NR: Nikon considering "larger" sensor MILC!

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Sandman:
Why not mirrorless with an f-mount? Then we could get a digital
Nikon FE, that would be awesome.

Maybe. However, as a mirrorless with F-mount lenses it will not be
compact in any way, and it will have to be large enough to deal with
the longer flage distance found in DSLRs. That sort of defeats the
purpose of the mirrorless concept.

Well, compact cameras are dead anyway, the smart phones killed them. So I'm
not
sure that size is such a compelling factor of mirrorless that it ws five
years
ago.

not totally dead. phones put a dent in p&s cameras, but they haven't
fully replaced them.

Plus, the Nikon FE is pretty darn small, especially since you could minimise
the left hand side due to lack of film roll, even if you have to make the
body
slightly longer due to the LCD screen and the sensor being thicker than film.

digital slrs *do* minimize the left side, making it smaller than an fe.
thickness doesn't matter at all since the lens dominates that
dimension.

But I would have no problem with a digital FE that doesn't have an LCD on the
back, where you can preview photos in the EVF.

you might, but nobody else would.

A Nikon mirrorless with an APS-C or FF sensor is going to require
all new glass, even if they make it F-mount glass. So then we will
end up with Nikkor FX, DX, and MX glass.

Why, though?

because there's no need for a mirror box, which means new lenses are
needed to take advantage of the smaller back focus. you can still use
legacy lenses with adapters but then it's not really any smaller than
an slr.

In article 2016092407354867045-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

Savageduck:
Maybe. However, as a mirrorless with F-mount lenses it will not
be compact in any way, and it will have to be large enough to
deal with the longer flage distance found in DSLRs. That sort of
defeats the purpose of the mirrorless concept.

Sandman:
Well, compact cameras are dead anyway, the smart phones killed
them. So I'm not sure that size is such a compelling factor of
mirrorless that it ws five years ago.

When I say compact in this context, I am talking about ILCs with
size and weight smaller and lighter relative to DSLRs, not "compact"
in the P&S class of camera. Those I have to agree are dead and
replaced by smart phones. Remember, as soon as you talk about ILC,
you are talking about cameras with lenses which do not exactly make
them "pocketable" as in the "P&S/compacts" are.

Sure, but as soon as you take away the "pocketable" aspect, the actual size
isn't all that important. Heck, I recently advocated removing the rear LCD to
save space, if we can keep the F-mount.

Sandman:
Plus, the Nikon FE is pretty darn small, especially since you
could minimise the left hand side due to lack of film roll, even
if you have to make the body slightly longer due to the LCD screen
and the sensor being thicker than film.

But I would have no problem with a digital FE that doesn't have an
LCD on the back, where you can preview photos in the EVF.

Nikon would still be playing catch up in the "nostalgia looks &
operation" area, Fujifilm and Olympus are already there, and selling
all they can produce.

I don't know how long the "retro" thing is going to last, but it doesn't seem
to be slowing down really. Or call it "back to roots"

Anyway, you don't have to "catch up" with that trend, you either make retro
looking cameras or you don't, we're talking about MILC's and there Nikon is
really behind, but I'm going to assume that a MILC with f-mount is a winning
concept.

Savageduck:
A Nikon mirrorless with an APS-C or FF sensor is going to
require all new glass, even if they make it F-mount glass. So
then we will end up with Nikkor FX, DX, and MX glass.

Sandman:
Why, though?

Making good use of that now missing mirror chamber to produce lenses
optimized for the system rather than falling back on legacy DSLR
lenses regardless of how legendary they might be. It is something
Nikon is capable of doing as they have already demonstrated with the
Nikon-1 system, which is currently on life support.

Yeah, and we know how that went

With the f-mount Nikon would have an enormous step ahead in the MILC market.

Savageduck:
It is not outside Nikon's capability to produce a great
mirrorless, but they are a tad late to this particular game.
They needed to do this two to three years ago. The N-1 was a
fair attempt, but not successful, and this rumor if it pans out
will be interesting to say the least.

Sandman:
Dunno, this sort of suggests that "mirrorless" needs to have some
other parameters as well, as being very small, or using a very
small sensor.

Probably, but who said "very small, or using a very small sensor"
was part of what makes a good MILC? More compact & lighter than a
DSLR of similar performance and sensor size does not necessarily
equate to "very small", just relative size.

