NIKON...MIRROR LESS NOW WITH FIRMWARE UPDATE

Pistnbroke

less than 46 MP ..forget it . Angry photographer is talking 50 MP ..who knows

rmp

If the IQ is less that the D850, it had better be much smaller and lighter.

mhedges

Well to me it would be dumb for Nikons mirrorless to compete too closely with the D850. Why try to cannibalize sales from a killer product that you can’t make fast enough? I’m seeing it more as a D750 replacement.

Pistnbroke

And reading Thom Hogans predictions it had better have 2 card slots ,enough buffer and silent shutter without blackout/pause

HankB

mhedges said:

Well to me it would be dumb for Nikons mirrorless to compete too closely with the D850. Why try to cannibalize sales from a killer product that you can’t make fast enough? I’m seeing it more as a D750 replacement.

If Nikon and Canon were to limit/sabotage their mirrorless capabilities under the misguided objective of not competing with their top DSLRs, Sony and others will continue to effectively fill that void, ultimately eclipse the D850, and scoff up all that profit that Nikon and Canon would have left on the table.

The introduction of high end mirrorless along side of DSLRs, parallels the introduction of car-based SUV crossovers just a few years back. Just a few years later, today in North America, profitable new car sales are now limited to low end imports, high end luxury and/or performance cars from a few anointed prestige brands, a few specialty cars [Mustang], near-luxury cars for seniors’ last auto purchases, and fleet sales. I guess Accord and Camry are still successful...for now, in that huge huge North American market, but even giant multinational Ford is abandoning it.

Disclaimer — I love cars, drive a performance convertible, don’t particularly like SUVs or crossovers, but appreciate the availability of my wife’s crossover when I need it.

spraynpray

Meh Hank, Cars are just for keeping you dry. Bikes move the soul.

manhattanboy

@Pistnbroke I read Thom's predictions and no place does he mention silent shutter shooting, dual card slots or a blackout free viewfinder. Where are you getting those specs from him?

I think we are going to get a 24 MP to 30MP sensor that has some sort of trick for low light focusing. Nikon will likely brand it a noctural shooter and release the noct lenses along with it. They will have some adapter perhaps a screw drive accessory that will more slowly drive lenses than dslrs but be decent enough for non-action shooting.

What's unclear to me is the DX realm. Do they release a DX mirrorless as well? If so what will the benefits over a DSLR be? Perhaps none.

BabaGanoush

When you look at the features that are missing from the D7500 but could have easily been included, you realize the features Nikon gives you in a new camera are a crap shoot. There's almost no point in speculating what features the new mirrorless camera(s) will include, even if it's great fun to do so. It's best not to expect too much, and then be gratified if what they release exceeds expectations.

BVS

Nikon 1 had silent and blackout free shooting years ago, long before A9. I'll be shocked if Nikon doesn't include this in their new mirrorless cameras.

Pistnbroke

Manhattonboy
I said …"it had better have " meaning "for me" I guess the DX will be low end ..D3400 territory ,one slot etc The advantage will be people always want the latest ,maybe even F mount, smaller thinner a bit retro . The FX one I think will be a little below the D 850/new mount/two cards etc. That does not compete with the successful D850 and gives room to move up in a couple of years.
Who knows but its getting closer

WestEndFoto

Pistnbroke said:

Manhattonboy
I said …"it had better have " meaning "for me" I guess the DX will be low end ..D3400 territory ,one slot etc The advantage will be people always want the latest ,maybe even F mount, smaller thinner a bit retro . The FX one I think will be a little below the D 850/new mount/two cards etc. That does not compete with the successful D850 and gives room to move up in a couple of years.
Who knows but its getting closer

All of the below assumes a 46mp or bigger and dual card slots (preferably XQD).

For me, I would love to see a D850 competitor for the studio, but robust (weather sealed) enough for the field. I would like to see focus points across the frame and a square 36mm by 36mm sensor. There would then be no need to rotate the camera 90 degrees for landscape vs portrait and it would eliminate the need for a battery pack. I would also be able to use more of the frame when I cropped 1:1 or 5:4.

F-mount native? Of course. There is no advantage in a smaller mount that I care about. If you want lighter weight, shoot the rumoured DX mirrorless (which should also be a square 24mm by 24mm sensor).

What do with the mirror space freed up? Built in neutral density, grad and polarizer filters - or if I am overdoing it, at least neutral density with a 3 to 18 (a 3, 5 and 10 and maybe a 15 depending on how much room there is).

I would buy this camera in a heartbeat to supplement my D850. Not replace, I would like skip a generation and update the D850. You can't beat a DSLR for focus.

And then if Nikon brought out a DF style mirrorless, preferably using an f-mount, I would buy that too. I might consider a DX sized version of this.

Capt_Spaulding

WEF your dream camera sounds fantastic. At 36 square it would probably have to be about 68-70 MP to approximate the 850's resolution. Pretty much a 4cmx4cm MF. What do you think such a thing would cost. I'd love to see it and play with it, but almost certainly couldn't afford it,

mhedges

WestEndFoto said:

Pistnbroke said:

Manhattonboy
I said …"it had better have " meaning "for me" I guess the DX will be low end ..D3400 territory ,one slot etc The advantage will be people always want the latest ,maybe even F mount, smaller thinner a bit retro . The FX one I think will be a little below the D 850/new mount/two cards etc. That does not compete with the successful D850 and gives room to move up in a couple of years.
Who knows but its getting closer

All of the below assumes a 46mp or bigger and dual card slots (preferably XQD).

For me, I would love to see a D850 competitor for the studio, but robust (weather sealed) enough for the field. I would like to see focus points across the frame and a square 36mm by 36mm sensor. There would then be no need to rotate the camera 90 degrees for landscape vs portrait and it would eliminate the need for a battery pack. I would also be able to use more of the frame when I cropped 1:1 or 5:4.

F-mount native? Of course. There is no advantage in a smaller mount that I care about. If you want lighter weight, shoot the rumoured DX mirrorless (which should also be a square 24mm by 24mm sensor).

How in the hell do you fit a 36 by 36 mm sensor in a hole the size of the F mount? That's a 51mm diagonal and the F mound is 44mm in diameter. I mean, it's fine to have a wish list but let's keep it within the known laws of physics.

As far as DX mirrorless - I hope they don't do DX mirrorless lenses. Just have it use the F mount. The DX lens lineup is already pretty sparse - the last thing we DX users need is another crop lens system that will take away from DX lens development.

Capt_Spaulding

I suspect you could just make the body a bit (10mm?) taller, no? Am I missing something? Of course, the supporting cast of components (shutter, etc) would have to be scaled to fit. It would be an interesting exercise.

WestEndFoto

Capt_Spaulding said:

WEF your dream camera sounds fantastic. At 36 square it would probably have to be about 68-70 MP to approximate the 850's resolution. Pretty much a 4cmx4cm MF. What do you think such a thing would cost. I'd love to see it and play with it, but almost certainly couldn't afford it,

Likely not as much as you would think. The only thing that I can think of that costs extra is a sensor that is 50% bigger in area than the D850's. You would save money if you buy battery packs as you would not need to do that. You might save 20 or 30 bucks on the mirror, but that is because it is mirrorless, not because of what I am proposing. Say an extra $500 at most if I can take a stab at it.......but Nikon might think that they are so innovative that they can charge more than that.

The sensor would be in the 69 megabyte range, but this would not be medium format. You would not be able to use this sensor all at once - and never the corners. What portions would be used would depend on the selected aspect ratio.

