tom1234567
Senior Member
The future is a sparkling new D7600
You just put it on the TRIPOD and give it a command your better than a d7500 no show me just how much
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon go's mirrorless?
- Thread starter MalcolmD99
- Start date
You just put it on the TRIPOD and give it a command your better than a d7500 no show me just how much
This is an interesting speculation - but is the throat diameter big enough? Hasselblad's X1D uses a 44 x 33 sensor and a mount that is about 60mm in inside diameter (their sensor diagonal is 55mm). Early reports for the Z-mount gave a throat diameter of 65mm, which would easily handle MF, but later reports corrected that to be the outside diameter with a throat diameter of somewhere around 55mm - probably too small for a 44 x 33 sensor. Now if Nikon introduced a 2:3 aspect ratio MF sensor - 30 x 45, say - then it might just fit.
Nevertheless, Jonikon may be right - Nikon may be consciously downsizing itself to concentrate only on the high-end FF end of the market. There very well might not be a DX mirrorless in Nikon's future.
I don't think Nikon will discontinue DX DSLR soon in favor of ML bodies. Most probably they will do what CANON did. They have parallel ML lines. Here is my thinking:
1) Nikon DX DSLRs are best sellers among Nikons line up. This means that there are certain type of people that want those D3XXX and D5XXX DSLR cameras. If they wanted ML they would have gone after SONY, Pana, etc
2) Nikon will never abandon D7XXX line. If I can agree that D3XXX and D5XXX can be easily replaced by cheaper ML bodies(from functional point of view) this is not exactly true for D7XXX line. Users of D7XXX will never change their cameras for ML. Those are amateurs animal shooters, BIF shooters etc....
3) The most important factor is something that no one i disusing in this tread. It is not about bodies it is about lenses! That is why often we say that you need to choose first the lenses you want and after that the body! Many people (including myself) buys Nikon/CANON DSLRs not because their native lenses, but because the incredible lenses offered by the 3rd parties - lenses like:
Tokina 11-16 2.8 I and II version
Tokina 11-20 2.8
Sigma 17-50 2.8
Sigma 18-35 - 1.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8
etc.
It would take 5 to 10 years for Nikon and the 3rd parties to build enough good lenses for the new ML line up. If Sigma, Tokina, Tampron etc do not want to support the new Nikon ML bodies in the way they don't support CANON EF-M mount, Nikon's ML line will never overcome the DSLR line. They will just repeat the CANON's experience.
1) Nikon DX DSLRs are best sellers among Nikons line up. This means that there are certain type of people that want those D3XXX and D5XXX DSLR cameras. If they wanted ML they would have gone after SONY, Pana, etc
2) Nikon will never abandon D7XXX line. If I can agree that D3XXX and D5XXX can be easily replaced by cheaper ML bodies(from functional point of view) this is not exactly true for D7XXX line. Users of D7XXX will never change their cameras for ML. Those are amateurs animal shooters, BIF shooters etc....
3) The most important factor is something that no one i disusing in this tread. It is not about bodies it is about lenses! That is why often we say that you need to choose first the lenses you want and after that the body! Many people (including myself) buys Nikon/CANON DSLRs not because their native lenses, but because the incredible lenses offered by the 3rd parties - lenses like:
Tokina 11-16 2.8 I and II version
Tokina 11-20 2.8
Sigma 17-50 2.8
Sigma 18-35 - 1.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8
etc.
It would take 5 to 10 years for Nikon and the 3rd parties to build enough good lenses for the new ML line up. If Sigma, Tokina, Tampron etc do not want to support the new Nikon ML bodies in the way they don't support CANON EF-M mount, Nikon's ML line will never overcome the DSLR line. They will just repeat the CANON's experience.
Last edited:
I'd amend this slightly...Nikon will preserve high-end DX DSLRs until there's no longer a market for them. The D500 can soldier on for years...it's that good. But anything anything with a scene mode dial will go mirrorless fairly quickly, and I suspect that the trio of consumer bodies will be reduced to perhaps one, roughly equivalent to a D7K series. If the D500 did NOT exist, I'd agree that Nikon would preserve the D7K series...but the D500 exists.
We have to remember that the sweet spot for camera manufacturers has been bumped up significantly - entry-level DX ILCs at around $1000, enthusiast-level DX at around $1300, pro-level at $1900 and above. Nikon plays to the high end of those ranges, so this suggests to me that the new DX entry level will be a D5K-sized D7K ML equivalent at around $1300.
If Nikon is not, perish the thought, thinking about abandoning DX development entirely.
Nikon D500 is a PRO body and as such it cannot replace cheapest low and middle class DX bodies. Many amateurs(like myself) are coupling DX7XXX and DX5XXX etc with cheap and great lenses like Tokina 11-16 and sigma 17-50. What are the alternatives? Actually the cost of the D500 body alone match the cost of my entire system Body + tokina 11-16, sigma 17-50 and nikon 35mm.
Having said the above if Nikon produce ML body and enough good, affordable lenses like those I have mentioned, people will jump the ship otherwise what? Why I should buy for a ML body if there are no lenses to meet my needs (this is valid for all amateurs).
Nikon cannot afford to loose DX customer, not now. When they build ML ecosystem with flashes, lenses etc. then yes, I would expect them to discontinue D3XXX and D5XXX (not D7XXX), but this will not happen soon, not in the next 5 years....
Last edited:
That's true, a D500 is a pro DSLR body. A D7500 is a high-end consumer DSLR body. What I'm saying is that you may not find a consumer DSLR in the Nikon lineup in fairly short order. You will find the equivalent of a D7500 in any DX mirrorless lineup that Nikon chooses to field...and it could be the ONLY consumer DX mirrorless body that Nikon will produce.
Not arguing with this.
That's up to Nikon to decide. If Nikon wishes to remain a broad-line camera company, then yes, it needs a DX lineup. But it may have decided to concentrate solely on the high-end camera market from here out, and accept a reduction in size and market share - a sobering prospect to us, but a rational option from Nikon's perspective. That means FF and MF, not DX. With the relative stagnation of technical performance of DSLRs and sensors, Nikon's current DSLR lineup could remain in place for years - with no further development - until mirrorless designs well and truly dominate the market.
Like I said in my first sentence, mirrorless cameras are not for everyone. Obviously they are not for you, unless of course they are attached to a phone. ;-)Well it's great that you like your mirrorless cameras. Personally, I don't see advantages over a newer DSLR like a D5600. I see the weight savings as negligible, considering the X-T10 saves whole 86 grams or 2.96 ounces in weight, or 31mm in width. That's not something that will kill me. And it seems like the same expensive lenses will have to be purchased. Besides, cameras on phones are getting better and better every year. By the time I decide to upgrade or my camera fails, cameras on phones will have advanced to the point that will make my decision easy. So image quality is a wash between the two systems.While mirrorless is not for everyone, here are a some of the things that my mirrorless Fujifilm XT-2 with an EVF gives me that a DSLR can not:
So these are at least some of the things I can think of off hand that have made me a convert to mirrorless from a DSLR, but bulk and weight savings is highest on my list. The bulk and weight savings of my Fujifilm X-T10 with the small, light and inexpensive Fujinon XC 16-50mm lens compared to my former Nikon D7000 and Tokina 16-50mm lens can only be described as enormous!
- Most mirrorless bodies are less bulky and lighter than DSLRs. The weight savings is greatest when compared to DSLRs with glass pentaprism viewfinders, however. Weight especially had become a huge issue for me once I reached retirement age. When in my youth I often backpacked in the mountains carrying 65 pound packs, but those days are long gone for me now, sad to say. Both of my Fujifilm cameras are noticeably smaller and lighter than my former Nikon D7000.
- The better EVFs are larger and brighter than DSLRs with those cheap pentamirrors.
- More accurate AF-S which is just spot on every time. Front or back focus issues are a thing of the past with any lens since the focusing is done right on the sensor. I have found AF accuracy is particularly improved with zoom lenses over a DSLR’s separate focus system that relies on the accurate alignment of the mirror and AF sensors..
- Totally silent electronic shutter option (one of my favorite features of mirrorless cameras), where total silence is desired. I have found this especially helpful when photographing birds so I can approach them more closely. I also used the silent shutter at a baptism in a church, which did not disturb the ceremony in the least.