Yes, I got hung up on the "compact" thing I suppose. But then again, the size
difference between a X-Pro2 and a Nikon d3300 isn't that much.

Sandman:
The Sony A7 series shows that this isn't needed. Sure, it has a
super short flange distance so a similar Nikon would still be
larger, but the A7 isn't a compact camera really.

Exactly, neither are the Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2.

Exactly.

--
Sandman

On 2016-09-24 22:50:44 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2016092407354867045-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

Savageduck:
Maybe. However, as a mirrorless with F-mount lenses it will not
be compact in any way, and it will have to be large enough to
deal with the longer flage distance found in DSLRs. That sort of
defeats the purpose of the mirrorless concept.

Sandman:
Well, compact cameras are dead anyway, the smart phones killed
them. So I'm not sure that size is such a compelling factor of
mirrorless that it ws five years ago.

When I say compact in this context, I am talking about ILCs with
size and weight smaller and lighter relative to DSLRs, not "compact"
in the P&S class of camera. Those I have to agree are dead and
replaced by smart phones. Remember, as soon as you talk about ILC,
you are talking about cameras with lenses which do not exactly make
them "pocketable" as in the "P&S/compacts" are.

Sure, but as soon as you take away the "pocketable" aspect, the actual size
isn't all that important. Heck, I recently advocated removing the rear LCD to
save space, if we can keep the F-mount.

Size might not be as important, but weight will be. Personally I would
have loved to have seen a D500 two to three years ago, thm I might not
be as much in the MILC camp as I am now, but for me Nikon was late with
that D300S replacement, just as they are late to the MILC game. An
F-mount MILC might encourage some Nikon DSLR users to make that
purchase, but for many that horse has already left the barn. As much as
I am impressed by the D500, I for one will probably be buying an X-T2
as I have been converted to the Fujifilm X-series and what they have to
offer.

Sandman:
Plus, the Nikon FE is pretty darn small, especially since you
could minimise the left hand side due to lack of film roll, even
if you have to make the body slightly longer due to the LCD screen
and the sensor being thicker than film.

But I would have no problem with a digital FE that doesn't have an
LCD on the back, where you can preview photos in the EVF.

Nikon would still be playing catch up in the "nostalgia looks &
operation" area, Fujifilm and Olympus are already there, and selling
all they can produce.

I don't know how long the "retro" thing is going to last, but it doesn't seem
to be slowing down really. Or call it "back to roots"

With the Fuji X-Series there is more than just the "retro" thing. There
is something about using those cameras which actually makes using them
enjoyable once more for this old fart.

Anyway, you don't have to "catch up" with that trend, you either make retro
looking cameras or you don't, we're talking about MILC's and there Nikon is
really behind, but I'm going to assume that a MILC with f-mount is a winning
concept.

Yup! They are definitely behind in that area, and an F-mount MILC isn't
going to improve their share of that particular market. All they will
do is lure Nikon DSLR users who already have a substantial investment
in F-glass. They have already lost quite a number of Nikon shooters, I
for one haven't used my D300S since April and I know of many who have
sold off ikon kit, or who only retain Nikon or Canon kit for special
use.

Savageduck:
A Nikon mirrorless with an APS-C or FF sensor is going to
require all new glass, even if they make it F-mount glass. So
then we will end up with Nikkor FX, DX, and MX glass.

Sandman:
Why, though?

Making good use of that now missing mirror chamber to produce lenses
optimized for the system rather than falling back on legacy DSLR
lenses regardless of how legendary they might be. It is something
Nikon is capable of doing as they have already demonstrated with the
Nikon-1 system, which is currently on life support.

Yeah, and we know how that went

With the f-mount Nikon would have an enormous step ahead in the MILC market.

Not necessarily, there are other qualities which are going to make a
MILC desirable, and the allure of an F-mount is only going to strike a
note with a small group of Nikon DSLR shooters. They are 5-6 years too
late. I have thought of buying an F-mount convertor and/or an M-Mount
convertor for my Fuji X-mount, but it seems pointless to me as the
Fujinon glass I have is pretty good and meets my needs.

Savageduck:
It is not outside Nikon's capability to produce a great
mirrorless, but they are a tad late to this particular game.
They needed to do this two to three years ago. The N-1 was a
fair attempt, but not successful, and this rumor if it pans out
will be interesting to say the least.

