NIKON...MIRROR LESS NOW WITH FIRMWARE UPDATE

mhedges

Agreed. I don’t understand what people expect. What major companies play nice with unlicensed 3rd party products? None AFAIK.

BabaGanoush

mhedges said:

Agreed. I don’t understand what people expect. What major companies play nice with unlicensed 3rd party products? None AFAIK.

I gave an example, a good one I thought. Having watched Tony Northrup's video, which I think is spot on, I've now placed an order for the Sony A7 III rather than wait for Nikon's first, likely immature effort at mirrorless. I already own a number of excellent Sony/Zeiss FE lenses, so I'm good to go. The other day I did some comparison tests of those lenses on my Sony A6300 against comparable Nikkor lenses (fully tuned) on my D7200, and the IQ of the Sony combos really impressed.

mhedges

BabaGanoush said:

mhedges said:

Agreed. I don’t understand what people expect. What major companies play nice with unlicensed 3rd party products? None AFAIK.

I gave an example, a good one I thought. Having watched Tony Northrup's video, which I think is spot on, I've now placed an order for the Sony A7 III rather than wait for Nikon's first, likely immature effort at mirrorless. I already own a number of excellent Sony/Zeiss FE lenses, so I'm good to go. The other day I did some comparison tests of those lenses on my Sony A6300 against comparable Nikkor lenses (fully tuned) on my D7200, and the IQ of the Sony combos really impressed.

Which example did you give?

As far as the Sony/Zeiss lenses - those are licensed products. Sony gets a cut of those sales. That’s not what happens with Sigma/Tamron etc. The companies that makes the body they attach to don’t get a cent. So why should the camera OEM’s cooperate with them?

I think the only reason Sony even struck the deal with Zeiss was to get a more comprehensive lens line out sooner. Sony wasn’t an optics company so it took them a while to get going on that front. Canon or Nikon won’t have that problem.

I don’t think the software analogy really holds. Computer OS makers know that they can’t provide all the software every user will need by themselves. So they have to give access to other developers. Whereas camera makers can make all the lens types users will need.

Hiker

They could charge Sigma or Tamron a fee to work with Nikon cameras. I'm saying Nikon doesn't play nice with Sigma or Tamron. The latest update to the D7200 proves that. Even with that update, Nikon lenses have AF issues from what I'm reading. And NO! I'm not updating the firmware on my D7200!! I've heard people with 3rd party and Nikon lenses having to send in their lenses to be updated. Nikon lenses imho are WAY over priced. Sigma has proven it can do as good if not better than Nikon with lenses at 1/2 or more price. And I don't think Nikon is liking that fact. Anyway, I'm waiting until Xmas time to make my decision to switch. As I get older my needs are changing.

snakebunk

If we assume Nikon will come out with a new mount they have three different strategies that I can think of. Each with its pros and cons.

1. Nikon makes the new mount spec open. This will make the system attractive for users that want the possibility to use third party lenses. Camera sale will be high and lense sale per customer will be low.
2. Nikon makes the new mount work only with Nikon lenses. This will make the system less attractive for users of third party lenses. Camera sale will be low and lense sale per customer will be high.
3. Nikon license the mount spec to third parties. This can make the system attractive as long as the license is not too high and third parties will support it. It can also establish Nikon as a camera brand that works well with thid party lenses. Camera sale can potentially be high, lense sale per customer will be low and Nikon will get a profit out of third party sales.

The big question for Nikon is which strategy gives them the highest total revenue.

Personally I think (/guess) it is too big of a risk for Nikon to introduce a new mount and make it work only with Nikon lenses. I think they would loose many current customers doing that. I also can't see myself relying on only one company to make the lenses that I want.

PB_PM

#2 Is most likely, since that is what they do now. Could third parties make lens work, yup, they do now. Having official support for third party lenses will not help Nikon one bit, it will make things harder for them, because not only would they have to test every one of their own lenses with each new camera/firmware update, but also every supported third party lens. What a nightmare for the software people at Nikon. It’s not that Nikon is out to get third party lenses, but rather that they don’t want to hold back making improvements or fixes to things they know works with their own stuff just to maintain support of substandard thirdly party firmware. Even if you did, you’d likely need to wait weeks or months after a release for the third parties to get updates out to their glass.

mhedges

@PB_PM has it. From Nikon's perspective there's no good reason to license to third parties. And a lot of reasons not to.

Outside of Sony what major camera body makers have ever officially supported third party lenses? I can't think of any.

PB_PM

Sony does it because their platform (cameras) would be very unpopular without it. There are too few native mount lenses that work with it, and to few people with older Sony/Menolta glass for the native adapter to matter. Nikon on the other hand has a large user base, with lots of lenses that will work well with an adapter. All my compatible Nikkor’s worked extremely well with the F-mount adapter for Nikon 1, so I don’t see why it would be an different this time around.

BabaGanoush

"There are too few native mount lenses that work with it"

Too few for whom? For the average consumer/prosumer who buys 2 lenses per camera? Regarding Nikon, as Thom Hogan has written, Nikon's lens lineup is extensive but has lots of redundancy with multiple versions of the same lens. OK, so the Sony lineup is missing certain lenses, especially the extremely long telephotos in the Canon/Nikon portfolio that are favored by sports photojournalists and wildlife photogs but are so expensive only professionals can afford them. Nevertheless, the gaps in the Sony lineup are quickly being filled in by Sony and by reputable third-parties. Maybe it's time for people to leave the Nikon bubble and experience the really good stuff that's out there in mirrorless photography.

WestEndFoto

Even if I was inclined to want a mirrorless, I would buy Fuji, not Sony.

PB_PM

BabaGanoush said:

Maybe it's time for people to leave the Nikon bubble and experience the really good stuff that's out there in mirrorless photography.

Or stop wasting so much time on the technicalities of whether it's mirrorless, mirrored or whatever and just take photos... mirrorless is not the be all and end all of photography technology, never was and never will be. I'm not saying mirrorless is bad, it's just not all that the marketing hype makes it out to be. Glassless "lenses" will be the next big thing anyway, just wait.

spraynpray

I agree with PB_PM. One of my best shots was taken with the D7100 and another with the D750 - the D850 hasn't set my world on fire. it has made me look at my technique and equipment, like I have fitted max RAM to my PC and I'm fitting spikes to my tripod, but as of yet, I am still looking at it out of the corner of my eye and wondering if I should have done it. I think it is now a case of shooting the genres that put it through it's paces more than landscape.

I certainly am not going to rush out for a mirrorless.

snakebunk

PB_PM said:

#2 Is most likely, since that is what they do now. Could third parties make lens work, yup, they do now. Having official support for third party lenses will not help Nikon one bit, it will make things harder for them, because not only would they have to test every one of their own lenses with each new camera/firmware update, but also every supported third party lens. What a nightmare for the software people at Nikon. It’s not that Nikon is out to get third party lenses, but rather that they don’t want to hold back making improvements or fixes to things they know works with their own stuff just to maintain support of substandard thirdly party firmware. Even if you did, you’d likely need to wait weeks or months after a release for the third parties to get updates out to their glass.

I consider what Nikon do now is to have an open spec (#1) although it takes some reverse engineering to figure it out. To make the mount work with Nikon lenses only (#2) requires encryption and/or additional legal action. I agree that it is likely that Nikon will continue what they do now, but I fear that they will add encryption and I hope they will introduce some kind of license program.

snakebunk

spraynpray said:

I certainly am not going to rush out for a mirrorless.

Rushing out is seldom a good idea. I try to think in terms of what I need rather than what new products are released.

But mirrorless makes me interested because of the ability to shoot quite with lots of fps, to see the image as the sensor sees it, possibility to see the histogram in the view finder and hopefully higher auto focus reliability (and an overall more reliable system because of lesser parts, but Nikon has anyhow not let me down in this regard).

If Nikon change mount and comes out with full frame mirrorless it is certainly a big change in technology, and I am looking forward to it. If they don't succeed there are other great brands out there. And I think we will see lower prices on F mount stuff in the used market.

Hiker

I would have gone mirrorless, mainly the 6300, but the battery life was horrible, until the new Sony's came out. Mirrorless IS the future, just like 6K is now the rumor of the future of TV and video. Nikon and Canon seem to be stuck in the waste full 3D TV mode (don't get me started on that!). Sure, they will most likely still sell DSLR's, but like Tony said it's years away from everything and everyone going mirrorless. The point is NOT who has the most lenses or the best lenses. But who has the newest and brightest tech. Nikon and Canon are so far behind the question is, will they catch up? History has shown otherwise, for now. We can all speculate till the cows come home. Maybe, just maybe Nikon or Canon will pull a real rabbit out of it's hat and not the Bullwinkle kind.

mhedges

Hiker said:

I would have gone mirrorless, mainly the 6300, but the battery life was horrible, until the new Sony's came out. Mirrorless IS the future, just like 6K is now the rumor of the future of TV and video.

OT but they are really talking about 6K TV? That doesn't make sense to me. Not that much more than 4K. And isn't 4K good enough?

WestEndFoto

Hiker said:

I would have gone mirrorless, mainly the 6300, but the battery life was horrible, until the new Sony's came out. Mirrorless IS the future, just like 6K is now the rumor of the future of TV and video. Nikon and Canon seem to be stuck in the waste full 3D TV mode (don't get me started on that!). Sure, they will most likely still sell DSLR's, but like Tony said it's years away from everything and everyone going mirrorless. The point is NOT who has the most lenses or the best lenses. But who has the newest and brightest tech. Nikon and Canon are so far behind the question is, will they catch up? History has shown otherwise, for now. We can all speculate till the cows come home. Maybe, just maybe Nikon or Canon will pull a real rabbit out of it's hat and not the Bullwinkle kind.

Unless you are a gear head, what good is "tech" without the lenses? If the photon detector is a little behind, it will catch up in time. I told a guy with a good selection of Canon lenses the other day that was thinking of switching to Nikon to stay with Canon. His lenses are great. There is nothing wrong with his cameras, they are great to. What little complaint he has will be resolved in a generation or two.

Capt_Spaulding

I think @WestEndFoto hits very close to the mark. It's tempting to say the "mirrorless is the future" so we NEED mirrorless NOW. For most, I suspect that is not true. For some mirrorless is/may be the next step, but it will be just that - a step. For some, it will offer substantial benefits, for others, not so much, or in some cases nothing at all. I've noticed that the lure of the small camera body as a reason to go mirrorless seems to be fading a bit as people realize there are benefits to size and mass in a camera body. My wife has a D3400. Just for fun I mounted my 200-500 f5.6 on it to see what it would be like. I cannot imagine trying to use that contraption to take photographs.

It is a certainty, however, that mirrorless will itself become obsolete, perhaps sooner than we think. I can imagine all sorts of innovations what will fundamentally change the imaging paradigm - adaptive lenses; flexible, adaptive sensors (we're getting closer with the sensor based VR), high speed data pathways increasing frame rates to stratospheric levels, to name just a few.

Years ago a systems admin who worked for me was fond of using the term "bleeding edge" when referring to IT tech advancements. It struck me at the time as a apt substitute for being on the "cutting edge." It still does.

rmp

I have a closet full of yesteryears computers, tvs and cameras. Yes, I am a "leading acceptor" -- bleeding edge nut. Some people are, some people are not. Does anyone really care? You should do whatever makes you comfortable, and I hope you enjoy the hell out of it.

HankB

For Nikon’s long term success, Nikon itself absolutely does NEED mirrorless. This absolute necessity is both to capture new customers entering the interchangeable lens photo market as well as to retain the many, who for all the reasons we discussed, do want to switch to or even just add mirrorless.

I myself won't be switching all that quickly, but we all know people who will.

Capt_Spaulding

I just hope that 1) I'm around to see what follows mirrorless and 2) Nikon supports the DSLR community until then.

Edit: Bob, you ask does anyone care about the risk aversion of the photographic community. I don't know. Personally, I don't think I have a dog in the fight - but judging by the intensity of the reactions of my friends here, it seems to me that it does have an affect. It will be interesting to watch how it plays out.

Searcy

Well, I speak strictly from a personal and selfish position. I I have a d7200 and four Nikon lenses. An 18-200VRDX. A 35mmDX 1.8. A 50mm FX 1.8 and a AF-S 24-70 2.8 ED VR. So as you can see I don't have a lot of gear and I'm far from a cutting edge sort of guy. But I feel it's time for me to go to a full fame camera. I was thinking of a d850 but after spending some time with a Sony A7III I'm thinking of switching. The new A7III has solved some of the issues I had with other Sony mirrorless cameras. It has a respectable battery life, two SD slots and better controls on the body. When it comes to video which I do need sometimes there is no comparison. The Sony wins. The EVF and the auto focus are the main selling points for me. The EyeAF is cool for what I do too.

So IF I were going to switch it seems like now wold be the time as I don't have a lot of Nikon glass to worry about and the price point of the A7III takes a lot of the sting out of switching.

I'm not 100% decided yet but I'm about 80% sure I will be buying a Sony A7III before the end of the year.

Hiker

mhedges said:

Hiker said:

I would have gone mirrorless, mainly the 6300, but the battery life was horrible, until the new Sony's came out. Mirrorless IS the future, just like 6K is now the rumor of the future of TV and video.

OT but they are really talking about 6K TV? That doesn't make sense to me. Not that much more than 4K. And isn't 4K good enough?

Right now that's what they are rumored to be working on. What a surprise!! They haven't even made 1080P perfect yet and then they shoved 3D down peoples throats. 4K may have fixed that but there's little content. But so was Blu Ray and 1080P slow on initial release. 6K is next. Then I've heard that 10K is the max they can go to. I have a friend that does documentaries for Discovery etc. and he uses a 6K video camera. The thing is massive!

Hiker

WestEndFoto said:

Hiker said:

I would have gone mirrorless, mainly the 6300, but the battery life was horrible, until the new Sony's came out. Mirrorless IS the future, just like 6K is now the rumor of the future of TV and video. Nikon and Canon seem to be stuck in the waste full 3D TV mode (don't get me started on that!). Sure, they will most likely still sell DSLR's, but like Tony said it's years away from everything and everyone going mirrorless. The point is NOT who has the most lenses or the best lenses. But who has the newest and brightest tech. Nikon and Canon are so far behind the question is, will they catch up? History has shown otherwise, for now. We can all speculate till the cows come home. Maybe, just maybe Nikon or Canon will pull a real rabbit out of it's hat and not the Bullwinkle kind.

Unless you are a gear head, what good is "tech" without the lenses? If the photon detector is a little behind, it will catch up in time. I told a guy with a good selection of Canon lenses the other day that was thinking of switching to Nikon to stay with Canon. His lenses are great. There is nothing wrong with his cameras, they are great to. What little complaint he has will be resolved in a generation or two.

My point with that comment was that people look at tech more than anything else in todays world. My friends keep trying me to switch to "the dark side", Canon. Nope!

Hiker

Capt_Spaulding said:

I think @WestEndFoto hits very close to the mark. It's tempting to say the "mirrorless is the future" so we NEED mirrorless NOW. For most, I suspect that is not true. For some mirrorless is/may be the next step, but it will be just that - a step. For some, it will offer substantial benefits, for others, not so much, or in some cases nothing at all. I've noticed that the lure of the small camera body as a reason to go mirrorless seems to be fading a bit as people realize there are benefits to size and mass in a camera body. My wife has a D3400. Just for fun I mounted my 200-500 f5.6 on it to see what it would be like. I cannot imagine trying to use that contraption to take photographs.

It is a certainty, however, that mirrorless will itself become obsolete, perhaps sooner than we think. I can imagine all sorts of innovations what will fundamentally change the imaging paradigm - adaptive lenses; flexible, adaptive sensors (we're getting closer with the sensor based VR), high speed data pathways increasing frame rates to stratospheric levels, to name just a few.

Years ago a systems admin who worked for me was fond of using the term "bleeding edge" when referring to IT tech advancements. It struck me at the time as a apt substitute for being on the "cutting edge." It still does.

I think it was Tony Northrup that was saying that we could be looking at in the near future a 16 bit 100mp camera in a few generations? Not sure the source. 14 bit cameras have a little over 16,000 colors and the 16 bit has nearly 65,000??