T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 5411, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

@James Bligh - I think you should go back to using film, and using oil lanterns at night, lol. Stop using digital and electricity altogether.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

"-- Then I will say it's SMB ILC."

Or you can just call it a rangefinder. Just don't call it a mirrorless camera.

You know you're a little off when you have to start making up your own names for types cameras because you refuse to use the existing names, LOL.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 19:30 UTC
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

"-- Why not? All AF sometimes fails eventually. When AF seems unreliable MF is your last resort."

First of all, I'd say MF fails more often, because humans aren't as fast, precise and reliable as we like to think we are. Secondly, when AF does "fail", that's where the focus peaking and focus magnification of mirrorless systems are such a huge benefit. Fuji mirrorless even offer (digital) split-image focusing aids, just like a rangefinder:

https://tomscameras.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/my-look-at-fujis-split-image-focusing-aid-for-manual-lenses/

Frankly, I find focus magnification to be the most precise method of manual focusing of all. Sony mirrorless offers 6x and 12x magnification. You can get extremely precise manual focusing when the image is magnified 12x! But in most cases, focus peaking is sufficient, especially if you are not shooting with hair-thin DOF. And unlike the tiny focus patch of rangefinders, you can see where the plain of focus is across the entire image frame.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

Chris2210: I don't get why some people are saying it's 'too late'. You don't have to be the first to market to create a successful product if it's the most usable iteration in the market-place.

Although I own neither a Nikon or a Sony currently, I think they're making probably the best two cameras out there at the moment. I'm personally salivating at the idea of a reasonably priced body that combines the technical excellence of the recent Sony As with the ergonomics of Nikon [personal preference, but I still think they're the best in that regard].

In fact I'm holding on to decide whether or not my next major purchase will be a 35mm Sony, or a Nikon. Possibly Canon will announce something which may trump them both - but I'm not optimistic about that.

@ZeBebito - It's never too late, but Nikon severely limits their reach if they only offer FF mirrorless. Most people, especially young people, aren't going to start off with an expensive FF mirrorless camera. I doubt this Nikon body will be less than $2000. Without an APS-C option at lower price points, Nikon will be limiting their appeal. Most people don't start off with FF. Most of the ILC market is still mostly APS-C. Just imagine a DSLR manufacturer who chose not to offer any APS-C DSLRs. That would severely limit their market share and sales. We shouldn't think of the mirrorless market any differently.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

"Personally I may choose Leica M series rangefinder for real FF MILC."

Rangefinders aren't "mirrorless" cameras. For one thing, rangefinders have mirrors.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/10025600@N00/105571617/in/pool-camerapedia/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29504544@N08/9143616217
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QomDizboK-A/SF0i7dsqUPI/AAAAAAAAAZI/povCwpqM52M/s1600/31.jpg

And the other hallmark of mirrorless cameras (besides not having mirrors) is TTL (through-the-lens) viewing just like a DSLR has. Rangefinders don't allow TTL viewing. You frame the image be looking through a separate "window", not through the actual shooting lens.

So rangefinder cameras are not true mirrorless cameras. That's why they are referred to as rangefinder cameras, separate from mirrorless cameras. A true mirrorless cameras uses no mirrors and offers TTL viewing. That's why Leica has rangefinder cameras (their M bodies) and their mirrorless cameras (their SL and TL bodies).

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 18:56 UTC
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

So the guy who (erroneously) complains that mirrorless AF can't compete with DSLR AF is going to choose a manual focus rangefinder camera? LOL. Some people just like the status quo and doesn't like change. Hence the desire to go back to rangefinder.

"-- as fast as, maybe but not faster, if DSLR shoots at mirror up position..."

Who the heck wants to shoot at mirror up position? Who wants to look at a blacked-out DSLR viewfinder? If you have to resort to locking up the mirror, then why not just get rid of the mirror altogether? That's exactly what mirrorless cameras are doing. Get the mirror out and let the powerful, highly intelligent image sensor do all the amazing things that it is capable of doing.

"-- Some people are not possessed by all the bells and whistles you may need."

Bells and whistles? I call them helpful tools. For example, with live exposure preview and live histogram in the viewfinder, I find that I do far fewer exposure adjustments in post.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

@James Bligh - In the A9/D5 shootout, the A9 outperforms the D5 in extreme low light shooting. It makes sense that on-sensor AF should theoretically outperform DSLR focus systems in extreme low light because on-sensor AF will see more light than DSLR AF systems. How DSLR PDAF works is that some of the light passing through the lens hits a semi-translucent area of the reflex mirror. Some light passes through the mirror, bounces off a sub-mirror, and down into the PDAF module.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/77/p579/phase-detect_drawing.jpg

http://leongoodman.tripod.com/sergei/nikon-dslr-chart.jpg

The mirror means DSLR AF systems never get the full amount of light passing through the lens, whereas on-sensor (mirrorless) AF systems will always get the full amount of light passing through the mirror. So theoretically, mirrorless AF will outperform DSLR AF in low light, assuming equal AF sensor sensitivity for both systems, which we are now getting.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

@James Bligh - This is the kind of amazing focus tracking (face/eye AF tracking) across the entire frame that mirrorless is capable of. DSLR simply can't do this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyaOjhx_mK0

With DSLR, you end up doing a lot of focus-lock-recompose, which means missed shots, and a lot of extraneous camera movement rather than simply holding the composition and letting the full-coverage face/eye AF system do all the work.

You can even use face detection to recognize and memorize specific faces. These faces then can be prioritized:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xZ8SYVwIzE&t=136s
Great for weddings, where you can prioritize the faces of the bride and groom, etc.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 17:18 UTC
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

@James Bligh - I think you are behind the times with the latest technology. Firstly, the latest sensors have phase detection sensors *on* the image sensor:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bimages/a9/content06.jpg

Secondly, multiple tests and reviewers have confirmed, shown, and demonstrated that focus systems such as the A9's and A7III's are as fast as DSLRs. Watch the video I linked to (A9/D5 shootout).

As for other benefits of mirrorless, there are many others. Face/eye AF, real-time exposure preview in the viewfinder, focus peaking/focus magnification, live histogram in the viewfinder, silent shooting with electronic shutter, no mirror slap sound or vibration, full frame focus coverage, etc. Believe me, as a DSLR shooter who now shoots mirrorless, I wish my DSLRs had any one of these capabilities, let alone all of them! For example, once you enjoy the capabilities of face/eye AF tracking your subject throughout the entire frame, it's hard to go back to DSLR that can't do this.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

"The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR."

Watch this Sony A9/Nikon D5 shootout.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4

As for max shooting speed with AF, the 1DXII and D5 max out at 10-11fps in real world shooting. But the Sony A9 will do a full 20fps with AF. Jump to 2:00 in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkh00IOqhkg

Another big advantage of mirrorless is focus coverage. This is the focus point coverage of a $6000 1DXII and $6500 D5:
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Nikon-D5-vs-Canon-1D-X-Mark-II-Viewfinder.png
This is the pinnacle of what DSLR can offer. Now here's the focus point coverage of an A9:
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Sony-A9-AF-points.jpg
Even the base A7III model ($2000) has this focus system.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

James Bligh: Exhibit number one/ I may say one of the purposes of MILC is smaller size if you don't mind. As it happens we are told that the lens mount of Nikon FF MILC grows larger, and lenses become bigger too, because of the necessity of such as IBIS etc. So when you consider total size I mean that of body and lens together the size advantage of Nikon FF MILC may not be as great as we have hoped. You may say still the size of MILC plus lens combo is smaller than that of DSLR with its counterpart lens. But how much?

Exhibit number two/ Among many differences between MILC and DSLR, let's put aside the EVF and electrical power consumption issue, one thing we can/should not ignore is AF. The AF may be more accurate in MILC but the AF speed of MILC will not match that of DSLR.

Considering these things we may wonder what the merit of MILC is.

People are talking FF, FF, FF. But most of the market is APS-C. And Nikon will eventually have to introduce an APS-C mirrorless camera, otherwise they are going to be missing out on a LOT of sales in that segment. It would be like being in the DSLR market without offering an APS-C DSLR-- only FF DSLR.

So the big question is, given the large size of Nikon's Z-mount, how big are their APS-C mirrorless going to be? The size of the mount puts limits on how small they can make their APS-C mirrorless cameras/lenses. I have a Sony A5000 and A6000. They are very compact, especially with the right compact lenses. I also have an EOS M, and with the EF-M 22mm pancake it's a very compact camera. With the Z-mount, I don't think Nikon mirrorless cameras will ever be able to compete with other mirrorless bodies for compact size. I think that will be an issue for them in the consumer market, especially as mirrorless continues to take over the market. Nikon mirrorless is always going to be bigger.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

Lucas_: IMHO Nikon is trying to develop a mirrorless FF camera body with bells & whistles comparable to the D850, with a mount as large as the D850`s to "comfortably" fit an adapter for current lenses. It may be smaller than the D850, but larger than a Sony A9, looking to please the larger handed photographers who don't want to use a vertical grip on a Sony Axx.
How`s that for dark teaser photos speculation....?
Good luck, Nikon! Competition is healthy!

Lucas_ - Nikon's F mount has a throat diameter of a mere 44mm. And yet, Nikon has been able to have a full range of lenses, from small lenses to huge lenses, all with that small 44mm lens mount (including teleconverters). The irony is that when Canon introduced their EOS mount, which has a very large 54mm throat diameter (10mm larger than Nikon's), Canon users argued that Nikon's smaller lens mount was far inferior structurally, was more prone to wobble, and was lacking in robustness. Ultimately, all of this was just FUD. Now you're just rehashing the same FUD! LOL.

Anyone who has ever used a smart adapter (either for Sony's or Canon's mirrorless system) or teleconverter (for any system) knows that there is virtually no wobble that would have any practical negative effect on lens performance. Well-designed lens mounts lock the lens in soundly, even at smaller mount sizes. Just ask Nikon! They've been doing it for years with a 44mm mount!

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2018 at 03:26 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Tolputt: Sony was smart to design in the ability to use almost every legacy lens. Will this ?
My favourite lenses to use on my A7 are............Nikkors.

Ed Ingold - The Z-mount distance is rumored be either 15mm or 16mm. But regardless, that's not enough from for an E-mount compatible smart adapter with electronics in it. You have to remember that modern lens mounts have electronic contacts/pins. These require a certain amount of depth. Look at a Sony lens mount.. Its depth, including the electronic pins and the apparatus that holds those pins in place is already at least 3 or 4mm deep.

https://static.fotokonijnenberg.nl/media/catalog/product/cache/small_image/800x547/602f0fa2c1f0d1ba5e241f914e856ff9/s/o/sony_alpha_a7r_ii_body_emount_soilce7rm2b1_1.jpg

So to have a smart adapter that emulates the Sony E-mount lens ring, along with all the electronic contacts, in the space of 2 or 3mm is very unlikely.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2018 at 22:45 UTC
In reply to:

Lucas_: IMHO Nikon is trying to develop a mirrorless FF camera body with bells & whistles comparable to the D850, with a mount as large as the D850`s to "comfortably" fit an adapter for current lenses. It may be smaller than the D850, but larger than a Sony A9, looking to please the larger handed photographers who don't want to use a vertical grip on a Sony Axx.
How`s that for dark teaser photos speculation....?
Good luck, Nikon! Competition is healthy!

@Lucas_ - Adapters sit in front of the lens mount, so the lens mount diameter should not have any impact on being "better suited to allow easier adapters design." The Z-mount flange distance is supposedly 16mm:

https://www.canonrumors.com/nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-to-have-new-z-mount/

That's definitely a lot shorter than Nikon F's 46.5mm flange distance-- plenty of space for an adapter.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2018 at 22:36 UTC
In reply to:

riknash: The question we all want answered, will the first generation mirrorless full frame do everything better than the most recent DSLR version or will it have design glitches? My auto expert says never buy a car with a new engine design due to design deficiencies. Does the same thing apply in Nikon camera bodies? Me thinks yes given their track-record.

@Vallkar - "Nikon have been making point and shoot (mirrorless) cameras for a long time now. The only difference with this one is that it has a larger sensor and a removable lens mount."

It's much more complicated than that. The demands of FF ILC autofocus are much, much greater than a P&S. First of all, depth of field is much narrower with a FF camera. P&S depth of field is very large, so it does not require very precise AF or fast. Secondly, the amount of lens material you have to move is much greater with a FF lens. This effects speed of AF. Thirdly, the demands of AF speed are much higher than they are with a P&S. So you're talking about very different demands and expectations. It is foolish to say that just because a company makes P&S cameras means they can make a great FF mirrorless camera.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2018 at 22:23 UTC
In reply to:

Chris2210: I don't get why some people are saying it's 'too late'. You don't have to be the first to market to create a successful product if it's the most usable iteration in the market-place.

Although I own neither a Nikon or a Sony currently, I think they're making probably the best two cameras out there at the moment. I'm personally salivating at the idea of a reasonably priced body that combines the technical excellence of the recent Sony As with the ergonomics of Nikon [personal preference, but I still think they're the best in that regard].

In fact I'm holding on to decide whether or not my next major purchase will be a 35mm Sony, or a Nikon. Possibly Canon will announce something which may trump them both - but I'm not optimistic about that.

It's not just that they are late with FF mirrorless. There's also no APS-C mirrorless in sight. APS-C is a huge chunk of ILC sales. Sony has APS-C and FF mirrorless. Canon already has APS-C mirrorless and will soon have FF mirrorless. Nikon will only have FF mirrorless, with APS-C mirrorless being introduced who-knows-how-long after.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2018 at 20:57 UTC

These comments: "$1000 for a phone."

These devices are a heck of a lot more than just a "phone.' And given how much we use them, the use-to-cost ratio is pretty fair. I've certainly paid more for a lens and gotten a lot less use out of it than a smartphone that I literally use all the time for such a massive range of things.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2018 at 20:07 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

LFPCPH: Imagine 10 years into the future. If any SLR camera system has survived the mirrorless succes - is it the Nikon F, or the Canon EF ?

entoman - We have to remember that adapters make the DSLR to mirrorless transition much easier. Nikon will certainly have a Nikon F adapter for their mirrorless system, just as Canon has an EF adapter for their mirrorless system. So I think the transition for existing DSLR users will be easier than most realize. I also think that mirrorless bodies will be less expensive (with better specs) than their DSLR counterparts due to fewer parts and lower production costs, which will further make mirrorless a good upgrade option. For example, just look at the Sony A9's specs for $4500 vs the Canon 1DXII ($6000) and Nikon D5 ($6500).

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2018 at 17:28 UTC
In reply to:

milkod2001: Don't know what Nikon was thinking. Making camera as big as D750 will not get anybody to upgrade to mirrorless. If anybody wants big camera for better balance when used with large tele lenses there are D5, D850, D750 for that already.

@milkod2001- I'd love to see Nikon try to survive exclusively with a FF mirrorless system. It won't be easy. That would cut off a huge segment of users and eliminate a low point of entry into their mirrorless system that other systems offer. Not everyone starts off with FF. Not everyone starts off with a $1000+ camera. (I expect Nikon FF mirrorless cameras to be *much* more expensive than that.) A lot of people will start off with a lower price-point camera (typically APS-C) and typically stay within that brand's system.

Nikon continues to ignore the format where most of the sales are. With Nikon 1, they ignored APS-C and went with a 1" sensor. How'd that work out for them? If they had chosen APS-C, the Nikon 1 system would still be alive today.

Every day that Nikon ignores APS-C mirrorless is one more day that other APS-C mirrorless systems get stronger.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2018 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

LFPCPH: Imagine 10 years into the future. If any SLR camera system has survived the mirrorless succes - is it the Nikon F, or the Canon EF ?

"continued production of a large number of lenses indicates that a manufacturer has no immediate intention of shutting down the camera line"

...which is dependent upon people still buying and using DSLRs. Things can change very quickly. Things are already changing. Look at the graphs in this article:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/how-to-save-dslr-after-mirrorless-wins/
The decline in DSLRs is only going to accelerate as Canon and Nikon enter the mirrorless market. In other words, it's not going to get better for DSLRs; it's only going to get worse, and at an even faster pace than it is already happening.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2018 at 15:38 UTC
Total: 5411, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »