Or was this simply them being pig headed? They clearly have lost sales to people who want this type of camera. I would have much preferred to have bought a nikon rather than a Sony A7...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Poll: wcich sensor in a FF mirrorless
- Thread starter rhlpetrus
- Start date
I think that is partially due to a middle option being often the preferred choice if no other strong preferences exist.
astwood1285
Senior Member
Thom Hogan makes a good point about the Nikon 1 series here.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/what-any-new-nikon-1-would.html
The DL cameras could affect sales of the Nikon 1 series. I do find the wider DOF which is inherent in the 1" sensor and Nikon's lens designs quite frustrating at times. A wider aperture might help but I'm sure there will be other factors (e.g., no GPS) that would need to be taken into account.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Marketing decisions can be quite nuanced, and if there is an existing range, and a new range would take sales from it, then they have to result in enough new sales overall to make the whole enterprise worthwhile.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Sure , a smaller sensor produces its own limitations, lack of shallow DOF being one of them. But, Nikon's 1 range is quite carefully positioned and Nikon would surely feel that for people wanting the shallow DOF option, they would go for the DOF range. The 1 series is for people wanting a compact, action orientated camera, something it tackles very well.
To be correct, the 1" sensor is ever increasing in popularity in fixed-lens cameras (the Samsung NX Mini leaving the market might have little to do with its sensor size but it is not helping the argument that 1" ILCs are thriving). There is the school of thought that 1" ILCs are a bridge too far in that the diminishing returns in terms of size saving as the sensor size goes down don't outweigh the reduction in IQ and the minimum size requirements for camera operation prevent Nikon 1 cameras from capitalising fully from its smaller sensor.
Compared to m43, Nikon 1 camera+lens combos often either have a very similar size while being a stop slower (in equiv. terms), or at best have a similar size at the same equiv. f-stop. The only clear exception is the very long end (Nikon 1 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 vs Panasonic 100-400 mm f/4-6.3, and the m43 lens in contrast has an f-stop advantage of between 1 1/3 and 2/3 of a stop here).
Compared to 1" compacts, Nikon 1 cameras with lenses that cover the same focal range significantly loose out in size and/or f-stop. Now, that applies to fixed-lens cameras for larger sensor sizes as well (fixed-lens being more compact and/or faster than ILCs+lens combos that cover the same focal length range) but to a smaller extent (partially because m43, APS-C, and FF mirrorless ILCs have a shorter flange distance in relative terms than Nikon 1 which again has something to do with diminishing returns in terms of camera size reduction as the sensor size gets down). Nikon 1 + kit lens combos are simply not attractive compared to 1" compacts in terms of size and f-stop. And their size difference is a crucial one when it comes to pocketability as most 1" compacts just fit below an important size limit.
So, it can be argued that the plethora of 1" compacts tend to make the Nikon 1 system appear rather less than more attractive. On top, the two early 2016 photoshows came and went without any Nikon 1 news (rather we had 1" compacts news from Nikon). The Nikon 1 V4 could be considered overdue (12 months to V2, 18 months to V3, now 24 months and counting to V5), the J6 should have appeared around about now (12 month cycle). Most remarkable is now 24 months without new Nikon 1 lenses, before that the longest was 12 months.
Sure, 'moribound' is jumping to conclusions but 'questioned more than ever' or 'put somewhat on the back burner' is probably a correct description (with, eg, Thom Hogan also wondering more than ever what will happen with Nikon 1).
Last edited:
There are advantages of an EVF compared to a back display: camera stability (another contact point with your body), work in bright light, diopter adjustments (allows older people to view things without reading glasses).That is why I said they should make it as responsive and workable as an EVF. You don't necessarily need an EVF if you have Live View, but you still have the option of using OVF - the best of both worlds.
Last edited:
Are there external third-party EVFs that can sit in the hot shoe and get their feed from the uncompressed HDMI output so many DSLRs have now? Or would the usual 1080p of that HDMI output be too low a resolution to work well for an EVF?
bobn2
Forum Pro
What I said is not incorrect, and with your 'correction' you have somewhat missed the point. At its introduction, the 1 system was one fo the very first (maybe the first) 1" cameras available. Since then the format has become popular, as you say in fixed lens and superzoom cameras. The point that I was making was that with the general popularity of the format, ILC cameras using it might well make a better
It depends on the sue pattern. 1" is only a 1.33 crop compared with mFT, and the size advantages are potentially there not so much in the camera (where minimum size is somewhat dictated by the size of the human hand) but more in the lenses.
