Nikon CEO confirms they are working on a pro mirrorless system.

Japanese never does translate well lol. DSLR for girls hahahahahaah
 
Phil V said:
It's clear some DSLR users still don't 'get' mirrorless.:p

IMHO 'pro' mirrorless doesn't need to be FF; why we are still referring to that particular line in the sand as 'full frame' baffles me.

There are loads of advantages to a mirrorless system, and using fast full frame lenses makes them less fun.

An APSC body with fast lenses designed for the format is a much nicer proposition than FF (M43 is lovely but a bit too far for ultimate IQ)
Click to expand...

Disagree Phil ;)

IMHO full-frame strikes the best balance between all the various competing qualities for most enthusiasts and professionals. And while that may be up for debate for some, it doesn't change the fact that it's also just the way things have evolved. We are where we are, it's called full-frame, and that's not going to change.*

sk66 said:
Yes, but "the benefits" mostly come from the format, not whether it has a mirror or not.
Click to expand...

Agree :)

And if Canikon is going to make waves in mirrorless, it's got to be full-frame - the market will not accept anything else. And it's also got to make best use of their strongest assets - huge ranges of full-frame lenses, with millions already in the hands of potential customers. That's where they'll hammer Sony, properly leveraging their brand strength (if you'll pardon the phrase!) that's been built over many decades and generations of photographers. Sony has no answer to that.

*Full-frame is just short for 'full-frame 35mm' for those that want to play semantics :D
 
woof woof said:
Twist mate, I could reply point by point but why should I bother? OK, you've talked me into it :D

You never shoot and chimp? You're one in a million for yet another reason :D

You have a 100% VF? You're one of a tiny percentage of DSLR owners.

If you think you only get crud in ancient VF's you need to go to Specsavers. And no, I've used more modern DSLR's than my 5D and guess what... crud in the VF. Do a poll of owners of lets be kind and say year old DSLR's if you don't believe it or take another look through yours once you're wearing your Specsavers supplied correctives.

Oh yes and you're comment about EVF's being for beginners is provocative internet drivel even for you.
Click to expand...

No, I also have image preview turned off (crazy I know). I can rely on my cameras metering or (never) use live view for slow stuff like you do.

I know a lot here have 100% ovf.

What dslrs that you have owned are you using in your comparison Alan?

Believe me I am far less likely to need any form of eye correction than you are.

So you're saying it's not useful for beginners then.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
No, I also have image preview turned off (crazy I know). I can rely on my cameras metering or (never) use live view for slow stuff like you do.

I know a lot here have 100% ovf.

I've had a boatload more cameras than you and the only camera to suffer from it was the 5d, what dslrs that you have owned are you using in your comparison Alan?

Believe me I am far less likely to need any form of eye correction than you are.

So you're saying it's not useful for beginners then.
Click to expand...

I believe the biggest and most popular thread on here (don't quote me on this) is the D750 thread.

I believe it's probably the most popular and used camera on this forum, therefore a huge percentage of people have 100% OVF.

Anyway, back to the camera. If Nikon get this right it could be a great bit of kit. If they can make it like the size of the 7000 series and be able to use current full frame lenses it would be very popular.

Gone are the days when mirrorless was just for compact and weight saving (yes you can still go down that route). It's now more a movement in technology.

I always thought the next wave of mirroeless could be the ones that can match full frame cameras.
 
If the translation is accurate he said "For a smartphone generation, we put out a very Nikon-ish mirrorless camera which is superior to rivals in quality". To me that says it will be a 1 inch sensor which is huge in comparison with smartphones. They already have experience with the 1" and Sony is putting a lot of development in that area.
 
sphexx said:
If the translation is accurate he said "For a smartphone generation, we put out a very Nikon-ish mirrorless camera which is superior to rivals in quality". To me that says it will be a 1 inch sensor which is huge in comparison with smartphones. They already have experience with the 1" and Sony is putting a lot of development in that area.
Click to expand...
Yes, seems like some conflicting info. One post says 'professional mirrorless camera' and one post says a 'Nikon-ish mirrorless camera for the smartphone generation' which does not suggest 'professional' to me. Guess it's a case of wait and see.
 
JJ! said:
I believe the biggest and most popular thread on here (don't quote me on this) is the D750 thread.

I believe it's probably the most popular and used camera on this forum, therefore a huge percentage of people have 100% OVF.
Click to expand...

Nope. The Fuji mirrorless thread has approx 10% more posts.
 
I think Hoppy has hit the nail on the head.

It would be reasonable to think that someone in Nikon and Canon has slapped a D5 or a 1DX down on an engineers table and said "get that working with no mirror".

If they produced a mirrorless D5 and 1DX MkII with the rest of the camera pretty much as is, maybe whack the frame rate up a bit as that seems to be giving everyone a hard on about the Sony A9 at the moment they would sell well. No requirement to make them smaller, what difference is a couple of pounds in a kit bag going to make for a pro sports photographer? No adaptors, huge range of lenses both new and used. What's not to like.

Will it happen? I don't really care, I'm happy with what I've got. If I had the choice of a mirrorless 1DX MkII or a mirrored one I don't think I would bother to change.
 
People dismiss some of the advantages of mirrorless and smaller sensors because they say they like the size of current DSLRs but that is to miss the point I think. You hands won't get smaller so physical size is largely set by that. However,mirrorless and smaller sensors means there is more room for other stuff in the body. Better viewfinders, screens, more processing power,more connectivity, SIM cards and so on. Maybe multiple sensors/lenses which would lead to depth of field effects like in some smartphones and maybe other things I can't think of offhand :-) .
 
sk66 said:
Yes, but "the benefits" mostly come from the format, not whether it has a mirror or not.
Click to expand...
I disagree, there's loads of great benefits of mirrorless, focus peaking, live histogram, dual pixel AF.

Whilst they might be available with live view, surely most of us prefer the ergonomics of a VF.
 
How many Nikon and Canon lenses have been developed for the future, to match high resolution sensor technology? Sony is dictating the sensor direction and high resolution is where it is heading.... the Sony G Master lenses are made specifically with this in mind.
So Nikon and Canon relying totally on their existing lenses might not work for certain photographers, studio/landscape work etc.
 
Riz_Guru said:
How many Nikon and Canon lenses have been developed for the future, to match high resolution sensor technology? Sony is dictating the sensor direction and high resolution is where it is heading.... the Sony G Master lenses are made specifically with this in mind.
So Nikon and Canon relying totally on their existing lenses might not work for certain photographers, studio/landscape work etc.
Click to expand...

The g masters are also outresolved if you think of it that way and check dxo.
 
This is interesting especially as I keep flirting with the idea of an XT-2 (made even more tempting with a £400 trade in for my Xpro1) being mainly a Nikon shooter being able to use my existing lenses on a mirror-less camera would be a bonus.

But I'm guessing a new Mirror-less Nikon is a long way off
 
Riz_Guru said:
How many Nikon and Canon lenses have been developed for the future, to match high resolution sensor technology? Sony is dictating the sensor direction and high resolution is where it is heading.... the Sony G Master lenses are made specifically with this in mind.
So Nikon and Canon relying totally on their existing lenses might not work for certain photographers, studio/landscape work etc.
Click to expand...

You've got to be really pixel peeping to notice any difference here. The G Masters may be great but they are all at a significant price premium over the equivalent F2.8 pro glass available and more to the point already in the bags of people with Canikon.

Then if you look at the other options like Batis and Sony other lenses they are hugely expensive for not so fast, no better glass.
 
Last edited:
Gaz J said:
It would be reasonable to think that someone in Nikon and Canon has slapped a D5 or a 1DX down on an engineers table and said "get that working with no mirror".
Click to expand...

Quite, I'd be amazed if both companies didn't have many borderline production ready prototypes of exactly these out in the field, plenty of room in those bodies to put mirrorless tech in and use them out in the open very day.

The issue is probably as much commercial as it is technical. Canon and Nikon (particularly Canon) are ultra cautious not to cannibalize their own sales, to the point of intentionally deleting features for the sake of it. It's the antithesis to the Fuji approach. Putting what is effectively a 'new' system out there that directly competes with their own DSLR bodies (even if they use the same lens mount) is something they've been extremely risk adverse to, and probably why they've been careful to place their existing mirrorless offerings where they have for now.

Nikon will only release a FF mirrorless body when they are 100% certain of where it will sit in their hierarchy and how it will impact upon the DSLRs. They'll probably want a gradual transition and probably trip over themselves many times to get there.
 
Last edited:
I rather doubt that the current range of Nikon and Canon lenses will form the basis of their mirror-less cameras.
The Lens register will need an adapter to fit as the body depth will be far smaller without a mirror.
but more importantly the latest computation of lens designs are both smaller and much higher resolution, to cater for even higher pixel densities than now.

It is true that existing lenses will be able to be fitted, but it is also unlikely that their aperture configuration is ideal for the different requirements of mirror-less cameras.
or by extension... the need for silent and smooth aperture selling for video use, as this seems to becoming a new standard requirement in new designs.

While there is no doubt that a good big one will always beat a good small one.
The Best APS results and ergonomics are now so good that the advantage of the larger format loses it trade off value in all other respects.
The only outstanding factor in favour of FF for sorts photography is the higher extreme ISO quality. though in the real world of professional end use, this is hardly a factor at all, as the difference is all but indistinguishable in all media.

I rather think that the Fuji concept of a smaller format general purpose professional camera range, coupled with a medium format range for those that need the benefit of ultimate quality. will fulfill all actual needs, if perhaps not all prejudices.

As to professional not being bothered by size and weight... for much of my working life I used large format and latterly medium format. as I result I now suffer from Spondylitis in two vertebrae in my lower back and also one in my neck. There is absolutely no purpose in being macho about the weight of the kit one choses.
.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
As to professional not being bothered by size and weight... for much of my working life I used large format and latterly medium format. as I result I now suffer from Spondylitis in two vertebrae in my lower back and also one in my neck. There is absolutely no purpose in being macho about the weight of the kit one choses.
.
Click to expand...

Agree with that, the D750 seemed to have a big uptake from wedding shooters formerly welded to D4/5 bodies, similarly the rather fab G 1.8 lenses have had success in the same field. Aside from pros who use the monstrous tele primes I can't imagine too many working professionals would choose to intentionally carry heavier gear around all day if they didn't need to.
 
Downton Mini said:
This is interesting especially as I keep flirting with the idea of an XT-2 (made even more tempting with a £400 trade in for my Xpro1) being mainly a Nikon shooter being able to use my existing lenses on a mirror-less camera would be a bonus.
Click to expand...

£400 trade in for an X-Pro1, blimey where's that! :eek:
 
wibbly said:
£400 trade in for an X-Pro1, blimey where's that! :eek:
Click to expand...

Wex £200 form Wex and £200 from Fuji it is so tempting but I've heard of 2 with n our club people who have been disappointed with their XT-2's but it is seriously tempting!

I only paid £499 for the Xpro1 with the 18 and 23 lenses about 18 months ago brand news too!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Terrywoodenpic said:
I rather doubt that the current range of Nikon and Canon lenses will form the basis of their mirror-less cameras.
The Lens register will need an adapter to fit as the body depth will be far smaller without a mirror.
but more importantly the latest computation of lens designs are both smaller and much higher resolution, to cater for even higher pixel densities than now.

It is true that existing lenses will be able to be fitted, but it is also unlikely that their aperture configuration is ideal for the different requirements of mirror-less cameras.
or by extension... the need for silent and smooth aperture selling for video use, as this seems to becoming a new standard requirement in new designs.

While there is no doubt that a good big one will always beat a good small one.
The Best APS results and ergonomics are now so good that the advantage of the larger format loses it trade off value in all other respects.
The only outstanding factor in favour of FF for sorts photography is the higher extreme ISO quality. though in the real world of professional end use, this is hardly a factor at all, as the difference is all but indistinguishable in all media.

I rather think that the Fuji concept of a smaller format general purpose professional camera range, coupled with a medium format range for those that need the benefit of ultimate quality. will fulfill all actual needs, if perhaps not all prejudices.

As to professional not being bothered by size and weight... for much of my working life I used large format and latterly medium format. as I result I now suffer from Spondylitis in two vertebrae in my lower back and also one in my neck. There is absolutely no purpose in being macho about the weight of the kit one choses.
.
Click to expand...

Why does the body have to be thinner? Why not keep it the same size? It doesn't have to be smaller because it can be.

As for lenses for video. I don't know any photographers who use video other than from a "lets see what this does" attitude.

If you're a pro sports photographer then you'll probably be using a monopod with the big lenses so again I would argue that saving a pound here and there is of no importance.

Walking five miles with a 500, body, tripod, gimbal then maybe, depending on your age and fitness level but being macho doesn't come into it. I've just knocked 2 kilos off my carry weight in these circumstances by changing to a ball head and lighter tripod. If I was really desperate to reduce weight I would buy the MkII version of the 500 but I wouldn't want a smaller body, they just don't fit my hands properly.

Fuji's approach may fulfil your needs but it a long way short of fulfilling all needs.
 
Riz_Guru said:
How many Nikon and Canon lenses have been developed for the future, to match high resolution sensor technology? Sony is dictating the sensor direction and high resolution is where it is heading.... the Sony G Master lenses are made specifically with this in mind.
So Nikon and Canon relying totally on their existing lenses might not work for certain photographers, studio/landscape work etc.
Click to expand...

I'd be amazed if all Canikon lenses produced in the last few years have not been developed with an eye on mirrorless. And interestingly, the camera that's caused most mirrorless excitement is the Sony A9 with a sensor that is some way behind the best on several aspects of image quality. (That's not to say it isn't very good though ;))
 
Hopefully Nikon would replace the ancient, rather crude mount, with something mechanically superior, but also make some kind of adapter available for legacy lenses. Or maybe they wouldn't, since one of the key attractions of Nikon is that the mount has never been changed.
 
ancient_mariner said:
since one of the key attractions of Nikon is that the mount has never been changed.
Click to expand...

I would guess that's true, but only on the internet, to a vocal minority.

Fujifilm annual statements make interesting reading, you'd think the Fuji X range is doing exceptionally well (and it appears it is), but it's actually the Instax range that is the major cash cow for their imaging division. The one X camera they highlight? The X-T10.

Poll the various forums and social media etc and you'd think the X-T1, X-Pro range etc are the real winners. Comparatively the X-Txx range barely gets a look in. The X-T20 is probably the hardest ILC to get hold of right now.

The split between amatuer/enthusiast purchases of 'low end' bodies with kit lenses vs the pro stuff is presumably a closely guarded secret, but I bet the real money is being made at the lower end of the market. 99.999% aren't going to care in the slightest if the mount on their camera can accept a 1950s lens.
 
HoppyUK said:
I'd be amazed if all Canikon lenses produced in the last few years have not been developed with an eye on mirrorless. And interestingly, the camera that's caused most mirrorless excitement is the Sony A9 with a sensor that is some way behind the best on several aspects of image quality. (That's not to say it isn't very good though ;))
Click to expand...

The Sony A9 sensor was chosen because it was the best compromise to select for a high speed sports camera. It's dynamic range is in fact quite poor by any modern standard. But it is most definitely "Fit for Purpose"
 
Let's not forget Nikon have been moving towards electronic aperture lenses, moving away from the moving pin or whatever it's called. Maybe something that's been necessary for using existing lenses on pro mirrorless bodies. I guess we'll have to wait and see :)

On the same train of thought, if they did go down the F mount route, would they ditch the in-body motor? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Hopefully Nikon would replace the ancient, rather crude mount, with something mechanically superior, but also make some kind of adapter available for legacy lenses. Or maybe they wouldn't, since one of the key attractions of Nikon is that the mount has never been changed.
Click to expand...

It seems absolutely pointless for Nikon to continue with the existing lens mount into the Mirrorless age. It is very restrictive for modern lens designs many of which have to have had a degree of retro-focus.
The designs for mirrororless do not need this complication, if they use the thinner bodies and bodies and lenses can be smaller, in the same way rangefinder style lenses were always smaller. A larger mouth with an adapter to suit old lenses is the obvious way to go.

A wider mouth also makes in-body shake reduction systems far easier and less prone to causing vignetting,
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
IMHO 'pro' mirrorless doesn't need to be FF
Click to expand...
It does for Nikon, at least in the short/medium term. Their DX lens line-up is definitely not 'pro'.
 
Something else that just popped into my brain, the crop sensored fixed lens cameras that Nikon were making but then delayed and scrapped. Is that because of something similar coming out in a similar ilk maybe? Or an abandonment of crop sensored mirrorless in favour of FX? :eek:
 
ukaskew said:
I would guess that's true, but only on the internet, to a vocal minority.
Click to expand...

I'd expect it to be true for those who have been photographing seriously across a couple of decades or more. I have a couple of older Nikon lenses: 28mm f3.5 AIS and 135mm f2.8 AIS, and they both feel nice to use and produce lovely images. Sure I'm on the internet, but I take pictures in meatspace. ;)

I was commenting on this because if they want to link into a sense of Nikon's legacy then the lensmount is right at the heart of it - speaking as a newish Nikon owner.

I'd agree that they *should* come up with a new mount for mirrorless for all the reasons already given, plus it will let them follow the Sony model & charge OTT for the new lenses (even more OTT than their present prices for DSLR lenses).
 
If Nikon or Canon came out with a new mount for a mirrorless set up then they'd be in the same boat as Sony are at the minute. Not a big enough lens range to appeal to all genres, using adaptors to retro for the old mount with the reduction in AF speed that seems to come with this. Can either of them afford to present a fully worked up mirrorless range with a new mount and a comprehensive range of lenses. I wouldn't imagine that this would get past the bean counters.
 
I'm not sure lens size on a smaller body would potentially put me off. Look at some of the wide aperture zooms for Sony, they're nearly as big as SLR ones because they need to be. The Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 is a monster for another example. At the same time they have small primes, such as the 35 2.8 which Nikon could potentially replicate to keep a small form factor if people wanted it. I think I'm clutching at straws in the hope they use the F mount as I have some really nice lenses in that mount :lol:
 
andy1868 said:
I'm not sure lens size on a smaller body would potentially put me off. Look at some of the wide aperture zooms for Sony, they're nearly as big as SLR ones because they need to be. The Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 is a monster for another example. At the same time they have small primes, such as the 35 2.8 which Nikon could potentially replicate to keep a small form factor if people wanted it. I think I'm clutching at straws in the hope they use the F mount as I have some really nice lenses in that mount :LOL:
Click to expand...

Some Sony lenses like the 35mm f1.4 are relatively large and are probably as big or bigger than the DSLR alternatives but you have to remember that they're aiming at the higher end of the market. Look at the Sigma Art range and you'll see the same thing. These top of the range lenses are bigger than the ho-hum or even the good because they're not aiming to be ho-hum or even good, they're aiming to be very very good. Some of the Sony lenses are the amongst the best lenses of the type, ever, and you pay for that in money and bulk and possibly weight too although some of the Sony lenses are lighter than the competition.

Then there's the resolution these lenses are built for, you can't really compare lenses built for the higher end of the market now and the future with some of the relatively rather ordinary and older DSLR lenses.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top