14 replies to this topic

[ScottinPollock]

I have to admit that rarely a day goes by where I don't think about a mirrorless body. So much so in fact that within the last month or so I have ordered no less than three of them, only to cancel the order before they shipped.

 

A good EVF, focus peaking, smooth auto-focus in live view/video, IBIS, and all of the neat extra features (especially with Oly) seem like a lot of fun. Problem is, most don't compete with Nikon on image quality, and I already have a bag of Nikon glass.

 

So if Nikon built a DX sensor, mirrorless body, with an F mount and all of the new tech their competition has had for years, would you bite?

[Ron]

I've been reading rumors of full frame mirrorless bodies from both Canon and Nikon. The Nikon rumor is fairly recent but seems to have some possibilities. I think there could be something there. Thom Hogan has mentioned this so far mythical beast recently. Within the past week or so.

 

I've had occasion to fondle Sony A7's and I have to say, I was blown away by what I saw. I'm one of those who used to hate EVF's but Sony's was lightyears ahead of what I'd see before. In fact I was so impressed with the camera in general that I looked into adapters to mount Nikon F lenses on the A7. Unfortunately I was unimpressed with the adapters I saw and, seriously, I don't want to deal with adapters anyway.

 

I'm in the same boat as you regarding Nikon glass which means that keeping the F lens mount is paramount. I'm not about to go changing camera systems at this point. If I have to I'll just keep using what I have. But, to answer your question, yes. I would be very interested in such an animal.

 

Personally, I think that if Nikon did this... and did it right,  they would have a hard time keeping up with demand.

 

--Ron

[TBonz]

Well, I would love to have something like that to play with...I have to admit I have not spent the money as yet, but one of the reasons I picked up the Nikon 1 V3 is that I could get the converter for F Mount lenses.  I think the biggest potential issue with a "DX Mirrorless" would be the size of the body - do you make it Nikon 1 / Coolpix size or do you make it D3xxx size?  And, what options level does it get?

[ScottinPollock]

I think that if Nikon did this... and did it right,  they would have a hard time keeping up with demand.

 

I think the biggest potential issue with a "DX Mirrorless" would be the size of the body - do you make it Nikon 1 / Coolpix size or do you make it D3xxx size?  And, what options level does it get?

Even without the mirror, the depth of the lightbox will have to remain the same so we won't have a thin camera like the Fujis and Olys. But without the prism they could certainly be shorter. I think form factor is more important than size (glass is still big - even on M43). I actually liked the look of the DL series, but the smaller chassis ones would need a built in EVF. Having it as an add on just makes it more expensive. They also need room for a decent size battery.

As for doing it right... yeah boy! Nikon needs to resist the temptation of purposefully holding back software-only features in lower priced models. My nightmare is that there will be two or three of these things, and the smaller/cheaper ones will ship with crippled software.

Nikon has an amazing opportunity to not only sell us one or two more camera bodies, but also lure new buyers into their ecosystem who do not want an SLR. Perhaps a smaller DX model with a new small pancake style kit zoom, and a larger FX model (make this one capable of supporting as much glass as possible). It is undeniable that Nikon's stable of F mount glass is an enviable asset to all that shoot mirrorless now, and those considering it in the future. It's also pretty much fact they have better image performance over most mirrorless out there, and better ergonomics to boot. So pull the mirror and the prism, design a good hybrid shutter, get phase detection AF points on your sensors, and hopefully you have the software chops to pull it all together.

This would have me standing in line to pull out my wallet and reinvest in Nikon again versus me considering jumping ship almost daily.

It has been difficult for me to understand why both Canon and Nikon threw away their venerable stable of glass in their ILC mirrorless designs. Perhaps it is an engineering issue I am simply not aware of. Or, perhaps they just didn't take mirrorless all that seriously and viewed it as more of a bridge device. Regardless, I can't help but wonder how many would be thrilled to have both serious SLR and ML bodies for our glass. I agree with Ron that it would be a LOT!

[nikdood17]

I already have ten Nikon SLR bodies going back to the original F. I do not need another one. Every one of the ones I have are smarter than I am and I have not yet begun to wring all the possibilities out of them. FYI, four of the Nikons are Nikkormats and two are digital.

[Ron]

Oh, yeah... doing it right.

 

That's the big question. I see this as an opportunity for Nikon (and/or Canon) to cement their place at the top of the heap. Admittedly, Canon has the edge since they are the current big dog but Nikon is no slouch. Especially considering their lens inventory. They seriously need to leverage that advantage with as much backward compatibility as they can muster. 

 

I just hope that they give us a real EVF like the Sony A series and don't force their users to hold the camera at arms length to frame and focus via a screen on the back of the camera. That's a deal breaker for me.

 

I'm not picky about the size of the sensor but since Sony showed the way with full frame mirrorless cameras I can't see Nikon (or Canon) not doing the same. That would be, in my opinion, a big mistake. Sure, make a lower priced DX mirrorless camera for the masses but make it a serious camera and not a toy.

 

The thing that's going to lift Nikon's reputation back up is to build serious cameras. I agree with not crippling features hoping to drive customers towards more expensive hardware. People see through that crap and it hurts more than it helps. 

 

--Ron

[dcbear78]

DX? Not a chance. Only reason to go DX is appropriately sized lenses like Fuji are doing. For Nikon to do this it would have to be FX or nothing.

 

It's all about the focus speed for me. Sony is there now. Canon focuses better with live view than through the viewfinder. But Nikon's live view focusing is beyond woeful at best. It is literally a country mile beyond everyone else. And it's this focusing system that is used in a mirrorless camera.

 

Sony really has me thinking and doing my sums. Can I sell my D810, D500 and my lenses and replace them with an A9, A7Rii and lenses without losing too much? If I had more money I'd be making the move. But I don't. 

[ScottinPollock]

DX? Not a chance.

Sony's best selling mirrorless is the 6X00 series, which is DX. Why cut yourself off from that kind of market potential when the majority of the R&D involved can be used for both sensor sizes. It seems pretty clear to me that Nikon is continuing to invest in DX, so this would be a perfect fit.
 

It's all about the focus speed for me. Sony is there now. Canon focuses better with live view than through the viewfinder. But Nikon's live view focusing is beyond woeful at best. It is literally a country mile beyond everyone else. And it's this focusing system that is used in a mirrorless camera.

I have yet to see a mirrorless focus as fast as a D5 or D500. On sensor CD (or even PD) still can't compete with a sub-mirror directing light to dedicated PD points. But it is getting good enough for most shooters that don't do sports and wildlife... especially in LiveView, where as you say, Nikon's current CD system is so poor.

But as someone that does a lot of product/still life, focus peaking brings back the missing, manual focus aids we had back in the film days. That, plus PD on sensor and smooth focus algorithms for video are most attractive to the current market of mirrorless. It would be foolish to develop all of this for only the full frame market. If they did the video and auto focus right, people shooting M43 would flock to Nikon in droves for the better image quality and glass.

[mikew]

After 40 years of shooting Nikon and now on m4/3 many of us are not waiting for Nikon to enter the DX/FX mirrorless market,we moved because of the size and weight of DX/FX taking its toll on our aged bodies, the lenses for such cameras would negate any benefits a smaller lighter body made.

 

If m4/3 users wanted FX/DX then Sony or Fuji would have been their destination (as it was/is at the moment) Nikon had a chance if they had continued to develop the 1 series to build customer confidence in the mirrorless camera side,yes it was not what most wanted but even those that felt the sensor was too small had admiration for the technology involved and the way it  worked,to slowly start introducing DX then FX bodies from that base would have seen Nikon as a main player.

 

In normal Nikon fashion they ignored the main 1 series users that felt the V2 was a fantastic camera but needed a better sensor, they introduced a V3 with a better sensor but lacking the built in EVF,if that wasnt just a money grabbing situation and deliberate attempt to hinder 1 series sales i would like to know what it was about.

 

Now we go onto the AF performance of mirrorless cameras,i will be the first to agree it does not match D5/D500 ability in most cameras (jury still out on the latest Sony) and contrast AF alone never will,i now use Panasonic with DFD and you should not under estimate it in real world use,it will match or beat most middle to low end DSLRs and my camera body cost under £600.

 

At the moment i have  a problem with my Leica 100-400 m4/3 lens (waiting for an exchange unit) my LCS did me a loan job of my choice from his second hand stock,i took a D7100 and 70-300afs not the latest but i had owned the D7200 prior to moving to m4/3 and never felt its AF was any better then the D7100,using the D7100 is like moving back in time my G80 and 100-400 wipes the floor with it for SAF and CAF.

 

This is not a knock Nikon post,its a feeling of how far out of touch Nikon are,yes users will buy a mirrorless D/X or FX but they will not wait for ever and Nikon have a hard job coming to market with something that would justify the wait. 

After my last post i thought i had better put my money where my mouth is these where taken back from my flickr page for posting as since the latest ransomeware situation i dont keep any files on my interenet PC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps a top end Nikon or Canon could have done better but most of us dont use them,so come on Nikon get in to the game.

[ScottinPollock]

my G80 and 100-400 wipes the floor with it for SAF and CAF.

That's hard to believe.

I really like the feature set and ergonomics of the Oly's, but with m43 in general I am concerned about the hits on dynamic range and noise. I see that one of these was taken with an em10 mkII... care to share your feelings between it and the G80/G85 regarding image quality and IBIS?

It is hard to evaluate your images as who knows what uploading to flickr did to them, but they look a little flat to me.

[mikew]

That's hard to believe.

I really like the feature set and ergonomics of the Oly's, but with m43 in general I am concerned about the hits on dynamic range and noise. I see that one of these was taken with an em10 mkII... care to share your feelings between it and the G80/G85 regarding image quality and IBIS?

It is hard to evaluate your images as who knows what uploading to flickr did to them, but they look a little flat to me.

 

Noise and dynamic range could be better but we were talking mirrorless ability not just m4/3, Olympus files i find are a lot better than Panasonic but unless you buy one of the EM1 versions they do not offer any useable CAF,dual IS on the Panasonic is great,if i have the 100-400 on the Olympus then its lens only as body IS tends to fail when you get to 400mm.

[mikew]

I have had a problem with my mirrorless 100-400 and after waiting 4 weeks for a replacement i decided enough was enough,took a full new value  credit for the lens and bought a D500 and Sigma 100-400,i have no problems with mirrorless as such,  so what i will do though after i get used to the new gear is do a comparison thread that doesn't go into makes but just mirrorless V DSLR for action shots.

[ScottinPollock]

Looking forward to your comparison (but I am guessing the D500 smokes the Panny).

(c;

[mikew]

Looking forward to your comparison (but I am guessing the D500 smokes the Panny).

(c;

 

Well its supposed  to rain all week here as it would.

[dcbear78]

The A9 has a focus system that can hang with the big boys. Add to that the ability to have focus points anywhere in the frame and the highly intelligent face/eye detection for me puts its focusing abilities at the top of the pile.

Reading about how Ryan Brenizer is saying his composition is so easy now with the A9 and how easy he can get the shot, every time, without fail and without trying very hard really has me doing my sums.

I just wished Tamron and Sigma made native E mount lenses. The only Sony lenses worth it are the G Master series that are very, very expensive. This is what is holding me up right now. Cost of Sony lenses.