Fujifilm X-PRO2 giving us an idea of what native Nikkor DX wide primes may come

CaMeRaQuEsT

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.....

Nikon has to only cover the classic, popular 24mm, 28mm and 35mm equivalent FOVs, which will equal to roughly 16mm,18mm and 24mm DX lenses. The investment will be very low for Nikon and they could sell millions of them, what with the immense customer base of DX bodies already sold, which on itself should be many thousands fold the entire run of Fuji APS-C ILC bodies out in the wild, for example. I really don't understand how they can't make a business case out of these FL, is it fear that such lenses will make the DX system good enough for many to not consider buying FX? There are a lot of people like me who would never consider going FX because of how expensive or heavy it is, Nikon is just loosing sales by not catering well to its customer base.

haroldp

Having seen this many times in other businesses, one of the most common mistakes that otherwise smart companies make, is worrying about their products competing with each other while their competitors eat their lunch in key segments.

WestEndFoto

I will jump ship over lenses, but not something as ephemeral as a camera.

haroldp

I have not remotely jumped ship, I use different types for situations that warrant them.

The places I use Fuji are mostly where the alternative is no camera at all or a cellphone.

I completely agree that camera bodies have a limited shelf life whereas lens collections are more lasting.

Most camera bodies today are good enough, that the limiting factor for most people, most of the time is the lens.

I always welcome more resolution, but would no longer buy because of it. I will buy for better autofocus.

... H

pictureted

If I could add this X-Pro2, 14/2.8, 23/1.4 and 56/1.2, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Would never replace my Nikon's, but for less unobtrusive and quieter shooting this would be perfect. A reflex mirror has big advantages for macro and long lens work, but it also induces noise and vibration. This camera (like my X100s) has an excellent optical finder to go with great lenses, logical controls and fine ergonomics.
My estimated cost of a Fuji kit (above lenses, batteries, etc,) is just under 5,000 USD.

moreorless

@moreorless

Small 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.

Yep I'd agree with that, ASPC DSLR's cannot really go after the ultra small market which is I'd guess why Canon's EOS M has thus far only focused on that segment. They could on the other hand go after the higher end market that cameras like the Xpro 1 and X-T1 do if they created something the size of the D5xxx but with more of the build and controls of a D7xxx, two main dials, LCD top plate, etc. Canon have already gone a bit in this direction with the D760(with the controls and LCD anyway) and I wouldn't be surprised to see Nikon follow suit.

I'd guess APSC and smaller sensors present less extreme issues with light angles than FF sensors do but if your talking UWA's I'm not sure I see much advantage. The Fuji 10-24mm is pretty large and the smaller mirrorless UWA's tend to be retractable lenses that have to extend to be useable, I'm guessing the same could be done with a DSLR lens but the market isn't there for extreme size saving.

Ultimately I think most of the talk of size saving of mirrorless lenses was unrealistic/dishonest, there might be some possibilities with certain lenses(although other lenses need to become larger) but generally I think it was based on both film use when light angles were much less of an issue and on comparing lenses with autofocus and aperture control to purely manual lenses.

CaMeRaQuEsT

moreorless, like Pistnbroke commented earlier on those UWA zooms are all lost causes in APS-C if you need the sharpest results from center to corner, I'm not interested in those lenses, I have one and can't get rid of it, they are all big and heavy (except for the newer Canon 10-18mm EF-S and the 11-22mm EF-M) and suffer from astigmatism at the corners of their widest FL that can't be dealt with even stopped down, and, yes, even the Fuji 10-24 suffers from all these maladies. But a 24mm FOV equivalent prime that's sharp from center to corner, like the one used in the picture shown in my OP, should be easily doable for Nikon, even if they made it a f2.8 to keep costs, size and weight down it will still be faster than all their zooms covering that FOV costing less than a grand, they can sell huge numbers of it if they price it around $300 and will really, really make a lot of DX owners happy.

heartyfisher

i think nikon is right though .. the size weight of making a retrofocus wide prime for DX is just a waste of effort as a similar size weight zoom can be made for the same price. A wide for the Mirrorless apsc will be/is much cheaper and smaller.

check out the 16mm, 20mm, 30mm primes from Samsung..

Isn't it obvious that Nikon will be making DX mirrorless? seems to me they will polish up the tech to overtake the D500 then we will have it. Next Pro apsc will be mirrorless doubt that there will be a D510 (with popup flash ;-) maybe there will be ..)

CaMeRaQuEsT

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.

haroldp

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.

So folks like me wanting to take pictures of grandkids or hike through cities for architecture shots either carry a D810 with 24-120 (from a size / weight point of view, a D500 with 16-80 is not enough of an improvement to matter), or do something else.

My favorite portrait lens is Nikon's 105/2.0 DC. It won't even autofocus and a D5nnn and manual focus for three year old ubjects is really a lost cause, and I am shooting Leica's for 50 years.

Nikon's issue is that they do not believe serious photographers care about size and weight, which is why a D500 is exactly the same size as a D810, and almost (880 vs 860 gm.) the same weight. That does not move the bar for me.

CaMeRaQuEsT said :

" a 24mm FOV equivalent prime that's sharp from center to corner, like the one used in the picture shown in my OP, should be easily doable for Nikon, even if they made it a f2.8 to keep costs, size and weight down ".

That is absolutely correct, look at the Fuji 14mm (21mm equivalent) F2.8 as an example (among others).

While mirrorless certainly has some design advantages, it also has some disadvantages, Particularly EVF's and Autofocus

I think we are still 3-5 years from where mirrorless camera's can replace DSLR's for the most serious purposes.

Nikon and Canon could produce serious DX format DSLR's and lenses, but they choose not to.

A DX camera that is the size and weight of an FX camera is a throwback to when sensor size was the costliest component.

... H

heartyfisher

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.

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.

heartyfisher

@haroldp "Nikon's issue is that they do not believe serious photographers care about size and weight, which is why a D500 is exactly the same size as a D810, and almost (880 vs 860 gm.) the same weight. "

I think there are real physical reasons why the D500 is almost as large as the D810.
1) the new AF system, that is from the D5, is larger and has its own CPU.
2) the Mirror system has its own motor and new dampening system.
3) the Pentaprism and viewfinder is larger.

I dont think that the conclusion that "they do not believe serious photographers care about size and weight" is valid.

BVS

I think there are real physical reasons why the D500 is almost as large as the D810.

Yes, the intention of the D500 is to be a pro-build workhorse camera. If it were otherwise people would complain and say it wasn't a true D300 successor.

haroldp

@heartyfisher

I 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 DX

Their 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

heartyfisher

@heartyfisher

I 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 DX

Their 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

The space in the mirror section between the lense mount and sensor is fixed weather its FX or DX it dont matter. so the only place for more stuff to go in would be below the sensor and mirror. yes 3 more CPUs and 3 more motors compared to a D5500 may not sound like much space but I think you underestimate the physical space requirements of the new tech in the D500.

Also the new pentaprism is signifcantly larger than any previous Dx models. we are comparing a 1.0x magnification in the D500 with a 0.7x in the D810

haroldp

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.

- I spent all of my career in the technology business, and believe their are two primary reasons for the D500 being it's current size:

1 - Manufacturing commonality .
2 - Marketing and perceived 'value' in it's segment call for a size / price convergence.

Putting aside what the D500 might have been, the Dnnn size cameras could be greatly improved without making them bigger.

I am sure some will buy the D500 for the frame rate and buffers (and AF), and they are most qualified to evaluate their own needs.

I am also sure that there are many like myself who have a D800 / 810, and wouls be a market for a smaller and serious Nikon but will not add another FX size DX body to the mix.

We still want a smaller serious camera.

That may be why the current most active thread on this Nikon forum starts with 'Fujifilm'

moreorless

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..

I suspect your last point is the key reason why they don't produce a smaller higher end APSC DSLR camera(although again I wouldn't rule out a response to the D760).

The D500 and D7200 are really based on using either FX tele lenses or existing DX zooms like the new 16-80mm. You release a D5xxx sized high end body though and I think the demand would be for a lot of smaller primes to go with it.

I think Nikon is releasing cameras like the D500 and the Df because there relatively easy ways to target new niches, they only need to invest in the camera but don't need to invest in a large number of new lenses especially for them.

Msmoto

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...... )

CaMeRaQuEsT

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.

Actually, all SLR wide angle lenses since the very beginning have been retrofocus designs, they are so to clear the mirror, that doesn't mean that they are literally telephoto lenses turned around. An FX 24mm FOV equivalent for DX will be a 16mm (1.5 multiplier), and their designs will be similar given that they are covering the same FOV. Pentax has got a 15mm f4.0 for their APS-C DSLRs (22.5mm FX FOV equivalent) that is quite compact (about the size of the 35mm DX), so a 16mm f2.8 should roughly be the same size. 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.

manhattanboy

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.

Nikon has produced very few pancake lenses and I only know of the 10mm 2.8 CX as the only one that's recent. As other manufacturers like Pentax with the lens you mention or Canon with their full frame pancakes have demonstrated, it can be done and done well. Whether Nikon gets off their arse to do it is another matter.

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...... )

That's how I felt about the 300f4 update. Still reluctant to let my old one go given its the sharpest lens I own though.

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.

The mirror portion reflecting down onto the AF module is likely the same in BOTH the D5 and D500. Most of the AF modules are limited by the light angles reflected from this mirror (its why you don't have PDAF points across the entire FX frame). Nonetheless, using the same mirror allowed them to use the same AF module in both cameras. Mirror notwithstanding, the D500 is big and heavy because of the duplication of the D5 controls and demand from folks for a "Pro" build. Get rid of those 2 things and the size/weight can shrink it down dramatically...

CaMeRaQuEsT

Thom Hogan is running a poll about what DX lenses we would like to buy. Although he didn't have choices for what I'll really want to buy (a 16mm f2.8, an 18mm f2 and a 24mm f1.8), I did tick on the ones closest to my liking. Will be fun to see the results...

BVS

Thom Hogan is running a poll about what DX lenses we would like to buy.

Results are up:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/desirable-dx-lenses-accordi.html

Top 5 are:

1. 10-16mm f/4 (or faster)
2. 16-50mm f/2
3. 50-135mm f/2.8
4. 17-50mm f/2.8 replacement with VR
5. 24mm f/2.8 pancake

Personally, I want 2 or 4.

esquilo

From http://discover.store.sony.com/sony-technology-services-apps-NFC/tech_imaging.html

If only those OCL's would include split-prisms to separate red, green and blue light so we can ditch that Bayer interpolation....

heartyfisher

nikon has a patent for splitting colours on the sensor.. would be great if they can implement it..