NIKON...MIRROR LESS NOW WITH FIRMWARE UPDATE

mhedges

That's probably about right for bodies only. I'm thinking $4k and $3K for the kits. I'd love it if it was lower. A7iii is $2800 with 24-70 f/4. It would be nice if Nikon was the same.

WestEndFoto

I think you are right Donaldjose. It makes sense considering how the 610 and 750 are dated.

I will take an interest when a D850 competitor is launched.

mhedges

Well the Z7 seems close minus the pro controls

WestEndFoto

When you already shoot a D850, pro controls are one of the biggest considerations.

donaldejose

Nikon may be "mirroring" (pun intended) their two body DSLR line: one enthusiast body (D6xx and D7xx series) and one pro body (Dx and D8xx). The pro body build will be more robust and have more external controls. If so, we likely will see a mirrorless replacement for the D850. As to whether or not the D6 goes mirrorless will depend upon whether Nikon can creates almost zero EFV lag, etc. OR Nikon may limit mirrorless to the enthusiast body line for one more generation which means we will get a traditional DSLR replacement for the D5 and D850. It may depend upon whether or not mirrorless design and components have advanced far enough to equal DSLR components. Let me speculate that the Z6 replaces the D6xx series and the Z7 replaces the D7xx series. If so, a Z8 would replace the D8xx series and a Z1 would replace the D5 to mirror the old D1 since Nikon cannot use Z6 again. It also looks like lens design is changing.

Andrewz

TC88 said
"@Andrewz, I understand exactly what I'm talking about. But instead of keeping on repeating myself, here is a straightforward question for you.

Is it possible to have a lens whose T-stop value is better than its F-stop value? (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) don't know.

Your simple answer to that simple question should tell us immediately how much you know the subject."

@tc88 Sorry for trying to simplify for the sake of the explanation.

A T/stop will alway have a higher numerical value than the f/stop because it's calculated based on the f/stop, T=f/square root of transmittance (Sorry can't figure out how to put the fancy square root symbol in here). So if you are dividing the f/stop by the square root of transmittance. Transmittance is measured in % which in a numerical value is always less than 1 i.e. 90%=0.90, you will always get higher numerical value. Which is a lower amount of light.

I however object to the question asking if the T/stop can be "better" than the f/stop. A more accurate question would be, "Is it possible for the T/stop to have a lower numerical value than the f/stop?" Answered above. A T/stop can be neither better nor worse, it just is what it is. A lens may have higher or lower light transmission but again as said before a more complex lens design may have lower light transmission but better image quality.

In still photography T/stop not really helpful. A 50mm f/1.4 lens even if it has a T/1.7, functions optically as f/1.4. In calibrating T/stop as a function of the f/stop it allows film makers to understand the amount of change in the light as a full stop lower is half the light.


Hey if anyone is really interested in this stuff and likes math check out the wikipedia page I think it's really good explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

tc88

@Andrewz, thanks for the reply. All I am going to say is that what you just wrote is more in line with what I posted earlier, but conflicts significantly with what you posted earlier. As long as you are not going to revise your previous postings after the fact, those can be easily read by everyone including you, and there is no need for me to quote them here anymore. BTW, the difference between F-stop and T-stop is more than transmission loss. But that will be hard to explain and understand. And my question is well defined and other people don't seem to have as much issue as you in comprehending it.

But I think we can move on now since we have posted enough on this matter.

snakebunk

tc88 said:

BTW, the difference between F-stop and T-stop is more than transmission loss. But that will be hard to explain and understand.

I would say that the difference between F and T is only transmission loss. There is nothing else in the formula.

tc88

snakebunk said:

I would say that the difference between F and T is only transmission loss. There is nothing else in the formula.

Ha, how about the word "vignetting"? Is that due to transmission loss?

snakebunk

@tc88: Vignetting can occur for different reasons. If transmission loss is greater in the corners than the center it could of course add to the vignetting, but I don't know enough about the reasons behind vignetting to give a very detailed answer. Start a new thread if you want to dive into it.

mhedges

WestEndFoto said:

When you already shoot a D850, pro controls are one of the biggest considerations.

Yeah I can see how you wouldn't want to change. But from a business perspective I don't think that alone is enough of a differentiator to justify Nikon having another model above the Z7. I wonder what else they could add.

donaldejose

"I wonder what else they could add." More robust build (the lighter weight cannot all come from just the missing mirror box and mechanism), all the direct controls missing on the Z6 and Z7 bodies so you don't have to go into the menu to change things (for example a direct button for white balance), battery grip so you can use the D5 batteries (this should come for both the Z6 and Z7). And we don't know yet what the pro bodies have in the menu which has been deleted from the Z6 and Z7 menus. For example, can you change the image size ratio in the menu to shoot normal 8x10 ratio with the EVF blocked out to that ratio?

mhedges

Sure there’s that stuff. Still not sure it’s enough. Unless they make it a true pro D5 style body, which I doubt would be 45 MP.

HankB

Add maybe another screw to fasten the mount to the body! You can argue the larger diameter of the flange adds strength, but does this fully compensate for reducing the mounting screws to only four?

Symphotic

I'm thinking this is going to be what I was expecting: a second body rather than a replacement. For that it may be overpriced. My second full frame body is a D810 for now. Maybe I won't buy right away.

retread

looking at the comparison photos in some of them it looks quite small. I shoot with a D7200 and a D500. I like the size of them. When I pick up my D5100 it seems small. I am not concerned much about weight. It gets heavy when I attach big glass but that is not the fault of the camera. I wonder will there be a grip. I have grips on both of mine and like them. I like the pro controls and think my next move may be the D850 with a grip.

Smaller lenses I like but wonder if the telephotos I use for sports and wildlife will be much smaller or lighter. not going to see an adapter to put a Z mount lens on a F mount camera.

tc88

snakebunk said:

@tc88: Vignetting can occur for different reasons. If transmission loss is greater in the corners than the center it could of course add to the vignetting, but I don't know enough about the reasons behind vignetting to give a very detailed answer. Start a new thread if you want to dive into it.

I already was going to end the discussion. You were the one who jumped in and brought it up and want to argue differently and forced the continuation. Now you realize your understanding was not really right and want to direct it differently. Transmission loss is defined to be light loss when it enters or exists the glass elements. it does not really happen more at corners than center because it's the same glass, coating. Vignetting is caused mostly by limitation in lens design, not transmission loss.

tc88

@Symphotic, I thought you don't need to pay for it anyway. Might as well have the toy.

tc88

The lens exterior styling looks more like Tamron and Sigma than a current Nikon. I suppose they want to distinguish between the two lines, but still an interesting choice on styling.

Symphotic

tc88 said:

@Symphotic, I thought you don't need to pay for it anyway. Might as well have the toy.

Yes, technically I would not have to pay for it if I somehow lost the D810 or the D850 (Never!) or if I could find a customer job to charge it to. I just dinged the company for a fiber optic fusion splicer, which we needed more than another camera body, and I just bought a new 1000 meter rated underwater video camera, so my original plan is scrubbed.

I think I'll abandon the plan to get the zoom lens and go with the 35 of the Z7 and pay for it myself.

The Z7 doesn't replace the D850 unless there is something really amazing that we don't know yet. I looked at the Sony several months ago and didn't really like the EVF, and I wasn't sure about the weather sealing (I take my cameras to sea a lot: good weather sealing on the Z7 could see the D810 go to another home and the company buying the Z7.) My graphics and PR contractor uses the Sony, but it seems like a compromise compared to the D850, and he does neither technical photography or does he go to sea.

"Might as well have the toy..."
See you all in 9 hours and 15 minutes!

snakebunk

tc88 said:

snakebunk said:

@tc88: Vignetting can occur for different reasons. If transmission loss is greater in the corners than the center it could of course add to the vignetting, but I don't know enough about the reasons behind vignetting to give a very detailed answer. Start a new thread if you want to dive into it.

I already was going to end the discussion. You were the one who jumped in and brought it up and want to argue differently and forced the continuation. Now you realize your understanding was not really right and want to direct it differently. Transmission loss is defined to be light loss when it enters or exists the glass elements. it does not really happen more at corners than center because it's the same glass, coating. Vignetting is caused mostly by limitation in lens design, not transmission loss.

You've lost me. If my understanding is not right, just tell me where I am wrong.

mhedges

Can you guys drop it please?

snakebunk

@mhedges: Sorry, it is dropped.

The new cameras look nice by the way. I am thinking about four things:
1. Is 9 and 12 fps fast enough to compete with Sony?
2. Will there be third party lens support?
3. Does the in camera image-stabilization work together with stabilization in lenses, or is it either or?
4. Is there a future for XQD cards?

Maybe old questions, but this is on my mind, especially #2 since I am a fan of Sigma lenses.

tc88

snakebunk said:

You've lost me. If my understanding is not right, just tell me where I am wrong.

First, apology to other people. It's out of my control.

@snakebunk, here is your original post. Bold by me for emphasis.

snakebunk said:

I would say that the difference between F and T is only transmission loss. There is nothing else in the formula.

You obviously discounted all other causes (such as vignetting) on T-stop degradation. Transmission loss refers to the light loss when it passes between glass/air or glass/glass boundaries, (the loss within the glass or air alone is negligible). Vignetting is caused by light that should, but never hit the glass elements in the first place. They are really separate phenomenon. I figure you probably realized that somewhat by your second post, thus the ambiguous wording. So unless you are going to argue the 100% of vignetting is due to transmission loss, your first post is wrong. If you are indeed arguing 100% of vignetting is due to transmission loss in your second post, then you are double wrong. Hope that helps.

mhedges

I’m definitely wondering about 3 and 4. Not a big fan of using XQD but I guess SD has issues with write speeds for video and high FPS still. I’m also curious how many card slots it will have.

Personally I think 9 and 12 FPS is enough. I wonder how many Sony users really make use of the 20 FPS.