NIKON...MIRROR LESS NOW WITH FIRMWARE UPDATE

Hiker

Back on topic....Jared Polin, Fro Knows, has just released a new video of the new Sony A7 iii. He says what most that have and love Nikon and are looking at mirrorless from Nikon think. Nikon and Canon need to get their heads out of their asses when it comes to Mirrorless. I agree.

HankB

The big advantage to eliminating the mirror box and making the camera thinner is greater flexibility in camera and lens design 5, 10, 30 years down the road. We have no idea what the trends will be.

For example, if medium format becomes mainstream, FX/DX size format may cater more to travel and other lightweight markets. And maybe it will become popular to switch FX bodies into highly cropped modes for daylight, travel, or sports shooting, supported by super sharp ultra-compact lenses.

Nikon can't tie its hands to 60 year old specifications and lock itself out of future market trends even if its first round of mirrorless pro bodies are pro DSLR sized. (And Nikon won't have to piss off your kids with a future mount change after they bought a bunch of F-mount glass).

Also, mirrorless is a once in a lifetime natural opportunity to finally catch up with Canon with a "modern", large diameter mount.

Finally, consider that Nikon has been so dependable supporting its customers with the same mount for an unprecedented 60 years not because they love us, but through "enlightened self-interest". That is Nikon has taken the long prudent view of developing and sustaining a repeat business customer base. Up to now, that meant backward compatibility...but that run must eventually end, and mirrorless seems to be that endpoint.
And Nikon hopefully will pull this off with elegant, convenient, fairly priced adapters.

mhedges

HankB said:

The big advantage to eliminating the mirror box and making the camera thinner is greater flexibility in camera and lens design 5, 10, 30 years down the road. We have no idea what the trends will be.

For example, if medium format becomes mainstream, FX/DX size format may cater more to travel and other lightweight markets. And maybe it will become popular to switch FX bodies into highly cropped modes for daylight, travel, or sports shooting, supported by super sharp ultra-compact lenses.

Nikon can't tie its hands to 60 year old specifications and lock itself out of future market trends even if its first round of mirrorless pro bodies are pro DSLR sized. (And Nikon won't have to piss off your kids with a future mount change after they bought a bunch of F-mount glass).

Also, mirrorless is a once in a lifetime natural opportunity to finally catch up with Canon with a "modern", large diameter mount.

Finally, consider that Nikon has been so dependable supporting its customers with the same mount for an unprecedented 60 years not because they love us, but through "enlightened self-interest". That is Nikon has taken the long prudent view of developing and sustaining a repeat business customer base. Up to now, that meant backward compatibility...but that run must eventually end, and mirrorless seems to be that endpoint.
And Nikon hopefully will pull this off with elegant, convenient, fairly priced adapters.

I generally agree but I’m wondering what you mean by “mainstream” with respect to MF. Mainstream amongst professionals and gearhead amateurs, or something actually approaching mass market? Cause I don’t see that happening. What would the need be, when even DX SLR is capable of proving images better than what most people need?

WestEndFoto

Donaldjose, if I was designing a system from scratch that was based on the lenses I currently use, I would not design an empty box into the system. However, the camera would not be much thinner than my D850, so there would be some empty space. Perhaps there is some use for it. An internal neutral density filter system perhaps? Hmmmm.....that could be incorporated into the D850 mirrorless I described earlier.

Pistnbroke

Now as the originator of this thread lets talk to the people who know....The Angry Photographer who says the Nikon mirror less will be a total cock up ...Why ...because they don't listen to the customer ......so there you go ....

vtc2002

@WestEndFoto Let get one thing straight right away, I am not calling you a liar. If that your opinion of my comment so be it. My point was that the Sale rep comment adds no value to your argument. As you stated he could have been smoking dope. He(she) can tell you anything they think you want to hear and means absolutely nothing concerning the future of Nikon and the f-mount.

Concerning Thom's reviews I do not see on his website where he has reviewed any Sony or Canon camera. He makes states Focus: Let's put this to a rest right now: as I write this in late 2017 the D5 is clearly, measurably, repeatably, and with some margin, the best autofocusing camera we've had to date. That includes much-hyped products such as the Sony A9, the direct competitor Canon 1Dx Mark II, and all other comers. but does not provide any information in the form of a review or comparison. Did he test them to the extent that he did the D5 or did was it an observation from simply using the cameras? I agree with him that the D5 requires considerable configuration and "set properly for circumstances" to for the autofocus to work as Nikon advertised. from my experience Canon does not require no where near as much configuration for their AF system. Concerning reviews, there are many reviews that provide a detailed review of the D5 and comparison to Sony and Cannon.
Here these are a couple of examples:
photographylife.com/reviews/sony-a7r-ii/4
photographylife.com/nikon-d5-vs-canon-1d-x-mark-ii

I understand what you are trying to convey with the term "photon detector" but without and explanation it has conveys a entirely different message. My use of the word idiotic came from several comments on the main forum as how the term was interpreted. You have some good points but when readers read terms like this they discredit you and your ideas. I do think your explanation has some merit but I don't think you can separate the camera and lens. There is much more to consider in buying a photography system than the lens. During the film days the camera played a lesser role than the lens and film but I do not think that is true with digital. You can have the best set of lens but if the camera has a poor sensor or ergonomics, what value are the lens. Canon and Sony may have the best "photon detector" in the near future but I have little to no desire to jump ship to either one of them.

BTW: I own (my wife camera) the following Canon equipment:
5D Mark IV
EF 14mm f/2.8L II
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM
EF 135mm f/2L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
MP 65mm f/2.8 Macro
I despise using her camera with the exception of the MP 65 Macro which Nikon does not have anything close to this lens. I cannot get use to the controls and the ergonomics.

I still agree with PB_PM that if Nikon changes the mirrorless mount to something other than the f-mount it your fault for making the assumption that they will keep the f-mount. I include myself in this as well. I think Nikon has been telegraphing their intent by limiting functionality to certain lens such as the D850 and focus shift. They have limited AI and AI-s for years. I have sold all of my older AI, AI-s and D series lens and plan to sell most of the G series lens. If they release a mirrorless camera with a f mount I think it will support E series lens and others series lens will have limited use. I also do not see Nikon making a full frame with a different mount than the DX. If they use a Z mount on the DX and f mount they will lose the ability to for consumers to use lens between the two cameras.

vtc2002

WestEndFoto said:

vtc2002 said:

Nice glass. What do you do with the long primes?

For several reasons. I think it will take years for the mirrorless cameras to release super telephotos and this will be an area that Nikon will continue support their DSLR line and f-mount. My wife has family members serving as missionaries in Bonda, Zimbabwe and we travel there once (sometimes twice) a year for a month to help with construction projects. I shoot photos for several of the game preserves and conservation groups. I use them in western US for wildlife (elk, pronghorn antelope and bighorn sheep, etc.).

donaldejose

WEF: "if I was designing a system from scratch that was based on the lenses I currently use, I would not design an empty box into the system." How do you design an Fmount mirrorless body without an empty mirror box and still keep the flange to sensor distance the same?

donaldejose

vtc2002: Good point with the different mounts on DX and FX causing lens interchangeability issues. However, Nikon could make a "pro" FX body with a mirrorless mirrorbox for a few years D6? with an F-mount so "pros" don't have to sell expensive glass and don't have to use an adaptor. I could see the attraction of such a body to those with many expensive lenses such as WEF. At the same time Nikon could make a Z-mount DX body without a mirrorbox with a few new DX lenses and a Fmount to Zmount adaptor to use old Fmount lenses. The loss of the ability to mount a new Zmount DX lens on a Fmount FX mirrorless body should not be a significant factor.

mhedges

If Nikon does go with a new mount I will be very interested to see how many of the native lenses are just straight up ports of the current designs. A good tell would be if they are longer than the current F mount equivalent by the change in flange to sensor distance.

They could have a pretty decent stable of "native" mount lenses if they choose to go this route.

BVS

What if it turned out that one of the main reasons for changing mounts was because a large percentage (50% or more) of current F mount lenses wouldn't auto focus well on an F mount mirrorless camera (since they were never designed for that). Would you still see that as a "betrayal"? Would you be happy with an F mount mirrorless that performed poorly with many current lenses?

HankB

mhedges said:

I generally agree but I’m wondering what you mean by “mainstream” with respect to MF. Mainstream amongst professionals and gearhead amateurs, or something actually approaching mass market? Cause I don’t see that happening. What would the need be, when even DX SLR is capable of proving images better than what most people need?

Not knowing exactly what the future holds, perhaps my use of "mainstream" should remain loosely defined (or find a better word). Essentially, I was getting at the likelihood that the need for somewhat downsized high IQ systems can be satisfied by the industry, while they also serve a growing market for even higher IQ systems where physical size and weight are lower priority.

HankB

WestEndFoto said:

Donaldjose, if I was designing a system from scratch that was based on the lenses I currently use, I would not design an empty box into the system. However, the camera would not be much thinner than my D850, so there would be some empty space. Perhaps there is some use for it. An internal neutral density filter system perhaps? Hmmmm.....that could be incorporated into the D850 mirrorless I described earlier.

Or a massive battery(ies).

RE: "neutral density filter", I wonder if much, much lower ISO can't be done electronically in the near future, thus eliminating the need for ND filters altogether?

HankB

Here is a thought..."out of the box thinking" or "lunatic thinking" [I won't be insulted if you choose]:

Japan, home of the "transformer" toys and animations, could design a convertible mirrorless camera. Swappable front modules could convert a camera between F-mount and new (are we calling it "Z-mount"). Admittedly, this would be easier for just F-mount E lenses, but that limitation would defeat the purpose.

(I am done telling Nikon how to design cameras and focus my wisdom on advising the auto industry on car design)

donaldejose

"Or a massive battery(ies)." How can you put anything into the "empty" mirror box when you need it open for light to go through to the sensor?

Pistnbroke

You are all mad ..what is the problem with an adaptor ..its Nikon to Nikon not sony to Nikon which may bugger your camera ...it will be designed to match the electronics by the makers not a retro fit cock up. Relax wait for Nikons cock up mirroless failure

mhedges

@donaldejose I was wondering that too!

HankB

donaldejose said:

"Or a massive battery(ies)." How can you put anything into the "empty" mirror box when you need it open for light to go through to the sensor?

To achieve a reasonable shape, the entire camera tends to be thicker when there is a mirror box

HankB

Pistnbroke said:

You are all mad ..what is the problem with an adaptor ..its Nikon to Nikon not sony to Nikon which may bugger your camera ...it will be designed to match the electronics by the makes not a retro fit cock up Relax wait for Nikons cock up mirroless failure

I agree with you Pistnbroke.

But to play the devil's advocate, we must concede that when using a mix of old and new lenses on a thin mirror box-less camera (whether F or Z mount is irrelevant), easy handling requires a separate adapter on each DSLR lens in order to quickly mount the lens/adapter assembly as if it were a single one piece Z mount lens. Accordingly, each F lens with its mounted adapter will be over an inch longer — possibly a problem in the camera bag(s).

donaldejose

No HankB, you just need one adaptor and it can stay on the camera body. You can mount lenses to that adaptor just as you now mount a lens to a body. Adaptors can be solidly built and can be 100% as good as the f-mount, with one exception; perhaps Nikon will add new features to native Z mount lenses which cannot be retrofitted into F-mount lenses. Really, they can be as solid as a Nikon telecoverter on one of those big telephotos.

HankB

donaldejose,
If you are using a MIX OF BOTH F and Z lenses during a single shoot, you really don't want to keep mounting and removing the adapter — in other words you don't want to fumble with that extra piece [we only have two hands] as if you were constantly inserting and removing a teleconverter between a lens and camera. You will want a separate adapter for each F lens, so you could then handle each F lens with its dedicated adapter as if it were a Z lens.

Those F lenses, each with its own adapter would mount/dismount with one hand just like a new Z lens, but they would each take up an extra inch of space in your bag(s).

Pistnbroke

I keep telling you one lens one camera ..whats all this changing lens rubbish and camera bags what are they ? Just don't go with my dinner jacket and bow tie .... If you cannot put it in your pocket then forget it. Changing lenses is just because you bought the wrong lens in the first place .
Get a 28=300 and stop messing with lens changes .....
For Nikon to make Z mount lenses is easy ....just replace the rear part of the lens with one 30mm longer with a new ribbon cable to the new contacts ...not a problem for the longer lenses..re design the shorter focal lengths to make them compact without need for retro focus.
If the Angry Photographer is right and Nikon make a mess of the basic design then we wont care will we .....

PB_PM

Pistnbroke said:

I keep telling you one lens one camera ..whats all this changing lens rubbish...

And people keep telling you not bother buying a camera with interchangeable lenses if that's what you want, but you don't listen either so...

HankB

Pistnbroke→ https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/compact-digital-cameras/coolpix-p900.html

spraynpray

PB_PM said:

Pistnbroke said:

I keep telling you one lens one camera ..whats all this changing lens rubbish...

And people keep telling you not bother buying a camera with interchangeable lenses if that's what you want, but you don't listen either so...

This thread is getting funnier. I thought for a while it was going the other way but fortunately it hasn't. Pistnbroke is just kicking the wasps nest and watching the fun.

If Nikon do read this thread they will think we are all mad and that what ever they do we will p*** and moan about it. I fear our credibility is diminishing daily.

My money and hopes are on them making an adaptor for F-mount diehards and a new range over time. IMHO it is the only sensible way to go.