WestEndFoto

mhedges said:

WestEndFoto said:

Pistnbroke said:

Manhattonboy
I said …"it had better have " meaning "for me" I guess the DX will be low end ..D3400 territory ,one slot etc The advantage will be people always want the latest ,maybe even F mount, smaller thinner a bit retro . The FX one I think will be a little below the D 850/new mount/two cards etc. That does not compete with the successful D850 and gives room to move up in a couple of years.
Who knows but its getting closer

All of the below assumes a 46mp or bigger and dual card slots (preferably XQD).

For me, I would love to see a D850 competitor for the studio, but robust (weather sealed) enough for the field. I would like to see focus points across the frame and a square 36mm by 36mm sensor. There would then be no need to rotate the camera 90 degrees for landscape vs portrait and it would eliminate the need for a battery pack. I would also be able to use more of the frame when I cropped 1:1 or 5:4.

F-mount native? Of course. There is no advantage in a smaller mount that I care about. If you want lighter weight, shoot the rumoured DX mirrorless (which should also be a square 24mm by 24mm sensor).

How in the hell do you fit a 36 by 36 mm sensor in a hole the size of the F mount? That's a 51mm diagonal and the F mound is 44mm in diameter. I mean, it's fine to have a wish list but let's keep it within the known laws of physics.

As far as DX mirrorless - I hope they don't do DX mirrorless lenses. Just have it use the F mount. The DX lens lineup is already pretty sparse - the last thing we DX users need is another crop lens system that will take away from DX lens development.

The issue is not my physics but your English.

I did not say that the image circle would be 36mm by 36mm. I said that the sensor would be 36mm by 36mm. With that sensor, you could have approximately a 30mm by 30mm square, which is bigger than the 24mm by 24mm square that you can get with a 24mm by 36mm sensor. I compose for that aspect ratio quite often and it effectively turns an FX sensor into a bigger sensor. There is also a significant but smaller advantage with a 5:4 aspect ratio, but I am too lazy to do the math.

And then with a flick of a switch you could switch between portrait or landscape with a 3:2 aspect ratio. No more contortion of you right arm or need for an expensive battery pack.

And don't get me started on DX. DX was a strategy to save the Nikon FX lens lineup. The terms FX or DX did not even exist before digital. That strategy will eventually not be relevant as the cost advantage of DX will continue to decline, though it may take a while. If you want DX on a D850, flick a switch and you have roughly the same pixel density.

That is why I scratch my head when people think that there is a size advantage of mirrorless. If you want to fully realize that advantage, you will need slower lenses with inferior optics - look at the growth in size and weight of Fuji and Sony mirrorless offerings. Nikon may as well bring out an APS-C system designed from scratch to be optimal, not limited by some desire to .......... I don't know. There seem to be hundreds of reasons, few that actually make sense. I would buy into a mirrorless system with small primes and maybe a mid-range f/4.0 zoom. If I want higher quality than such a system can provide I will use my current f-mount system.

WestEndFoto

mhedges said:

WestEndFoto said:

Pistnbroke said:

Manhattonboy
I said …"it had better have " meaning "for me" I guess the DX will be low end ..D3400 territory ,one slot etc The advantage will be people always want the latest ,maybe even F mount, smaller thinner a bit retro . The FX one I think will be a little below the D 850/new mount/two cards etc. That does not compete with the successful D850 and gives room to move up in a couple of years.
Who knows but its getting closer

All of the below assumes a 46mp or bigger and dual card slots (preferably XQD).

For me, I would love to see a D850 competitor for the studio, but robust (weather sealed) enough for the field. I would like to see focus points across the frame and a square 36mm by 36mm sensor. There would then be no need to rotate the camera 90 degrees for landscape vs portrait and it would eliminate the need for a battery pack. I would also be able to use more of the frame when I cropped 1:1 or 5:4.

F-mount native? Of course. There is no advantage in a smaller mount that I care about. If you want lighter weight, shoot the rumoured DX mirrorless (which should also be a square 24mm by 24mm sensor).

How in the hell do you fit a 36 by 36 mm sensor in a hole the size of the F mount? That's a 51mm diagonal and the F mound is 44mm in diameter. I mean, it's fine to have a wish list but let's keep it within the known laws of physics.

As far as DX mirrorless - I hope they don't do DX mirrorless lenses. Just have it use the F mount. The DX lens lineup is already pretty sparse - the last thing we DX users need is another crop lens system that will take away from DX lens development.

On thing that you do bring up has me thinking however. Consider that one of the advantages that a shorter flange length (and thus mirrorless) does have is in the design of wide angle lenses. The light path is modified considerably - by 90 degrees with an 8mm fisheye. What would stop Nikon from designing a system that modified it even more so that after it went through the flange it did spread out to a 36mm by 36mm image circle?

However, even if possible, I doubt it is practical. Just make a bigger opening.

mhedges

WestEndFoto said:

mhedges said:

WestEndFoto said:

Pistnbroke said:

Manhattonboy
I said …"it had better have " meaning "for me" I guess the DX will be low end ..D3400 territory ,one slot etc The advantage will be people always want the latest ,maybe even F mount, smaller thinner a bit retro . The FX one I think will be a little below the D 850/new mount/two cards etc. That does not compete with the successful D850 and gives room to move up in a couple of years.
Who knows but its getting closer

All of the below assumes a 46mp or bigger and dual card slots (preferably XQD).

For me, I would love to see a D850 competitor for the studio, but robust (weather sealed) enough for the field. I would like to see focus points across the frame and a square 36mm by 36mm sensor. There would then be no need to rotate the camera 90 degrees for landscape vs portrait and it would eliminate the need for a battery pack. I would also be able to use more of the frame when I cropped 1:1 or 5:4.

F-mount native? Of course. There is no advantage in a smaller mount that I care about. If you want lighter weight, shoot the rumoured DX mirrorless (which should also be a square 24mm by 24mm sensor).

How in the hell do you fit a 36 by 36 mm sensor in a hole the size of the F mount? That's a 51mm diagonal and the F mound is 44mm in diameter. I mean, it's fine to have a wish list but let's keep it within the known laws of physics.

As far as DX mirrorless - I hope they don't do DX mirrorless lenses. Just have it use the F mount. The DX lens lineup is already pretty sparse - the last thing we DX users need is another crop lens system that will take away from DX lens development.

The issue is not my physics but your English.

I did not say that the image circle would be 36mm by 36mm. I said that the sensor would be 36mm by 36mm. With that sensor, you could have approximately a 30mm by 30mm square, which is bigger than the 24mm by 24mm square that you can get with a 24mm by 36mm sensor. I compose for that aspect ratio quite often and it effectively turns an FX sensor into a bigger sensor. There is also a significant but smaller advantage with a 5:4 aspect ratio, but I am too lazy to do the math.

And then with a flick of a switch you could switch between portrait or landscape with a 3:2 aspect ratio. No more contortion of you right arm or need for an expensive battery pack.

And don't get me started on DX. DX was a strategy to save the Nikon FX lens lineup. The terms FX or DX did not even exist before digital. That strategy will eventually not be relevant as the cost advantage of DX will continue to decline, though it may take a while. If you want DX on a D850, flick a switch and you have roughly the same pixel density.

That is why I scratch my head when people think that there is a size advantage of mirrorless. If you want to fully realize that advantage, you will need slower lenses with inferior optics - look at the growth in size and weight of Fuji and Sony mirrorless offerings. Nikon may as well bring out an APS-C system designed from scratch to be optimal, not limited by some desire to .......... I don't know. There seem to be hundreds of reasons, few that actually make sense. I would buy into a mirrorless system with small primes and maybe a mid-range f/4.0 zoom. If I want higher quality than such a system can provide I will use my current f-mount system.

My English? Whatever.

So you are saying you want a 36 by 36 sensor but only a 30 by 30 image? I kind of see what you are saying but I don’t see how that’s at all practical. To make a huge sensor but never be able to use all of it?

WestEndFoto

Well, if my physics is not the issue, then what is it? If “English” came across as harsh, I regret that.

I want 36 by 24, 24 by 36, 30 by 30, 29ish by 36 etc. A 36 by 36 accomplishes that. If Nikon wants to salvage the unused corners, all the power to them.

With the current FX, I get 36 by 24, 24 by 36 after deciding between a sore wrist and expensive battery grip and neither of the other two options.

And I would be willing to pay for it, which as I described above, is not that much in the context of a premium full frame camera.

Pistnbroke

I never heard of a circle described as 36x36...takes me back to reverse polish logic

WestEndFoto

Pull out a piece of graph paper with 1mm squares, draw a 36mm by 36mm square, overlay a circle 44mm in diameter and you will see what I mean. A 36 by 24, 24 by 36 and 30 by 30 rectangle will each fit nicely inside the circle.

manhattanboy

BVS said:

Nikon 1 had silent and blackout free shooting years ago, long before A9. I'll be shocked if Nikon doesn't include this in their new mirrorless cameras.

Chances are you are going to need a mouth guard as you likely will be "shocked" by the lack of decent silent shooting on the upcoming mirrorless. Remember that Nikon 1 achieved that on a tiny 1" sensor and the relative lack of rolling shutter came at the expense of dynamic range. Even on the Sony A9, the sensor off-loading speed needed to combat rolling shutter reduces dynamic range... this was why for years the m43s cameras had less DR in e-shutter mode than mechanical.

Had Nikon continued with Nikon 1, if for no other reason then to use it as a test ground for their mirrorless FX switch, I might have agreed with you. But remember, Nikon was the one that said we don't need to give our customers any silent shooting options right now.

Pistnbroke said:

I never heard of a circle described as 36x36...takes me back to reverse polish logic

The size of the opening is really not that important...look at your current lenses: many of them have glass that is much, much smaller than the the opening in the rear. One of the nice things about have a long flange distance is the lens designers can build in the lenses to project light out of a tiny rear element onto a much larger sensor.


Moreover, Nikon can always build an adapter to refocus light onto a sensor regardless of the size of the opening...that's why I had hope for a while that the CX mount would be repurposed as a DX mount and live on as Nikon's DX mirrorless option.

WestEndFoto

I think you are right on the opening Manhattanboy. I have seen discussions of this on other areas. Thanks for the illustration. The laws of physics are actually not so restrictive.

I suspect, however, that a larger opening does make lens design easier, therefore enabling higher optical performance at a lower cost.

HankB

Nikon lens designers’ desire for a shorter flange length is an added incentive to the longstanding (longstanding over some portion of the eternally long 60 year run of the F-mount) desire for a larger throat diameter (F-mount size→Canon size).

A new mount will make it easy to meet, and to fully utilize WestEndFoto’s 36 x 36mm sensor. Cost of sensors certainly must be declining as a percentage of total cost to manufacture a body, so there is a cost opportunity to enlarge that sensor, thus tap into all that image potential of each lens which is currently just thrown away by the super oblong 3:2 format.

Also, it is quite likely that the F-mount's narrow diameter is a constraint on effective in-body image stabilization.

PB_PM

HankB said:

A new mount will make it easy to meet, and to fully utilize WestEndFoto’s 36 x 36mm sensor. Cost of sensors certainly must be declining as a percentage of total cost to manufacture a body...

Unlike CPUs/GPUs and SoC, that do drop in material cost due to die shrinks, the die size of the sensors is not getting smaller. Transistors in the sensor might shrink with time and reduce cost, but the number likely jumps along with resolution pushing the price back up. Unless the sensor shrinks, the cost of production will not drop. Where Nikon and other camera makers are likely saving money is in the SoCs (aka Expeed) as those get die shrinks. The only time cost of the sensor will drop is as yields of that run improve. The material costs typically will go up, generation to generation, as procurement of materials goes up, due to the cost of fuel, transpiration, electricity, wages, etc all rise with time.