Robert1975 wrote:I've never really understood why people buy into Sony, Fuji, Olympus and other brands... You get Samsung NX1, and it just dies. With Nikon 1 at least you have much bigger second-hand market, F-mount adapter, etc. And look at Fuji and their ridiculous prices.All these companies are "one trick ponies", you get small size camera, but it's difficult to hand hold, you get fast frame rate, but it overheats, and so on, you get the point. Sure, you can focus via touch screen, but we didn't tell you battery life is 36 shots, sorry.Why would someone call their sensor "X-Trans"? It's just a damn sensor. And it always looks inferior to Nikon sensors in Lightroom. If major RAW editing app doesn't support your sensor, you're definitely doingsomethingwrong. RAW starts at ISO 200, ends at ISO 6400, that's just b******.Fuji mount was the only common one I never bought into. X-trans is a gimmicky differentiator and I didn't like the talk of the 'waxy' skin tones the camera gives from cooking the files. Fuji didn't even have IBIS. Now one camera has it, too late for me.I worked on Fuji files once, its own jpeg and then raw once through ACR, the advantages of the jpeg were illusory due to the clumsy processing they put in it to impress the naive. If I can do better images with even the generalising capabilities of ACR then Fuji must be bunk.Claims for Fuji image quality are mainly fringe cultish with (even) less foundation than Sigma cameras. At least with Sigma you can say you can get something extraordinary at base iso if nothing else. With Fuji you get file cooking, buzzwords, and mainly hipster camera chic.One thing I wishallmirrorless would do, and I wish Nikon would take notice but I bet they haven't, is to make a double charger asstandard,in the way it is for big pro cameras. It really is non-optional for serious mirrorless shooting. The cameras typically get through batteries in two hours of constant shooting/video. I never want to go out with a mirrorless with less than two batteries, in fact if one battery is low I feel safer with three, and if I am charging I want two ready at a time. It's bloody annoying to plan to go out and only have one charger when you know each battery takes three hours charging and maybe gives two hours shooting.

MrHollywood wrote:Everyone needs to stop believing that Nikon, Canon or Sony have some secret formula for mirrorless. The tech is around and OLD by modern standards.There's no glimmer of a remote reason where we should ponder that Nikon/Canon will have any issue making awesome mirrorless cameras.The mount is the THING!There is strong indication that Nikon has made their Z lens mount significantly larger. It may be in the 52mm to 65mm range and that's a huge deal.Why? Because... it allows for these advantages...1) Faster glass. ISO and fast glass equations are what newbies cling too. Fast glass allows for shooting in less light without ISO IQ compromise. It allows for more control of DOF and more enhanced bokeh. Higher ISO is not a substitute for faster glass.2) Smaller flatter lenses are possible...and lighter.3) Quality of bokeh improves overall for fast glass.4) MF sensor capability within the system. Larger sensors now fit with superior low-light performance. The FX sensor BARELY fits in the Sony system because it was adopted from a CROP SENSOR design.Canon certainly has a window open to match or top Nikon on this. But Sony is, at least for now, stuck with a mount that was designed for CROP SENSORS. That's a fact.I'm no expert on this, far from it. I'm assuming we do have a few experts here who can shed more light on this...as it were!RobDon't say you're not an expert!!I think you have some of the most interesting and numerous posts.This one is just magnificent in it's content.

fishy wishy wrote:Robert1975 wrote:I've never really understood why people buy into Sony, Fuji, Olympus and other brands... You get Samsung NX1, and it just dies. With Nikon 1 at least you have much bigger second-hand market, F-mount adapter, etc. And look at Fuji and their ridiculous prices.All these companies are "one trick ponies", you get small size camera, but it's difficult to hand hold, you get fast frame rate, but it overheats, and so on, you get the point. Sure, you can focus via touch screen, but we didn't tell you battery life is 36 shots, sorry.Why would someone call their sensor "X-Trans"? It's just a damn sensor. And it always looks inferior to Nikon sensors in Lightroom. If major RAW editing app doesn't support your sensor, you're definitely doingsomethingwrong. RAW starts at ISO 200, ends at ISO 6400, that's just b******.Fuji mount was the only common one I never bought into. X-trans is a gimmicky differentiator and I didn't like the talk of the 'waxy' skin tones the camera gives from cooking the files. Fuji didn't even have IBIS. Now one camera has it, too late for me.I worked on Fuji files once, its own jpeg and then raw once through ACR, the advantages of the jpeg were illusory due to the clumsy processing they put in it to impress the naive. If I can do better images with even the generalising capabilities of ACR then Fuji must be bunk.Claims for Fuji image quality are mainly fringe cultish with (even) less foundation than Sigma cameras. At least with Sigma you can say you can get something extraordinary at base iso if nothing else. With Fuji you get file cooking, buzzwords, and mainly hipster camera chic.One thing I wishallmirrorless would do, and I wish Nikon would take notice but I bet they haven't, is to make a double charger asstandard,in the way it is for big pro cameras. It really is non-optional for serious mirrorless shooting. The cameras typically get through batteries in two hours of constant shooting/video. I never want to go out with a mirrorless with less than two batteries, in fact if one battery is low I feel safer with three, and if I am charging I want two ready at a time. It's bloody annoying to plan to go out and only have one charger when you know each battery takes three hours charging and maybe gives two hours shooting.Perhaps these suppliers are gearing up already for Nikon mirrorless.https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LCD-Dual-Digital-Battery-EN-EL15-Charger-for-Nikon-D500-D600-D610-D750-D800-D810/302799347386?hash=item46803f5eba:g:N4AAAOSwQaJXRm88

Stacey_K wrote:Robert1975 wrote:Why would someone call their sensor "X-Trans"? It's just a damn sensor. And it always looks inferior to Nikon sensors in Lightroom. If major RAW editing app doesn't support your sensor, you're definitely doingsomethingwrong. RAW starts at ISO 200, ends at ISO 6400, that's just b******.I really wanted to like the fuji but that weird sensor... The factory supplied software couldn't duplicate the same look from the RAW files as the camera did, like who does that? The OOC jpegs were pretty good, but if I needed to correct the white balance etc from the RAW file, forget it.Exactly, I alsowanted to like Fuji, I really did - the new XF10 could have been Coolpix A replacement. But with the "weird sensor" it's just a nightmare. I'd rather have an old Coolpix A than XF10.Nikon is "late", they say... Nikon wanted to make sure that mirrorless is good enough for PRO use. Sony was doing beta testing for Nikon.Now they feel they can deliver a complete product. It's going to be great!

I love Fuji and their weird sensors. Fantastic JPEG engine. It is the perfect camera to use and do minimal processing afterwards.with my Nikon I get better results but it takes more work.

Robert1975 wrote:All the good names were already taken?

It is comes from technology and it has advantages normal sensors can exhibits at larger mpix like 50 plus

Robert1975 wrote:I've never really understood why people buy into Sony, Fuji, Olympus and other brands... You get Samsung NX1, and it just dies. With Nikon 1 at least you have much bigger second-hand market, F-mount adapter, etc. And look at Fuji and their ridiculous prices.I suppose the second hand market is much bigger because the system was discontinued.All these companies are "one trick ponies", you get small size camera, but it's difficult to hand hold, you get fast frame rate, but it overheats, and so on, you get the point. Sure, you can focus via touch screen, but we didn't tell you battery life is 36 shots, sorry.I have used Nikon and Canon in the past. As always, there were small and big cameras. If I wanted or needed, I just added a grip. Some things don't change. I regularly get 500 shots from my Sony batteries. Spares are small and light.Why would someone call their sensor "X-Trans"? It's just a damn sensor. And it always looks inferior to Nikon sensors in Lightroom. If major RAW editing app doesn't support your sensor, you're definitely doingsomethingwrong. RAW starts at ISO 200, ends at ISO 6400, that's just b******.There are other major RAW editors other than LR, and do a good job with Fuji.On paper everything looks great - in reality, it's a bunch of compromises, or complete MESS.If you say so.Nikon & Canon get us pretty much covered, I use Nikon APS-C DSLR and Canon pocket camera with CHDK raw. That is all I need. I'm interested in Nikon FF MILC, this might be my first full frame camera.So all your diatribe above comes from lack of experience of using MILC systems.The new mount will probably accommodate MF sensors in the future.Who knows?With Nikon and Canon you get what you pay for, there are no fairy tales!Sure...The price of a used D3300 with 18-55 kit lens is RIDICULOUS, yet you can do pro work with it, if you're skilled and knowledgeable. You can even print 60x40 if you have to.You can do that with a smartphone too.Nikon obviously believes that mirrorless technology is good enough for PRO use now, I'm 99% sure that their MILC is going to be better than any other on the market. A complete product. But it's still no complete DSLR replacement...Why not 100%?