- No mirror slap and with electronic shutter there is zero chance of shutter shock for blur free photos.
- The EVF allows me to review my photos immediately for subject sharpness and exposure even in brilliant sunshine. I could never do that with my DSLRs.
- I can see the white balance , exposure and the affect of exposure compensation in the EVF or LCD in real time before I press the shutter button.
- Better face detection and even eye detection option. Thiis is particularly helpful when I hand off my camera to a stranger so both my wife and I can get in the same photo with both of us in focus and not the space between us instead! This worked great on our trip to Yosemite Park.
- Manual focusing is easy using the EVF and one of three manual focusing aid options, magnify, focus peaking, and split image. Manual focusing with a DSLR has to be done in Live view while looking at an LCD on the back of the camera which is a real PITA.
- I can zoom into my focus point in real time with a push of a button to check focus using the EVF After the shot I can review that same focus point with a push of that same button. Surprisingly, this holds true even when using manual focus with an adapted lens and a dumb adapter!
- Ability to adapt virtually any brand of current or legacy SLR or DSLR lenses to my camera while retaining Aperture Priority auto exposure and using manual focusing.
- Panoramic JPEG stitching in camera with review in the EVF.
- Much better video is possible and easier to do with an EVF than trying to use the LCD on the back of a DSLR. Video can be reviewed in the EVF as well, even in bright sun.
- I can increase the size of the viewfinders information and have the option of what information and what orientation I want displayed in the viewfinder of my Fujifilm X-T2. This is a great help to my aging eyes!
- Depth of field graphic scale option in viewfinder that adjusts as the focus distance and aperture changes.
- Some lenses for mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter than for DSLRs. A particular example is the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2.0 lens which is smaller than any Nikon prime lens for DSLRs. Nice too is that this 12mm f2.0 lens can be bought for less than $300!
To get some idea of just how small an APS-C mirrorless camera and lens diameters can be, I have side by side comparison photos of a rather small Nikon 1 V2 camera with its 1” sensor and the superb Nikkor 10-100mm lens next to a Fujifilm X-T10 with a 16-50mm lens. As you can see, they are virtually the same in outward size despite the much larger APS-C sensor in the X-T10.
BTW, if you think the X-T10 is the heavier kit, you would be wrong. ;-)
PS. I plan to keep my Nikon 1 kit as well for the foreseeable future. The V2 with the superb 10-100mm lens is just too much fun to part with it!
Best regards,
Jon
--
Best regards,
Jon
EE-TV
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,484
- Reaction score
- 756
EE-TV
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,484
- Reaction score
- 756
Thank you!
This fetish with "mirrorless mirrorless mirrorless" is a farce! Whatever. Many of us are quite content with the way things are, and always have been. We don't need a cellphone-style Viewfinder for starters. Why would we? We like to look through the Optical Viewfinder and see what we see. It's just easier on the eye, thank you very much.
And like the quoted comment mentions, does Mirrorless bring about superior Image Quality? Nope. Exactly. So why the fuss? You want a mirrorless camera? Go get one already. Just stop promoting "the death of DSLR" as we know it! Is there an agenda, because I don't buy it, and this incessant "going mirrorless" that keeps popping up all over the place is mighty suspicious!
--
--------------------
Bringing to light, Exposing what is
--------------------
Last edited:
Why Toi
Forum Enthusiast
So what you are really saying is, you have no beef against ML cameras but how the engineer/designers have not wasted more space in their miniaturisation. If they built a ML with lots of empty space underneath the shell or have an external wrap that made it 'beefy', then you'll be perfectly fine with it.
Miss tilly
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,079
- Reaction score
- 1,806
Will existing lens owners be left high and dry?
Why Toi
Forum Enthusiast
I think that's what many of us are keen to confirm. But based on what's already known, they are definitely putting out an adapter for existing F mount lenses. The unknown is the specification and the level of compatibility with various series of old and existing Nikon F mount lenses. Based on what Sony has with their ML bodies, one can safely assume lenses with older mounts will at least work in one form or another. It's the level of automation and electronic compatibility that is in question. Let's be patient.
f-mount compatibility will be via adapter. The best compatibility will be with the later, more fully electronic interface lenses (AF-S, AF-P, and E-type). For D-type lenses a motor would have to be included in the adapter, at commensurate expense. I doubt you'll find an f-mount adapter in the box with your new ML Nikon - so there will almost assuredly be a lens migration cost associated with an ML Nikon purchase - even if you dont buy a new ML lens. It would be nice if Nikon marketed two types of adapter to keep the price down for owners of later lenses.
Why would people move to FX? A mirrorless DX body would be even smaller than an FX version.
Actually, if people are taking good images with what they have, they may make no switch at all.
New formats are not upheld by legal requirements. New formats don't engender better images.
Early speculation I read put the throat at 60mm+, as you say. Was it the outside of the collar that was leaked and reported in error? I have now also read 54mm, and 56mm, as you say, too. For the sake of 5mm, with the ability to drop in a medium format sensor, It would be crazy for Nikon to forgo this opportunity when reinventing a component it's kept for more than half a century. That is, unless Nikon wants to reinvent standard sensor category dimensions as well.
There's been a lot of recent forensic analysis on NikonRumors that suggested for a time that the throat diameter was 59mm, but that seems to have been reconsidered. It's an open question in my mind whether Nikon is interested in MF at all - it's such a tiny fraction of the market - and a mount that would be big enough for MF would also be absurdly large for DX. We don't know just how serious Nikon is about retreating to the very high end.
Last edited:
Photography has never been more popular, but people are doing it with their phones, as you know. People print almost none of the photos they take. DX is far superior to any phone photography, in every way, but unless images are viewed on a computer or TV or printed, most non photographically inclined people would never realise, or care.
It's a strange thing that there's clearly a demand for higher quality images in film and television - on HD and 4K TVs, Blu-ray players and 4k players, 4K streaming - but not a corresponding demand for higher quality still images that people take among themselves, of people and places that, presumably, have much stronger personal meaning. Perhaps most people have a quality limit, beyond which it doesn't matter. And there's also the cost.
I'm hoping Nikon is counting on the idea that beyond-FX imaging will make people notice, somehow. The whole chain needs to be thought-through now, though. How will the images be seen? Nikon has to deal with this. There needs to be a seamless, wireless connection between the cameras and all of these HD and 4K TVs for a start, to demonstrate the difference. It would be good marketing, surely, that people could view brilliant, high res images on a 4K TV, and be told the image had to be hugely compressed to display it. Print it! I dunno. That's my thinking on this. I don't want to see real, dedicated cameras disappear.
It's a strange thing that there's clearly a demand for higher quality images in film and television - on HD and 4K TVs, Blu-ray players and 4k players, 4K streaming - but not a corresponding demand for higher quality still images that people take among themselves, of people and places that, presumably, have much stronger personal meaning. Perhaps most people have a quality limit, beyond which it doesn't matter. And there's also the cost.
I'm hoping Nikon is counting on the idea that beyond-FX imaging will make people notice, somehow. The whole chain needs to be thought-through now, though. How will the images be seen? Nikon has to deal with this. There needs to be a seamless, wireless connection between the cameras and all of these HD and 4K TVs for a start, to demonstrate the difference. It would be good marketing, surely, that people could view brilliant, high res images on a 4K TV, and be told the image had to be hugely compressed to display it. Print it! I dunno. That's my thinking on this. I don't want to see real, dedicated cameras disappear.
I've come to the conclusion that traditional photography is like listening to a lecture, but what people want to do most of the time is converse. Cameras are still tools for creating lectures. There is definitely a continuing need for these tools - movies and the like are still lectures that people will listen to - but they are far too burdensome for conversations. So although it's a good idea to integrate traditional cameras into the communication stream as much as possible, it does not change the fundamental way in which they are used.
The meaningful, sales generating advances in technology will be those that ease the conversation. The multiple-exposure and processed-video technologies now appearing in smartphones are exactly that sort of thing. They improve the quality of the visual product - not to large-format standards, but far beyond that needed for the ephemera of conversation and personal archiving. They also supplant the controls that the art photographer considers friends and badges of accomplishment.
Beyond-FX will get some people to take notice...but not the same people that used to buy most of their cameras. In the quietest moments, I have to admit that I'm probably one of those people.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum