exact D500 replica could be as small as a D5nnn, but it could be smaller than it is, and than a D810.- Sensor half the size of FX- Mirror half the size of FX- Pentaprism base half the size of FX- cpu's are tiny, so are motors today.I did say 'what is the point' of a DX camera the same size as the FX Camera.My DX camera when I want one is a D810 in crop mode. Since D500 has no 'FX' mode, why would I carry one around. I do not speak for others but that is how I evaluate my needs. As to their seriousness about size and weight:- Where is the 'pro' control system for D5nnn size bodies?. Sony and Fuji have such controls in bodies that size. Shooting manual with the D5100 is akin to dancing the hokey pokey. (What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about ?)- Where are the lenses, It is only 17 years since the intro of DXTheir lineup is very clear, small is for casual use, big is for serious use.Could they do otherwise ? ... Sure, but they do not.Regards ... H
Even as we use examples of what manufacturers are doing to illustrate what is theoretically possible, lets not confuse the two.Nikon engineers are certainly capable of doing anything that Fuji, Canon, or Leica can do, in each segment, they need direction from their management (and marketing) to do so.Nikon could produce a D5nnn size DX (or FX) camera with pro build and controls, but they do not currently do so.They could produce a line of world class DX lenses for that camera but they do not currently do so..
16mm is not 24mm. What I understand about retrofocus lenses is that they are similar in design to a telephoto lense except reversed ie the smaller the focal length the larger the lense.
My point is DX lenses covering these classic focal lengths (24, 28 and 35mm FX) can be made cheap and compact just as Nikon and every other SLR manufacturer in the world made them back in the days, and such lenses will beat any zoom out there in sharpness, allowing us Nikon DX users to be able to take pictures as sharp as the one I posted in my OP.
I think I know how to get Nikon to produce a full frame or crop sensor mirrorless.....all it takes is me purchasing the Fujifilm X-PRO2...... )
Again, I did not say an exact D500 replica could be as small as a D5nnn. but it could be smaller- A DX mirror is narrower than an FX mirror- more creativity in the controls could require less 'real estate' for the same functions. eg: pull up knob rings etc.
Thom Hogan is running a poll about what DX lenses we would like to buy.