| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
|||||||
| Would you buy a Nikon mirrorless? - Page 1 | |
| Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Sep 6th, 2017 21:48 |
|
1st Post |
jk
|
As manfufacturers move from complex DSLRs to mirrorless I have been considering would I buy a Nikon mirrorless. Rumours abound that since Canon has added mirrorless to their camera portfolio that Nikon will do the same. In fact Nikon did this a while back but the Nikon1 range of cameras never really made it to mainstream use. I think this was due to the small size of the sensor CX (13.8x10.38mm) compared to FX and DX. So the question is ....... If Nikon went mirrorless what sensor size is preferred FX or DX?
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 6th, 2017 21:49 |
|
2nd Post |
jk
|
FYI Comparison of sensor sizes. Attachment: IMG_1006.JPG (Downloaded 61 times)
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 6th, 2017 22:29 |
|
3rd Post |
jk
|
One of my criteria for purchase of a Nikon mirrorless camera would be that the current lenses should also be freely useable on the new camera. So a mirrorless FX camera would need to work with current DSLR camera lenses. I dont care if this means using an adapter to increase the rear focus distance.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 7th, 2017 01:01 |
|
4th Post |
Robert
|
If we were able to check back to the old forum you would find way back in about '08 that I was a keen advocate for the Nikon mirrorless, it's almost inevitable. Just like 35mm overtook 4x3" and 4x3" replaced 10x8". Replacing the ground glass screen and glass negatives. BUT it will take a while. It's not that long since Graham posted an image of himself in Africa with a 4x3", perhaps with a wire frame viewfinder? These cameras were pretty much the norm for high quality images in that era. Some would argue that wire frame was good because you could see outside the frame and it aided composition... It was still dumped eventually as was the external, clip-on exposure meter found on some cameras like the Leica. Today we are looking at 45MP on a 35mm full frame sensor. Way beyond any resolution ever seen by film and in my opinion overkill in terms of the need for definition by anyone except perhaps scientists and people who create 40 foot billboard images, but I am only a small voice. The masses seem to see ultra high resolution capture as their holy grail and many others follow, the trend keeps camera manufactures in business. Perhaps not just for the ultra high resolution but for the other benefits the camera designers bundle like greater and better high ISO performance and better dynamic range etc. For most uses 75 to 90% of the captured resolution will be thrown away before the target viewer has a chance to see it. But at least it's nice to know it was there once...  To stop this post wandering too far from topic, in a sense mirrorless is similar to the ground glass screen. What you see is what you get. It's the technical implementation of the process which seems to be the stumbling block. How to display what the lens sees in a viewfinder, in real time and with an acceptable resolution. It can be achieved optically as with the SLR but I think for now delay and poor resolution are inevitable until the engineers can create a screen which matches the sensor gathering power. i.e. the matching resolution. They have done it with the sensor, why not the display? However, processing that amount of data will inevitably take some time, even with powerful, dedicated processors which of necessity must be tiny and not be power hungry. The problems with the ground glass screen, which were accepted in the day, was the image was reversed and you needed to have a black cloth to put over the back of the camera and the photographers head so the photographer could see the screen. It had to be accepted then because that was the only was it was going to happen. Just as the current photographer has to accept the current limitations of mirrorless and the cumbersome DSLR. Sony I believe produce a small full frame (FX) body which, with an adaptor, can be fitted to Nikkor lenses, no bigger than a packet of cigarettes. Produces good video and stills, essentially it's a box with a sensor and a screen with a slot for a memory card. It's not far removed from the plate glass screen camera but much smaller. With a clip on loupe to examine detail one can see exactly what the camera will record. Personally I would love an electronic version of my beloved Bronica S2a, 60x60mm single lens reflex with a ground glass screen waist level viewfinder with pop up shield and built in loupe. That camera was wonderful to compose the image, rather than the eye level viewfinder which many use as a sight, to aim the lens at the target, like a rifle. As for sensor size, bigger the better. If they can make 45MP FX sensors then why not put two together and make a 48x36 90MP combo. It can be done, some technical cameras do that and electronically marry the two (or more) sensors images seamlessly into one. Sorry to ramble but it's an interesting question, close to my heart. If you got this far, thanks for reading!
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 7th, 2017 21:15 |
|
5th Post |
amazing50
|
Bought 2 new cameras this September, a D850 which I have and an Intrepid 8x10 for later this month. Both will replace older, less advanced models, a D6100 circa 2014 and a 8x10 Karona View circa 1910. Picked up a used Sony 5000 mirror-less E mount, to try it out prior to a possible acquisition of their anticipated next high MP release. Decided to stick with Nikon.  The Karona would have cost too much for an overhaul. I'm not against mirrorless, it's just not for me right now.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 8th, 2017 01:53 |
|
6th Post |
Robert
|
The Intrepid is an amazing project Mike, thanks for mentioning it, very interesting. I have both halves of a Schneider - Kreuznach Symmar f5.6 210mm dual f12 370mm lens, it has a good iris but not the shutter.   According to the Intrepid website their 4 x 5 camera seems very affordable. This is something I find very interesting, away from the world of microscopic dot photography... Mmmm https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/products/intrepid-camera
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 8th, 2017 15:47 |
|
7th Post |
Eric
|
The new Sony FX claims to have solved the viewfinder blackout. If that's true they have removed one of the big problems with mirrorless. I believe the other mirrorless challenges are...battery life, battery life and battery life. I also wonder if using existing Nikon lenses partially defeats one of the main benefits of mirrorless.....light weight. The Fuji XT2 requires another two extra batteries in the grip to perform anywhere close to a Nikon. This adds significant weight. Their pro quality lenses also approach Nikons similar lens, weights. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Fuji is a good camera with several novel features....it just falls short on some of the basics that as a DSLR user I took for granted. Nikon mirrorless needs to remember the basics.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 9th, 2017 04:24 |
|
8th Post |
Eric
|
Robert wrote:If we were able to check back to the old forum you would find way back in about '08 that I was a keen advocate for the Nikon mirrorless, it's almost inevitable. Just like 35mm overtook 4x3" and 4x3" replaced 10x8". Replacing the ground glass screen and glass negatives. BUT it will take a while. It's not that long since Graham posted an image of himself in Africa with a 4x3", perhaps with a wire frame viewfinder? These cameras were pretty much the norm for high quality images in that era. Some would argue that wire frame was good because you could see outside the frame and it aided composition... It was still dumped eventually as was the external, clip-on exposure meter found on some cameras like the Leica. "The biggest obstacle to achieving sharp, correctly exposed and composed photographs, is the speed and ease of taking the photograph." The sentiment, if not the exact words, of Ansel Adams. "Immediacy is the death knell of quality photographs".....my modern take. Development of most things, cameras included, is focused on improving the ease of use, efficiency and the supposed surety of best results. They may well improve the users ability to 'capture' a moment...but It's questionable whether they improve their photographic eye. That only comes from repetition and thinking about what you are doing....enemies of immediacy. I guess I would start be questioning what the driving factors are that lead us towards dispensing with mirrors? Is it the noise, the vibration, the bulk, the durability? Or Is it just really a manufacturing benefit? Making cameras lighter might have some benefit when you want to carry a camera around all day...but it's irrelevant when you stick a big specialist lens on the front. (as I know to my cost) The moment you consider an interchangeable lens mirrorless camera you are appealing to someone who will have lenses for every occasion and therefore must accept carrying what's needed for whatever eventualities they may face. No matter how clever you may be in thinning the bag contents for the perceived event...you always get caught out. Well I do!! I recognise that future developments will improve on the shortfalls of current mirrorless cameras. But I am not sure making cameras smaller...which then require add on grips to fit most hand sizes; making them power hungry...which necessitates a plethora of batteries in your pocket; packing them with in camera effects....which confuse and baffle with choice..........is the way forward. I feel Nikon have evolved a perfect ergonomic design and functionality in their camera bodies, especially in the 750 and now 850. If Nikon follow the current mirrorless body trends, I fear they will lose some of that natural feel.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 9th, 2017 13:41 |
|
9th Post |
jk
|
I think that you are right Eric. However with the use of AF I find I need some extra help as before I woudl ensure that what i wanted to be in focus via the split image or microprism screen now I need to have the AF confirm it. and unfortunately it is not always correct but the XT2 is a street ahead of XT1 but still behind my D500.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 10th, 2017 14:44 |
|
10th Post |
Eric
|
jk wrote:I think that you are right Eric. Interesting. I've been getting a few oof shots with the XT2 and was blaming myself. I did notice in AFC mode using 9 multi point that it struggled to give a continuous 4-5 burst of in focus shots...only 1 or 2 were sharp.  They were better when the subjects were static!!! Attachment: IMG_1257.JPG (Downloaded 44 times)
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 1451 Current time is 16:41 | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > Would you buy a Nikon mirrorless? | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0655 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 82 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0655 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 82 queries executed.