NIKON...MIRROR LESS NOW WITH FIRMWARE UPDATE

donaldejose

"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." Agreed, I don't see any other logical answer. If they don't put an unneeded mirrorbox on their mirrorless bodies then they would be wise to use a new mount. We are far more knowledgeable than most users. Image how many people would put an F-mount lens designed for a mirrorbox body on a mirrorless body without a mirror box if it had an F-mount. People would say "it fits, why doesn't it work?" If the flange to sensor distance is changed it would be best for Nikon to use a new mount and provide an adaptor for F-mount lenses designed for DSLRs.

mhedges

They would absolutely have to change mounts if the flange to sensor distance changed. Otherwise as said it would be mass confusion. Even seasoned users would be sure to occasionally mix things up.

Hiker

spraynpray said:

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.

I think most huge corporations big wigs stubble around the hall ways scratching their collective heads of knuckle saying, "but I don't understand why people are upset"!

dissent

Yes, I think I'm definitely going to have to make another popcorn run soon.

HankB

OK, now that we have exhausted the mount controversy and the snarky superzoom advocacy, here is a serious technical question:

Is it easier and cheaper, or harder and more expensive, or just not a factor to design equal IQ pro lenses for presumably physically smaller lenses — more compact lenses that could take advantage of being closer to the sensor? And let's assume a new mount would have a larger diameter throat.

[And let's ignore any lens size and cost savings gained by moving the VR/IS to the camera body].

PB_PM

It will always be harder/more expensive to make something smallas well as something bigger, in terms of the electronic components, like focus motors and such. Mirrorless won’t change lens size much, other than the mount itself, since the glass still has to cover the image circle and that won’t change without going to a smaller sensor.

Pistnbroke

Yes of course I am going to shoot a wedding with a P900 ..chip the size of your thumb nail ..get real.
I think the problem is you go buy a camera with a 18-55 then you go buy a 55-200 when what you should have done is go buy a 18-200 and sell the 18-55..this is how all this lens changing rubbish starts.
Now you don't see a professional changing lenses they have a couple of bodies that cover the distances and subjects needed . so I carry me 28-300 and a 15mm each on a body and that covers everything. Ok you cannot afford 5 Nikons but you still need to make the right lens choice for the photos you take.

donaldejose

Sorry HankB, it is not "snarky superzoom advocacy." It is realistic advocacy based upon practical and experienced use.

Before going to do a shoot first ask yourself "What use will these photo be put to?" I recently did a shoot at a nursing home where almost all of the subjects were over 60 and some were over 90. No young glamor girl sexy shots in this shoot. Did I take my D850 and my Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 because that would give me the best and sharpest image quality? No, because I knew the final use would be almost all printed to 5x7 size and only a very few printed to 8x10 size. I took my D500 with my Nikon 16-80 zoom. Even then I shot the photos in medium size jpeg basic with RAW to another card as my backup. (Yah, call me Ken Rockwell! LOL) I used two of Nikon's excellent SB5000 speedlights in medium size umbrella softboxes because they were easier to transport and adjust from the camera along with a gray mottled background cloth. Since I had excellent control over the light I never needed to use a RAW backup file; the jpegs were all properly exposed (and I used custom white balance to make sure the colors were right). Any minor tweaking could easily be done on the jpeg file. Editing was quicker this way and the results indistinguishable to the subjects. I could just as well have used my Nikon 18-200 superzoom or an 18-300 superzoom (which I do not have). I didn't use either because I didn't need the additional range and I wanted to shoot some at f4 (I shot all at f5.6 anyway). One of my images from this shoot is attached so you can see the detail and image quality of medium size basic jpeg shot with a DX body and a zoom lens.

pistnborke is talking about shooting fast paced weddings where the final results are delivered to the client as "digital negatives" and not even printed in a photobook (at least not by him). Those images aren't going to be printed larger than 8x10 either and a superzoom on a FX body will contain sufficient detail in jpeg files to use a superzoom. Under certain conditions the ability to quickly get the shot with a zoom rather than take the time to switch lenses and miss the shot is more important than using a prime lense. The super image quality of a shot you never took is worth zero to you and to the client. I agree with him and no longer take a bunch of lenses when I know the results of a zoom on a DX body shot in jpeg will be sufficient.

Of course, if the answer to the question "What use will these photos be put to?" is different than the two examples above, then a different camera and lens selection may also be the best selection for the shoot.

This is a 90 year old relative of mine from that old folks home photo shoot. Click on it to go to flckr where you can view it in much larger sizes and tell me the image quality is not good enough for a 16x20 print. I think it would be fine even printed to 24x36 inches. It is amazing to me what a modern DX sensor and a zoom lens and basic jpeg can produce these days! Printing to only 5x7 or 8x10 inches is "wasting" image quality contained in this file. Why do you need more?

snakebunk

For reference, I think Sigma choose not to change mount when they started making mirrorless cameras (I guess they felt it is enough to support 3-4 mounts). This has given their mirrorless cameras a peculiar design with a short tube between the mount and the body, e.g. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-sd-quattro-h.

Maybe not too bad, but would be nicer without the tube.

donaldejose

Right, that is an ugly design. Hope Nikon doesn't do it. But it really won't matter to me as long as it contains mirrorless advantages (such as what you see before you shoot is what you get in the exposure and silent shooting without blackout) I want to use. I will use an ugly camera if it works for me.

mhedges

donaldejose said:

This is a 90 year old relative of mine from that old folks home photo shoot. Click on it to go to flckr where you can view it in much larger sizes and tell me the image quality is not good enough for a 16x20 print. I think it would be fine even printed to 24x36 inches. It is amazing to me what a modern DX sensor and a zoom lens and basic jpeg can produce these days!

Yes it is. I have made conventional 16x20 prints from my D5500 and they look great. And even a 28x40 canvas print (which I'm sure is more forgiving than a regular print) and it also looked very good.

snakebunk

@donaldejose: me think alike

donaldejose

The original image in flickr is only 7.5 megapixels. If you open the original file on flickr you will be viewing it at about 72 dots per inch (rather standard for monitors - yours may differ). Your monitor will only be able to display a small part of the image and at normal viewing distance from the monitor you will see some blurr in the image. But that is not how you would look at a print. You would back up so you could see the whole image. When you figure the whole image would print to about 36 x 50 inches and you would have to get about 4 feet away to comfortably see a whole print that size you will find the blurr seen at close distance fades away. Try it. Open the image full size on your monitor, scroll so you see the eyes, back up until you are four feet from your monitor and then tell me people wouldn't remark on how sharp that image is. I, like everyone, want the latest body with the most megapixels (D850) and the sharpest portrait lens (Sigma Art primes or Nikon 85 or 105 primes) but then when it really comes down to it I leave those at home and elect to shoot the smallest current DX sensor (20mp not 24mp) at medium basic jpeg with a zoom lens! Now what sense does that make? Other than to have smaller files for faster processing and less weight to travel with (my backpack is heavy enough with laptop, two speedlights, extra batteries and battery chargers and a book to read on the airplane). Am I crazy? I think you could say I am both a megapixel junkie in the equipment I buy and a megapixel waster in how I elect to shoot the equipment I do have! I wonder how many more there are here like me?

Pistnbroke

Same here D810 +28-300 but on JPEG Basic ..done hundreds of weddings like this without any problem ...Have also used D7100 and 18-140 again JPEG basic without any problems but the 810 is better in low light. I just leave the lens on F8 for everything.

HankB

Each time I travel, I agonize between a single midsize messenger bag [strict one bag limit] including a D7200 and a few lenses + iPad, vs. a smaller case for just the D7200 including only an attached lens. When it’s just one lens, it usually is either a 16-80 f/2.8-4.0 or the somewhat less sharp but more versatile 18-300 f/3.5-6.3.

When pixel peeping, I find the 18-300 more than satisfactory even though, for example, when zoomed out to 300mm, its IQ is definitely less than the 70-200 at 200mm even after cropping to the same size image as the 300mm. But that 18-300 was fantastic in Africa shooting a yawning hippo’s awesome mouth a couple of hundred yards far away, and then a couple of minutes later, a wide shot of a male lion with his bride (he seemed to find her attractive) only 10 yards away…all without lens swap in the Land Cruiser bouncing over the dusty trails.

donaldejose

Yes HankB. I would not want to change lenses in a dusty Land Cruiser in Africa.

PB_PM

Pistnbroke said:

Yes of course I am going to shoot a wedding with a P900 ..chip the size of your thumb nail ..get real.
I think the problem is you go buy a camera with a 18-55 then you go buy a 55-200 when what you should have done is go buy a 18-200 and sell the 18-55..this is how all this lens changing rubbish starts.
Now you don't see a professional changing lenses they have a couple of bodies that cover the distances and subjects needed . so I carry me 28-300 and a 15mm each on a body and that covers everything. Ok you cannot afford 5 Nikons but you still need to make the right lens choice for the photos you take.

Thankfully I never did that, skipped on cheap kit lenses. I have a AF-S 28-300, but there is no way I’d trade my 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8, or 200-400mm F4 for just that lens. For one thing, it’s not sharp enough (even with fine tune) and it is less than 230mm at max zoom for close subjects, due to heavy focus breathing. Good for travel shooting, but that’s about it for my taste. It also produces rather flat looking images, and gets worse on the wide end. No amount of editing can fix some of it’s shortcomings.

I tend to shoot fast moving subjects in low light and need 1/800s or faster most of the time, so being stuck at F5.6 as a maximum aperture wouldn’t cut it. Flash won’t help either, even with a better Beamer. High ISO and fast glass is sometimes all that works.

As for multiplayer cameras, yes that is ideal for people who are working. Even then swapping lenses can be required, but at least one body is always ready for action.

donaldejose

PB_PM: No question. If you determine before a shoot that you are going to need f2.8 than no f4.5 to f5.6 super zoom will work. Likewise, if you decide before a shoot that you will need, or want, to shoot at f1.4 then only primes will do. No argument on that. If you decide that you will need the most pixels with the sharpest lens you can get than only a D850 with one of the best primes will work. If you decide before a shoot that you will need the most fps and biggest buffer you can get than only a D5 or D500 will work. Different tools best suited to different jobs. No disagreement. But many times you don't need those particular features and a zoom or superzoom will be sufficient and actually the better choice because it has its own advantages.

ggbutcher

I also eschew lens-changing, both for dust and safety reasons. My principal subject, steam locomotives, is a dirty environment, and you've got to keep an eye on the moving machinery at all times. My D7000 with the 18-140mm is ideal for this, so was my D50 and 18-200mm.

Pistnbroke

now this is interesting from Nikon Gear

Digital sensors do not like oblique light, because they are made up of wells. The longer flange focal distance required by the mirror turns out to be exactly what digital sensors need, and it would be seriously bad if Nikon used a short flange focal distance mount for its mirrorless camera. The short flange focal distances of current mirrorless designs have the disadvantage of creating severe peripheral light fall-off and a tendency for peripheral colour shift. The light fall-off is mitigated by designing severe barrel distortion into the lenses, but then you either tolerate the light fall-off and distortion or you correct them, and either way image quality suffers.

Sounds like a curved (do they mean dished) sensor is required but does that make your existing lenses less compatible...

donaldejose

Very interesting!

HankB

Pistnbroke said:

now this is interesting from Nikon Gear

Digital sensors do not like oblique light, because they are made up of wells. The longer flange focal distance required by the mirror turns out to be exactly what digital sensors need, .....

Sounds like a curved (do they mean dished) sensor is required but does that make your existing lenses less compatible...

Interesting, Pistnbroke. This addresses a question I posted before. This is the best argument we have heard against a new mount. Of course you also mentioned a couple of engineering workarounds.

vtc2002

HankB said

HankB said:

OK, now that we have exhausted the mount controversy and the snarky superzoom advocacy, here is a serious technical question:

@HankB I hope you or anybody else did not take my comments as being the "snarky superzoom advocacy". That certainly was not my intent. IMHO it will be years before mirrorless cameras technology will be advanced to a point that I will want to consider buying and longer before I consider switching. It will longer before they develop super telephoto lens that can compete with the DSLR's. If the mount changes, preparing for that change at this time may be prudent, after all if the mount doesn't change one can reinvesting in wide and telephoto lens to fill in their photography needs.

The thing that surprises me about this discussion and some on the main forum is that so many people are reacting as if the DSLR's are going to be dead as soon as Nikon releases a mirrorless camera. Or that they are going to have to buy it when it is released. The DSLR's will coexists with the mirrorless cameras for a long time and I do not see Nikon abandoning the development of their DSLR (especially there Professional and Pro Consumer lines) for even a longer period of time. We will all have the option to stay with DSLR's or buy a mirrorless camera. It's a choice if mirrorless doesn't fit your photography needs don't buy one no one is forcing you in the same way no one is forcing a DX user to move to FX.

Just my thoughts and no intent to ruffle any feathers.

vtc2002

Pistnbroke said:

now this is interesting from Nikon Gear

Digital sensors do not like oblique light, because they are made up of wells. The longer flange focal distance required by the mirror turns out to be exactly what digital sensors need, and it would be seriously bad if Nikon used a short flange focal distance mount for its mirrorless camera. The short flange focal distances of current mirrorless designs have the disadvantage of creating severe peripheral light fall-off and a tendency for peripheral colour shift. The light fall-off is mitigated by designing severe barrel distortion into the lenses, but then you either tolerate the light fall-off and distortion or you correct them, and either way image quality suffers.

Sounds like a curved (do they mean dished) sensor is required but does that make your existing lenses less compatible...

In the large format cameras, a lens has a area of coverage that is projected onto the film. A lens designed for a 4x5 camera would have an area of coverage that would cover the 4x5 film plus a little to extra and the same for a 8x10 lens. If you take a 4x5 lens and use it on a 8x10 camera you can see the distortion that falls outside of what covers the 4x5 film. I have wondered if the area of coverage of the FF (and DX) having been designed for that longer distant due to the mirror box is now a problem with the shorter distance with the mirror box no longer there. Is this what is causing the distortion and amplifying the barrel distortion and causing the change in the mounts for all of the manufacturers? I wonder if having a curved sensor would accommodate for the change. If so, perhaps this explains why Nikon it is taking so long to release their mirrorless camera if it is going to have a curved sensor.

PB_PM

Pistnbroke said:

now this is interesting from Nikon Gear

Digital sensors do not like oblique light, because they are made up of wells. The longer flange focal distance required by the mirror turns out to be exactly what digital sensors need, and it would be seriously bad if Nikon used a short flange focal distance mount for its mirrorless camera. The short flange focal distances of current mirrorless designs have the disadvantage of creating severe peripheral light fall-off and a tendency for peripheral colour shift. The light fall-off is mitigated by designing severe barrel distortion into the lenses, but then you either tolerate the light fall-off and distortion or you correct them, and either way image quality suffers.

Sounds like a curved (do they mean dished) sensor is required but does that make your existing lenses less compatible...

This is why Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji (not sure about Sony and Canon) mirrorless cameras all heavily process files before they even get to the memory card (even RAW files). Some people have managed to extract unprocessed files and the amount of vignetting, barrel distortion and CA would blow your mind, it’s really that bad before post capture processing. The wider the angle of the lens the worse it is too, so due to the design those cameras are throwing away a lot of detail in post correction. Unfortunately when it comes to optics there are always trade offs.