I wouldn't agree with that. I don't think that they play in the same market, despite having the same sensor size.
I do think that Nikon hasn't perhaps put the commitment into the system that it might have.
I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding at whom the system was directed. It has a very specific positioning as a compact action camera, and does that possibly better than anything else. So people say 'it won't replace a DSLR'. It was never designed to do that.
bobn2
Forum Pro
1080P is OK for an EVF, but the whole thing would be somewhat clunky compared say with the plug-in EVF on the V3. They could use the same EVF and interface without much trouble, I would think.
Sure, but it doesn't quite tell the whole picture.
Indeed, if you go to the Wikipedia article on sensor size, you'll find this graph on available sensor sizes with a noticeable gap between 1/1.7" and 4/3. This graph was made before the Nikon 1 and Sony RX100 were released, showing that there actually was a size class that was still open for a new product 'category':
Here is a size comparison of Nikon 1 lenses with m43 lenses (camerasize doesn't have the Nikon 1 WA zoom, but it would fit right in). As I said below, sizes are very similar but in all but one comparison the m43 lenses are 3/4 stops faster. Things only begin to diverge at the tele end.
People buy/bought (digital) ILCs for two reasons: (1) ability to change lenses & (2) larger senser/faster lenses allow for better IQ. If all you ever get is the kit zoom (which is the case for a significant portion of ILC buyers at the lower end), then Nikon 1 is not attractive compared to 1" compacts.
Was m43 designed to replace DSLRs? Technically yes, it was definitely designed to replace 4/3 DSLRs. Was it designed to replace APS-C DSLRs? I'd say to some degree it was. But I would contend your description that the Nikon 1 was designed as a compact action camera, Nikon had much larger plans and expectations for it (eg, upselling of compact camera owners). Compact action camera is just the niche where has its strongest position. Would you say that Nikon 1 has fulfilled Nikon's expectations?
bobn2
Forum Pro
Certainly, but the tele end is important in a compact action camera, which is where the 1 series is aimed. Nikon made a few odd design decisions which restrict short lens compactness.Here is a size comparison of Nikon 1 lenses with m43 lenses (camerasize doesn't have the Nikon 1 WA zoom, but it would fit right in). As I said below, sizes are very similar but in all but one comparison the m43 lenses are 3/4 stops faster. Things only begin to diverge at the tele end.
So you say, but I'm not sure that you have an insight into the motivations of the buying public, nor am I convinced that the precise trade-off that we nerds see are apparent to the wider buying public. I think that the attraction of the compact ILC is a kind of convenience, that the same camera can really be compact with a short zoom or prime, and at the same time have a big reach. There are 1" cameras that can do it all in one lens, but they certainly aren't compact. They can never be a coat pocket camera.
That's true, but it doesn't stop people buying such cameras (DSLRs for that matter) with just the kit zoom. Maybe they intend building a system as they go.
The mFT format includes cameras aimed to do a number of things. The OM-Ds, the Gs and the GHs certainly are intended to compete with DSLRs, that's why they are styled to look like SLRs.The Pens, the GMs not so much, they tend to compete with the likes of the Nikon 1, the very compact system - what they don't have so much as the Nikons though is the action shooting ability.
I think Nikon very clear mindedly designed the 1 series to fill what they saw as a niche for a compact action camera, so much it was called the 'soccer mom's' camera. Everything they did with the spec of the first cameras, the way they marketed it and how they have developed it since confirms that. And the 1 system kept Nikon alive during the dual disasters, you need not to forget that. In fact, I suspect that they mortgaged its future development against just churning out as many as they could form their Chinese factories when they had no operational Japanese and Thai factories, selling them deeply discounted to keep the cash flow going and creating the impression that they weren't moving.
--
Bob.
“The picture is good or not from the moment it was caught in the camera.”
Henri Cartier-Bresson.
T
Tom Ames
Guest
You forgot to mention the sound of the mirror will be gone. The D810 was more quiet than D800, but still in a wedding, funeral, low key concert etc, it's invaluable with an electronic shutter.
T
Tom Ames
Guest
Spot on!
I tried to make the move when the A7r came out a few years ago, but AF wasn't all that good, UI not to my taste and not many native lenses for the system. But that has changed now and I'm moving to Sony. Still have the Df and a few Nikon lenses, but will probably sell this summer.
Will hate to sell my Nikon 58mm 1.4G, so I have an adapter for it
I thought Nikon would come with a mirrorless FF last year, but now it looks like it will be 2017 or 2018 for that matter. Have always used Nikon as my main system, but it's time to move on. Will always like Nikon and may change back when they have a mirrorless alternative. But if they come with a new mount and all new lenses it will easy be 5-6 years before that is an alternative and I've probably grown found of my Sony system by that time
The option to shoot with no sound, EVF, IBIS/VR in house + the amazing Sony sensors is what got me over (don't get me wrong, the Df sensor is fantastic too
)Size wise it's ok with smaller body than D800 series, but a D750 is a fair size too.
I actually like that the Sony A7rII has increased a bit in size.
Last edited:
All very well, but if you want to provide the best of both worlds, then using the rear LCD as your EVF is a great compromise. I woudn't ever consider an EVF camera because I love the OVF, but a better implementation of the Live View would be a good compromise. As for older people requiring glasses, I don't see this as a real issue. It is an issue when you need to use glasses when you need to put your eye up to a small eye piece, but when you are just reading the back of a camera then using glasses is really of no consequence. As for working in bright light, a collapsible hood can work very well.There are advantages of an EVF compared to a back display: camera stability (another contact point with your body), work in bright light, diopter adjustments (allows older people to view things without reading glasses).That is why I said they should make it as responsive and workable as an EVF. You don't necessarily need an EVF if you have Live View, but you still have the option of using OVF - the best of both worlds.
My point is this, there are some situations where EVF can be an advantage, and in some situations nothing beats an OVF, why not have the ability to use either rather than commit to one or the other?
The point with reading glasses is that you only need them for reading and have to take them off when looking at something in a distance (of a few metres or less), ie, you constantly have to take them on and off when switching between looking at the display and looking at your subject. I am not an ardent proponents of EVFs, I am just pointing out the areas where an EVF has an advantage. I shoot both with DSLRs and mirrorless (that have an EVF).All very well, but if you want to provide the best of both worlds, then using the rear LCD as your EVF is a great compromise. I woudn't ever consider an EVF camera because I love the OVF, but a better implementation of the Live View would be a good compromise. As for older people requiring glasses, I don't see this as a real issue. It is an issue when you need to use glasses when you need to put your eye up to a small eye piece, but when you are just reading the back of a camera then using glasses is really of no consequence.There are advantages of an EVF compared to a back display: camera stability (another contact point with your body), work in bright light, diopter adjustments (allows older people to view things without reading glasses).That is why I said they should make it as responsive and workable as an EVF. You don't necessarily need an EVF if you have Live View, but you still have the option of using OVF - the best of both worlds.
But that adds noticeable bulk.
Antal I Kozma
Veteran Member
I have tried LV on my DSLRs a few times, I thought that I need to learn what is so great about them. I must say that I find them absolutely useless for most situations. The only use I have for the back display is for setting menus and checking images taken with the camera, zooming in to 100% to see if the image is a keeper or not.
I have spent the better part of my life behind cameras, 35mm, square Hasselblad, 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras. They have all worked for me for their use. The 35mm and the square Hassy is for fast work and the view cameras for precision work, food photography, architectural, etc. Composing an image with a mobile camera like a 35mm is best done bracing it against your face and use your arms to stabilize the camera. View cameras are shot from a tripod from under a dark cloth or a reflex hood to keep disturbing light off the ground glass.
What I find awfully discomfortable with the LCD panel of a digital camera is that one cannot compose and keep the view stable while shooting and the image might be hard to view under various light conditions. Reflections off the screen while the camera is not stable, equals to awful in my experience.
So, I only would ever use the back LCD panel for myself if the camera would be on a good tripod and if I had a dark cloth to shield the LCD from side or back light. As of EVF I only would buy into a system if it would be absolutely equal to the quality of a pentaprism based viewfinder.
If and when the EVF will be as correct as a professional DSLR viewfinder both in correct colour and optical quality then I'll consider it. Also, the refreshing rate of the EVF has to be on par with the fps rate of a top of the line DSLR. Let's say that it will be able to repeat newly refreshed images from 8 to 10 fps or above with absolute clarity. Also, the quality of display should remain as stable as a pentaprism during the life cycle of the camera. Let's say at least as long as the expected life cycle of a professional shutter and beyond, 300, 000.00 - 400, 000.00 actuations.
I do not understand the hype about mirrorless for serious work that requires durable instruments like a Nikon D4s or a Canon EOS 1DX or the new D5 and EOS 1DX Mk II. Yes, the camera body can be somewhat lighter at the expense of loosing some other features and specs. However, one still need the bulk of professional lenses and in many cases that is where the bulk of the equipment is originated from.