Sandman:
Dunno, this sort of suggests that "mirrorless" needs to have some
other parameters as well, as being very small, or using a very
small sensor.

Probably, but who said "very small, or using a very small sensor"
was part of what makes a good MILC? More compact & lighter than a
DSLR of similar performance and sensor size does not necessarily
equate to "very small", just relative size.

Yes, I got hung up on the "compact" thing I suppose. But then again, the size
difference between a X-Pro2 and a Nikon d3300 isn't that much.

I think a better comparison might be between an X-T2 and a D7200 or D500.
Just in terms of weight the D500 is 860 g vs 507 g for the X-T2, and
physically the X-T2 is about 2.3X smaller.

Sandman:
The Sony A7 series shows that this isn't needed. Sure, it has a
super short flange distance so a similar Nikon would still be
larger, but the A7 isn't a compact camera really.

Exactly, neither are the Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2.

Exactly.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , J.
Clarke wrote:

The current N-1 lens line-up is not going to cut it with a larger
sensor, whatever size it might be, and current Nikkor DX lenses are not
optimized for mirrorless use. So if the rumor is valid, and we get a
Nikon APS-C/FF (or a sensor larger than that in the N-1s) mirrorless, we
are going to be looking at a whole new Nikkor mirrorless lens line-up.

I would only consider Nikon again /if/ they produced MTF compatible
cameras and lenses. Agree with your comments. Sony seems to be well
ahead in FF mirrorless.

I'm pretty sure that all Nikon lenses have an MTF. Perhaps you meant
something else?

mft

wtf
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article 2016092315145459649-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2016-09-23 21:50:35 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2016092210394712991-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-09-22 17:14:21 +0000, android said:

android:
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/09/22/ni...larger-sensor-
mirrorless-solution-is-being-considered.aspx

Why

does this sound like they are trying to board a ship that has
already sailed?

The current N-1 lens line-up is not going to cut it with a larger
sensor, whatever size it might be, and current Nikkor DX lenses are
not optimized for mirrorless use. So if the rumor is valid, and we
get a Nikon APS-C/FF (or a sensor larger than that in the N-1s)
mirrorless, we are going to be looking at a whole new Nikkor
mirrorless lens line-up.

Why not mirrorless with an f-mount? Then we could get a digital Nikon FE,
that
would be awesome.

Maybe. However, as a mirrorless with F-mount lenses it will not be
compact in any way, and it will have to be large enough to deal with
the longer flage distance found in DSLRs. That sort of defeats the
purpose of the mirrorless concept. A Nikon mirrorless with an APS-C or
FF sensor is going to require all new glass, even if they make it
F-mount glass. So then we will end up with Nikkor FX, DX, and MX glass.

It is not outside Nikon's capability to produce a great mirrorless, but
they are a tad late to this particular game. They needed to do this two
to three years ago. The N-1 was a fair attempt, but not successful, and
this rumor if it pans out will be interesting to say the least.

If it's an APS-c sensor, any glass that works with APS-C today should
work fine with it leaving aside the issue of communication between body
and lens and assuming a suitable adapter exists. What leads you to
believe that "all new glass" will be "required"?

I use lenses with adaptors with the EOS-M. Works fine... The adaptors
are relatively small but you the shorter flange distance really gives
the lens designers some cool tools that only could be taken advantage of
with range finder cameras like Leica in the past.
--
teleportation kills

In article 2016092315594298867-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2016-09-23 22:26:46 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2016092315145459649-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2016-09-23 21:50:35 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2016092210394712991-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-09-22 17:14:21 +0000, android said:

android:
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/09/22/ni...larger-sensor-
mirrorless-solution-is-being-considered.aspx

Why does this sound like they are trying to board a ship that has
already sailed?

The current N-1 lens line-up is not going to cut it with a larger
sensor, whatever size it might be, and current Nikkor DX lenses are
not optimized for mirrorless use. So if the rumor is valid, and we
get a Nikon APS-C/FF (or a sensor larger than that in the N-1s)
mirrorless, we are going to be looking at a whole new Nikkor
mirrorless lens line-up.

Why not mirrorless with an f-mount? Then we could get a digital Nikon FE,
that
would be awesome.

Maybe. However, as a mirrorless with F-mount lenses it will not be
compact in any way, and it will have to be large enough to deal with
the longer flage distance found in DSLRs. That sort of defeats the
purpose of the mirrorless concept. A Nikon mirrorless with an APS-C or
FF sensor is going to require all new glass, even if they make it
F-mount glass. So then we will end up with Nikkor FX, DX, and MX glass.

It is not outside Nikon's capability to produce a great mirrorless, but
they are a tad late to this particular game. They needed to do this two
to three years ago. The N-1 was a fair attempt, but not successful, and
this rumor if it pans out will be interesting to say the least.

If it's an APS-c sensor, any glass that works with APS-C today should
work fine with it leaving aside the issue of communication between body
and lens and assuming a suitable adapter exists. What leads you to
believe that "all new glass" will be "required"?

One of the features of lenses designed for mirrorless systems is the
shorter flange distance. This is something Sony, Olympus, Panasonic,
and Fujifilm have addressed, allowing them to design ILC systems far
more compact than APS-C DSLRs, all without sacrificing IQ. While Nikon
could, in all probability deliver an APS-C/FF mirrorless, it is not
going to compete in the area of size and weight. They need to rethink
the way they are going to address just how they are going to enter this
sector of the mirrorless ILC market. Using existing DX, or FX glass is
not the route to a compact, light weight ILC. They tried with the
Nikon-1, but that was a case of close, but no cigar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article 201609240744114107-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, savageduck1
@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

On 2016-09-24 12:27:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2016092315594298867-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...
On 2016-09-23 22:26:46 +0000, "J. Clarke"
said:
In article 2016092315145459649-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...
On 2016-09-23 21:50:35 +0000, Sandman said:
In article 2016092210394712991-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-09-22 17:14:21 +0000, android said:
android:
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/09/22/ni...ive-larger-sen
sor-
mirrorless-solution-is-being-considered.aspx

Why does this sound like they are trying to board a ship that has
already sailed?

The current N-1 lens line-up is not going to cut it with a larger
sensor, whatever size it might be, and current Nikkor DX lenses are
not optimized for mirrorless use. So if the rumor is valid, and we
get a Nikon APS-C/FF (or a sensor larger than that in the N-1s)
mirrorless, we are going to be looking at a whole new Nikkor
mirrorless lens line-up.

Why not mirrorless with an f-mount? Then we could get a digital Nikon
FE, that
would be awesome.

Maybe. However, as a mirrorless with F-mount lenses it will not be
compact in any way, and it will have to be large enough to deal with
the longer flage distance found in DSLRs. That sort of defeats the
purpose of the mirrorless concept. A Nikon mirrorless with an APS-C or
FF sensor is going to require all new glass, even if they make it
F-mount glass. So then we will end up with Nikkor FX, DX, and MX
glass.

It is not outside Nikon's capability to produce a great mirrorless,
but
they are a tad late to this particular game. They needed to do this
two
to three years ago. The N-1 was a fair attempt, but not successful,
and
this rumor if it pans out will be interesting to say the least.

If it's an APS-c sensor, any glass that works with APS-C today should
work fine with it leaving aside the issue of communication between body
and lens and assuming a suitable adapter exists. What leads you to
believe that "all new glass" will be "required"?

One of the features of lenses designed for mirrorless systems is the
shorter flange distance. This is something Sony, Olympus, Panasonic,
and Fujifilm have addressed, allowing them to design ILC systems far
more compact than APS-C DSLRs, all without sacrificing IQ. While Nikon
could, in all probability deliver an APS-C/FF mirrorless, it is not
going to compete in the area of size and weight. They need to rethink
the way they are going to address just how they are going to enter this
sector of the mirrorless ILC market. Using existing DX, or FX glass is
not the route to a compact, light weight ILC. They tried with the
Nikon-1, but that was a case of close, but no cigar.

So how does the shorter flange distance make for a significantly better
400?

For the sake of using long lenses designed for a DSLR system on a MILC,
probably not significantly "better", but long lenses are not all there
is when it comes to the glass one might use.

Your assertion was that ALL glass would NEED to be redesigned. So why
would a 400 NEED to be redesigned?

There would be no "need" for re design but since long lenses usually are
retrofocus designs the shorter flange will make them more compact. My
Schneider 360mm from the fifties fits in a 250mm lens case...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On 23 Sep 2016 21:50:35 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article 2016092210394712991-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-09-22 17:14:21 +0000, android said:

android:
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/09/22/ni...larger-sensor-
mirrorless-solution-is-being-considered.aspx

Why

does this sound like they are trying to board a ship that has
already sailed?

The current N-1 lens line-up is not going to cut it with a larger
sensor, whatever size it might be, and current Nikkor DX lenses are
not optimized for mirrorless use. So if the rumor is valid, and we
get a Nikon APS-C/FF (or a sensor larger than that in the N-1s)
mirrorless, we are going to be looking at a whole new Nikkor
mirrorless lens line-up.

Why not mirrorless with an f-mount? Then we could get a digital Nikon FE,
that
would be awesome.

Why not bite the bullet and come up with an entirely new mount? After
all, Canon did.

The Canon EF-M mount is compatible via a flange adapter with the EF and
EF-S.
--
teleportation kills

In article 2016092416384969880-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

Sandman:
Anyway, you don't have to "catch up" with that trend, you either
make retro looking cameras or you don't, we're talking about
MILC's and there Nikon is really behind, but I'm going to assume
that a MILC with f-mount is a winning concept.

Yup! They are definitely behind in that area, and an F-mount MILC
isn't going to improve their share of that particular market. All
they will do is lure Nikon DSLR users who already have a substantial
investment in F-glass.

Yes, which incidentally is people like you - who used and owned a Nikon DSLR
but wanted something slimmer and lighter. Unfortunately your only choice was
to move away from the excellent Nikon glass to make your move. If, at the
time, there would have been a MILC from Nikon with F-mount support you would
probably have bought it in a heart beat.

The point is, while they missed the boat for you particularly, there are
still tons of people that are in the same situation. Wanting something easier
and lighter.

If it comes out today or in six months doesn't really matter. As far as I'm
aware, Nikon is losing sales in the low-end (D3XXX, D5XXX etc) while the
prosumer or ambitious hobby photographer, is still buying D7XXX and DXXX in a
useful capacity.

Savageduck:
Making good use of that now missing mirror chamber to produce
lenses optimized for the system rather than falling back on
legacy DSLR lenses regardless of how legendary they might be. It
is something Nikon is capable of doing as they have already
demonstrated with the Nikon-1 system, which is currently on life
support.

Sandman:
Yeah, and we know how that went

With the f-mount Nikon would have an enormous step ahead in the
MILC market.

Not necessarily, there are other qualities which are going to make a
MILC desirable, and the allure of an F-mount is only going to strike
a note with a small group of Nikon DSLR shooters.

Glass availability should be the first and foremost thing anyone looks at
when buying a new camera. I made a gamble when I bought the A7, because at
the time, the glass options were woefully poor. And while many MILC systems
today have nice glass, they aren't comparable to Nikkor or Canon glass, hence
the multitude of adapters for current MILC's to get access to them.

The number one advice a newcomer gets is "get whatever Nikon you can afford,
but put your big money on the glass", which has always been true. And if
you're already in this game with a D610 or D300s and have neat glass, then
moving to current MILC means the same investment again. If there was a MILC
that could take all your glass, then it's a natural choice.

Sandman:
Yes, I got hung up on the "compact" thing I suppose. But then
again, the size difference between a X-Pro2 and a Nikon d3300
isn't that much.

I think a better comparison might be between an X-T2 and a D7200 or
D500. Just in terms of weight the D500 is 860 g vs 507 g for the
X-T2, and physically the X-T2 is about 2.3X smaller.

Why would that be a better comparison? I'm not talking about features here, I
am talking about the size a F-mount camera *can* be made in:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm-X-Pro2-vs-Nikon-D3300/specs

The Nikon is lighter, but slightly larger. Has F-mount so access to 230
lenses vs. 58 lenses. Now imagine a mirrorless version, one wit crop sensor
and one with full frame. Neither has a prism or mirror so if anything they
could be even lighter.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Glass availability should be the first and foremost thing anyone looks at
when buying a new camera. I made a gamble when I bought the A7, because at
the time, the glass options were woefully poor. And while many MILC systems
today have nice glass, they aren't comparable to Nikkor or Canon glass, hence
the multitude of adapters for current MILC's to get access to them.

If you're into Nikkors but feel the distress and awkwardness about them
specific Japanece dragging their feat behind the rest then your Canadian
friend is there for you... One of these and you are golden:

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPNFG-X-BM1

The Canaducks used to make lenses for Ernst Leitz of Wetzlar you know!
OTOH: That company is no more...
--
teleportation kills