Alex Permit wrote:MrHollywood wrote:Everyone needs to stop believing that Nikon, Canon or Sony have some secret formula for mirrorless. The tech is around and OLD by modern standards.There's no glimmer of a remote reason where we should ponder that Nikon/Canon will have any issue making awesome mirrorless cameras.The mount is the THING!There is strong indication that Nikon has made their Z lens mount significantly larger. It may be in the 52mm to 65mm range and that's a huge deal.Why? Because... it allows for these advantages...1) Faster glass. ISO and fast glass equations are what newbies cling too. Fast glass allows for shooting in less light without ISO IQ compromise. It allows for more control of DOF and more enhanced bokeh. Higher ISO is not a substitute for faster glass.2) Smaller flatter lenses are possible...and lighter.3) Quality of bokeh improves overall for fast glass.4) MF sensor capability within the system. Larger sensors now fit with superior low-light performance. The FX sensor BARELY fits in the Sony system because it was adopted from a CROP SENSOR design.Canon certainly has a window open to match or top Nikon on this. But Sony is, at least for now, stuck with a mount that was designed for CROP SENSORS. That's a fact.I'm no expert on this, far from it. I'm assuming we do have a few experts here who can shed more light on this...as it were!RobThe BIG mount on the Z, coupled with the SMALL mount on the F leaves LOTS of empty space in the F mount adapter. Enough room for a mechanical linkage mechanism to drive for all the pre E type lenses. Even enough for a screw drive, for the really old stuff.we can dream, can’t we?Actually, Nikon can fit the ring type motor in the adapter.  That will be awesome move.

tqlla wrote:Has Nikon specifically stated that this is a Full Frame camera? What if the Nikon mirrorless is a Medium format camera, like the Hassleblad X1Dhttps://www.dpreview.com/news/6307714457/nikon-announces-development-of-full-frame-mirrorless-system?utm_source=self-desktop&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source

tqlla wrote:Has Nikon specifically stated that this is a Full Frame camera? What if the Nikon mirrorless is a Medium format camera, like the Hassleblad X1DSilly poster.  One, MF is niche, and two, Nikon would have to design and retool MF lenses for a new MF mount.   Ain't happening.

Canon proved this very point.  They threw out their FD mount and created the EF mount for their EOS system...and it was that EOS system with at the time very superior AF that allowed them to go to number 1 in sales.Each camera model will have a limited life span, but the mount will live on for decades and will define the camera system for those decades.Nikon has indeed given itself a new life, and allowed even for expansion into MF.  That may not seem such a big deal now, but the dedicated camera market is only heading upstream. All else is smartphone.One can easily envision a time when MF is the new FF; the must have sensor size for serious photographers.Kudos to Nikon for having the courage to do this. It will pay off handsomely in the short and long run.

biza43 wrote:Robert1975 wrote:I've never really understood why people buy into Sony, Fuji, Olympus and other brands... You get Samsung NX1, and it just dies. With Nikon 1 at least you have much bigger second-hand market, F-mount adapter, etc. And look at Fuji and their ridiculous prices.I suppose the second hand market is much bigger because the system was discontinued.All these companies are "one trick ponies", you get small size camera, but it's difficult to hand hold, you get fast frame rate, but it overheats, and so on, you get the point. Sure, you can focus via touch screen, but we didn't tell you battery life is 36 shots, sorry.I have used Nikon and Canon in the past. As always, there were small and big cameras. If I wanted or needed, I just added a grip. Some things don't change. I regularly get 500 shots from my Sony batteries. Spares are small and light.Why would someone call their sensor "X-Trans"? It's just a damn sensor. And it always looks inferior to Nikon sensors in Lightroom. If major RAW editing app doesn't support your sensor, you're definitely doingsomethingwrong. RAW starts at ISO 200, ends at ISO 6400, that's just b******.There are other major RAW editors other than LR, and do a good job with Fuji.On paper everything looks great - in reality, it's a bunch of compromises, or complete MESS.If you say so.Nikon & Canon get us pretty much covered, I use Nikon APS-C DSLR and Canon pocket camera with CHDK raw. That is all I need. I'm interested in Nikon FF MILC, this might be my first full frame camera.So all your diatribe above comes from lack of experience of using MILC systems.The new mount will probably accommodate MF sensors in the future.Who knows?With Nikon and Canon you get what you pay for, there are no fairy tales!Sure...The price of a used D3300 with 18-55 kit lens is RIDICULOUS, yet you can do pro work with it, if you're skilled and knowledgeable. You can even print 60x40 if you have to.You can do that with a smartphone too.Nikon obviously believes that mirrorless technology is good enough for PRO use now, I'm 99% sure that their MILC is going to be better than any other on the market. A complete product. But it's still no complete DSLR replacement...Why not 100%?From now on, it's 100%.

Thoughts R Us wrote:Canon proved this very point. They threw out their FD mount and created the EF mount for their EOS system...and it was that EOS system with at the time very superior AF that allowed them to go to number 1 in sales.And that's with not providing a straight adaptor to utilise the previous FD lenses. they produced a optical adaptor which was a mild teleconvertor it was 1.26 x and could only be used on a few lenses. Nikon are developing a adaptor with wich you can use a wide variety of F mount lenses, that's a big difference.Each camera model will have a limited life span, but the mount will live on for decades and will define the camera system for those decades.Nikon has indeed given itself a new life, and allowed even for expansion into MF. That may not seem such a big deal now, but the dedicated camera market is only heading upstream. All else is smartphone.One can easily envision a time when MF is the new FF; the must have sensor size for serious photographers.Kudos to Nikon for having the courage to do this. It will pay off handsomely in the short and long run.

MrHollywood wrote:Everyone needs to stop believing that Nikon, Canon or Sony have some secret formula for mirrorless. The tech is around and OLD by modern standards.There's no glimmer of a remote reason where we should ponder that Nikon/Canon will have any issue making awesome mirrorless cameras.The mount is the THING!There is strong indication that Nikon has made their Z lens mount significantly larger. It may be in the 52mm to 65mm range and that's a huge deal.Why? Because... it allows for these advantages...1) Faster glass. ISO and fast glass equations are what newbies cling too. Fast glass allows for shooting in less light without ISO IQ compromise. It allows for more control of DOF and more enhanced bokeh. Higher ISO is not a substitute for faster glass.No. You can have fast glass with a relatively narrow mount. Canon did an f/0.95 lens in m39 mount.2) Smaller flatter lenses are possible...and lighter.Not through use of a wide mount..3) Quality of bokeh improves overall for fast glass.Heavens no! Generally good bokeh is associated with less highly corrected lenses. Fast lenses can have quite alarming out of focus areas.4) MF sensor capability within the system. Larger sensors now fit with superior low-light performance. The FX sensor BARELY fits in the Sony system because it was adopted from a CROP SENSOR design.It fits. It works. What is the problem?Canon certainly has a window open to match or top Nikon on this. But Sony is, at least for now, stuck with a mount that was designed for CROP SENSORS. That's a fact.I'm no expert on this, far from it. I'm assuming we do have a few experts here who can shed more light on this...as it were!Rob

Bob Janes wrote:MrHollywood wrote:Everyone needs to stop believing that Nikon, Canon or Sony have some secret formula for mirrorless. The tech is around and OLD by modern standards.There's no glimmer of a remote reason where we should ponder that Nikon/Canon will have any issue making awesome mirrorless cameras.The mount is the THING!There is strong indication that Nikon has made their Z lens mount significantly larger. It may be in the 52mm to 65mm range and that's a huge deal.Why? Because... it allows for these advantages...1) Faster glass. ISO and fast glass equations are what newbies cling too. Fast glass allows for shooting in less light without ISO IQ compromise. It allows for more control of DOF and more enhanced bokeh. Higher ISO is not a substitute for faster glass.No. You can have fast glass with a relatively narrow mount. Canon did an f/0.95 lens in m39 mount.Do some homework. If Canon could release a slew of F/1 lenses, they would have.2) Smaller flatter lenses are possible...and lighter.Not through use of a wide mount..Yup, wider mount with back elements closer to sensor allow for more compact element structure. Do some homework.3) Quality of bokeh improves overall for fast glass.Heavens no! Generally good bokeh is associated with less highly corrected lenses. Fast lenses can have quite alarming out of focus areas.Again, do some homework. Back elements without restrictive mount throat and shorter throw to the sensor allows for better bokeh.4) MF sensor capability within the system. Larger sensors now fit with superior low-light performance. The FX sensor BARELY fits in the Sony system because it was adopted from a CROP SENSOR design.It fits. It works. What is the problem?The problem is that it's limiting overall. Nikon has optimized the Z mount for a reason specific to pushing optical design further. Did you think they made the mount larger for the heck of it? Do some homework.Rob

Got lots of glass.  Not starting over.maljo

maljo@inreach.com wrote:Got lots of glass. Not starting over.maljoYou won't have to start over.  First, Nikon is committed to continue to make DSLRs.  That line is not going away.Second, if you ever did want to try mirrorless, there will be an adaptor.  And it will work very well, because it will be designed by Nikon.  Most adaptors don't work that well because they are designed by a third party who doesn't have the proprietary lens info, and for another brand of camera that too does not have the lens info or is necessarily designed for another brand of lens.  But when the manufacturer of both the camera and the lens to be adapted makes the adapter, then all works together very well.

MrHollywood wrote:Bob Janes wrote:MrHollywood wrote:Everyone needs to stop believing that Nikon, Canon or Sony have some secret formula for mirrorless. The tech is around and OLD by modern standards.There's no glimmer of a remote reason where we should ponder that Nikon/Canon will have any issue making awesome mirrorless cameras.The mount is the THING!There is strong indication that Nikon has made their Z lens mount significantly larger. It may be in the 52mm to 65mm range and that's a huge deal.Why? Because... it allows for these advantages...1) Faster glass. ISO and fast glass equations are what newbies cling too. Fast glass allows for shooting in less light without ISO IQ compromise. It allows for more control of DOF and more enhanced bokeh. Higher ISO is not a substitute for faster glass.No. You can have fast glass with a relatively narrow mount. Canon did an f/0.95 lens in m39 mount.Do some homework.This comes across as very disrespectful, but I suspect you were going for that...If Canon could release a slew of F/1 lenses, they would have.https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2012/01/the-incredible-canon-50mm-f0-95/The reason they don't make a swathe of these is that performance wide open tended not to be optimal, the lenses are expensive and heavy, and they are very difficult to autofocus accurately due to wafer thin DoF.2) Smaller flatter lenses are possible...and lighter.Not through use of a wide mount..Yup, wider mount with back elements closer to sensor allow for more compact element structure. Do some homework.3) Quality of bokeh improves overall for fast glass.Heavens no! Generally good bokeh is associated with less highly corrected lenses. Fast lenses can have quite alarming out of focus areas.Again, do some homework. Back elements without restrictive mount throat and shorter throw to the sensor allows for better bokeh.Can you supply a link that backs up your assertion? Have you seen the bokeh on the Canon 85 f/1.2 - that comes out as rather peculiar despite the wide EOS mount.4) MF sensor capability within the system. Larger sensors now fit with superior low-light performance. The FX sensor BARELY fits in the Sony system because it was adopted from a CROP SENSOR design.It fits. It works. What is the problem?The problem is that it's limiting overall.In what way? That Canon RF f/0.95 lens can be attached, it allows a fair few stops of IBIS.. non telecenteic lenses like the biotar design give some shading, but that is down to lens design and sensor micro lenses. It would be nice to know what information you are basic these assertions on..Nikon has optimized the Z mount for a reason specific to pushing optical design further.You seem to know quite a lot about a mount that hasn't had any specs published yet: is this just speculation?Did you think they made the mount larger for the heck of it? Do some homework.Rob

Leica has a very tiny mount with equally tiny lens that outperform any Nikon or Canon to date.