Then, there is the balance of the equipment. I do not need a light body that I need to hold gingerly when I use a 300, 500 or 600mm pro lens. Or with quality zooms that also have a good heft to them.
All this said, I am absolutely not against mirrorless systems for certain use. Just that I would not use them for my photography. I need sturdy and swift cameras with a wide range of lenses, especially telephoto lenses. I also cannot see how serious photography can be conducted by handholding a camera while trying to compose a sequence of photographs on the back LCD panel. It is just unacceptable for me as a photographer. I do not mind to see family snapshots and travel memories recorded with phones and alike but that is about it for usability I see them acceptable.
Of course there are few "artist" using cellphones for commercial applications but I see them as the oddball "artsy" folks who make their fame with their eccentricity. There is always a market for a few of those............ :-D
Best to all, AIK
I have spent the better part of my life behind cameras, 35mm, square Hasselblad, 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras. They have all worked for me for their use. The 35mm and the square Hassy is for fast work and the view cameras for precision work, food photography, architectural, etc. Composing an image with a mobile camera like a 35mm is best done bracing it against your face and use your arms to stabilize the camera. View cameras are shot from a tripod from under a dark cloth or a reflex hood to keep disturbing light off the ground glass.
What I find awfully discomfortable with the LCD panel of a digital camera is that one cannot compose and keep the view stable while shooting and the image might be hard to view under various light conditions. Reflections off the screen while the camera is not stable, equals to awful in my experience.
So, I only would ever use the back LCD panel for myself if the camera would be on a good tripod and if I had a dark cloth to shield the LCD from side or back light. As of EVF I only would buy into a system if it would be absolutely equal to the quality of a pentaprism based viewfinder.
If and when the EVF will be as correct as a professional DSLR viewfinder both in correct colour and optical quality then I'll consider it. Also, the refreshing rate of the EVF has to be on par with the fps rate of a top of the line DSLR. Let's say that it will be able to repeat newly refreshed images from 8 to 10 fps or above with absolute clarity. Also, the quality of display should remain as stable as a pentaprism during the life cycle of the camera. Let's say at least as long as the expected life cycle of a professional shutter and beyond, 300, 000.00 - 400, 000.00 actuations.
I do not understand the hype about mirrorless for serious work that requires durable instruments like a Nikon D4s or a Canon EOS 1DX or the new D5 and EOS 1DX Mk II. Yes, the camera body can be somewhat lighter at the expense of loosing some other features and specs. However, one still need the bulk of professional lenses and in many cases that is where the bulk of the equipment is originated from.
Then, there is the balance of the equipment. I do not need a light body that I need to hold gingerly when I use a 300, 500 or 600mm pro lens. Or with quality zooms that also have a good heft to them.
All this said, I am absolutely not against mirrorless systems for certain use. Just that I would not use them for my photography. I need sturdy and swift cameras with a wide range of lenses, especially telephoto lenses. I also cannot see how serious photography can be conducted by handholding a camera while trying to compose a sequence of photographs on the back LCD panel. It is just unacceptable for me as a photographer. I do not mind to see family snapshots and travel memories recorded with phones and alike but that is about it for usability I see them acceptable.
Of course there are few "artist" using cellphones for commercial applications but I see them as the oddball "artsy" folks who make their fame with their eccentricity. There is always a market for a few of those............ :-D
Best to all, AIK
Oh please, this is just clutching at straws. This is a small price to pay for the convenience factor of the rest of the population that would like a dual system rather than having to put up with one or the other type system.The point with reading glasses is that you only need them for reading and have to take them off when looking at something in a distance (of a few metres or less), ie, you constantly have to take them on and off when switching between looking at the display and looking at your subject. I am not an ardent proponents of EVFs, I am just pointing out the areas where an EVF has an advantage. I shoot both with DSLRs and mirrorless (that have an EVF).All very well, but if you want to provide the best of both worlds, then using the rear LCD as your EVF is a great compromise. I woudn't ever consider an EVF camera because I love the OVF, but a better implementation of the Live View would be a good compromise. As for older people requiring glasses, I don't see this as a real issue. It is an issue when you need to use glasses when you need to put your eye up to a small eye piece, but when you are just reading the back of a camera then using glasses is really of no consequence.There are advantages of an EVF compared to a back display: camera stability (another contact point with your body), work in bright light, diopter adjustments (allows older people to view things without reading glasses).That is why I said they should make it as responsive and workable as an EVF. You don't necessarily need an EVF if you have Live View, but you still have the option of using OVF - the best of both worlds.
Again, this is just clutching at straws. They can be made light and inconspicuous.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum