Nikon announces full-frame mirrorless camera

Larry Cloetta said:
Leica 50mm f/.95 Noctilux is $11,300, it’s manual focus, and they can’t keep it in stock.
If the Nikon 58 f/.95 was a better lens and undercut the Noctilux by enough to buy the 58mm and a Z6 body and still have money left over (all of which are possible, none of which are inevitable) it will be a good deal for somebody. That could be a very viable one body/one lens combo for a lot of (financially successful) people. Depending on how good it turns out to be. (Though a 58mm as an only lens might be a harder sell than a 50mm).
Click to expand...

Larry,

Do you know which fast Nikon lens (50?, 58?( is known for have extremely low coma wide open?
 
marcr1230 said:
My understanding is that the flange distance needed for SLR mirror box clearance requires less effective lens designs for wide angle ( retrofrocus?) . The short flange distance makes for simpler lens designs and possibly to mount some old rf lenses w the right adapter
Click to expand...

That was the case 50 years ago. No longer so today as the simple and "efficient" designs are not efficient enough to meet modern demands anymore.

Almost all wide angle lenses, mirrorless or SLR, are retrofocus and hugely complex now.
 
One possible benefit of the short flange distance would be that Sony FE lenses might be adaptable to the Nikon Z series cameras. However, Nikon Z lenses would not focus to infinity on the Sony bodies.

If a good Sony FE lens to Nikon Z body adapter could be made, it might entice Sony users to switch to Nikon. There are some great Sony / Zeiss lenses such as the 55mm Sonnar.
 
A few of the Youtube photo gear gurus are savaging these two FF Nikon mirrorless cameras.

I guess these new cameras never met their high expectations.
 
I went with a Nikon D600 DSLR for their line of f1.8 lenses - I own a 20mm, 50mm and an 85mm, all used. Nikon makes decent glass, IMO. I'm glad to see they are producing these mirrorless cameras. I might head that way down the road - used, of course. :p
 
Larry H-L said:
One possible benefit of the short flange distance would be that Sony FE lenses might be adaptable to the Nikon Z series cameras. However, Nikon Z lenses would not focus to infinity on the Sony bodies.

If a good Sony FE lens to Nikon Z body adapter could be made, it might entice Sony users to switch to Nikon. There are some great Sony / Zeiss lenses such as the 55mm Sonnar.
Click to expand...
Given Nikon's 16mm flange distance, the Sony lenses would be adaptable to the Nikon, but not the other way around.
 
creenus said:
I went with a Nikon D600 DSLR for their line of f1.8 lenses - I own a 20mm, 50mm and an 85mm, all used. Nikon makes decent glass, IMO. I'm glad to see they are producing these mirrorless cameras. I might head that way down the road - used, of course. :p
Click to expand...

Liked the D600 so much, I bought two -- used, of course. :p
 
I was thinking about these mirrorless Nikons and am wondering if their batteries can handle the in-camera VR duties of non-VR AF-S lenses using the Z-mount converter. Seems like it might drain quickly. Could be wrong.
 
jsrockit said:
I`m not that intrigued. I guess what I originally liked about mirrorless is that they used to be....or were closer to classic RF cameras than DSLRs (Leica X, Fuji X100, XE XPro). Now we are getting too many DSLR shaped mirrorless cameras that are just a little smaller and without a mirror. Thankfully, Fuji and Leica still make some small(ish) soap bar / rangefinder shaped bodies. If there is one thing that has stuck with me from my RF days is that I like small prime lenses and tend to stick with 28-85mm as my comfort zone. It seems that huge super wides and super long lenses will ensure that most of these new cameras will be dslr shaped with big grips and new school controls.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. The main advantage of mirrorless is that they can make the camera much smaller (rangefinder like) and the lenses are much less expensive to design. Fuji did such a great job that their APS-C sensor is really the equivalent of a full frame DSLR sensor in terms of sharpness and resolution...especially the sharpness (I actually think they are better for BW shooting).

If I want big lenses, I'll pack my Nikon SLRs and tripods - any slightly lower weight on the mirrorless in these cases is meaningless.

tom
 
Archlich said:
Nikon published the lenses' MTF chart:

50/1.8S
napraX.png


35/1.8S
napVzE.png


24-70/4S
nap89h.png


This is why the primes are huge...
Click to expand...

Excuse my ignorance: Can anybody explain how to read the MTF charts?
Thanks in advance!
 
willie_901 said:
Larry,

Do you know which fast Nikon lens (50?, 58?( is known for have extremely low coma wide open?
Click to expand...

I don’t know, the 58 f/1.2 Noct was designed and intended to have low coma, but I don’t know how it eventually compared to others, off the top of my head. Pretty well probably, but I’ve never had one, settling for the 50/1.2 Ai-s.
 
xayraa33 said:
A few of the Youtube photo gear gurus are savaging these two FF Nikon mirrorless cameras.

I guess these new cameras never met their high expectations.
Click to expand...

Most of the bloggers I see are the photographic equivalent of the Kardashians.
 
pixelvandal said:
Exactly what I thought. But I read an article on petapixel.com saying it's manual focus, with a bunch of info on it (not sure if linking to other sites is allowed) but if it's MF only then it would be a bit disappointing. Given the size of the lens. Didn't canon have an F1.0 AF 50mm at one point in the EF line?
Click to expand...

Canon did indeed, they were able to because the EF mount is bigger than the FE Mount.

Perhaps Nikon decided that having a lens with AF that only works on two bodies is uneconomic, it just seems a little strange.

Either way, I'm sure some people will do some nice work with the new pieces.
 
ernesto said:
Excuse my ignorance: Can anybody explain how to read the MTF charts?
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

In general: The higher the lines / the more near to the top, the better. Because the higher the transferred contrast is.
And second: The more even without interruptions (and falling down parts) the better.

But: In this case: Nikon is only publishing simulated MTF charts! Not really measured MTF charts!
AFAIK from the manufacturers only Zeiss is publishing real measured ("true to life") MTF charts.
Therefore you should be cautious with the Nikon charts. Test labs which do measurements always get lower results compared to the simulated charts of the manufacturers (except Zeiss).
 
Skiff said:
Concerning headaches and eye strain caused by EVF I've read it in some forums where users reported that. Also two friends of mine have experienced that.

Concerning possible damage of the retina and possible cataracks and macular degeneration I've first heard of it last year in a science TV channel. They said there are first serious hints to that, but further research is needed.
Concerning the problem of degeneration / short-sightedness caused by too short viewing distances (e.g. smartphone use) you'll find numerous resources by a Google search. Depending on the key words (and language) you use (I've got 200,000 - 280,000 hits depending on the search words).
Click to expand...

I've used Sony, Fuji, Olympus mirroless cameras in the past a lot.
But unfortunately with all of them I've got headaches and eye strain when I've used them more intensively / for longer periods.
That was one of the reasons why I stopped using mirrorless and came back to SLRs.
I wondered whether it was just a personal problem of me. Therefore I've asked my eye doctor. He is a very passionate photographer for decades, too. And he explained to me that EVFs in general have disadvantages concerning the eyes. He explained it to me in an extremely detailed way but as I am "an analphabete in medcine" I don't understand all.
But he was very clear in his results and recommendations:
1. From a health point of view OVFs are much much better than EVFs.
2. EVF can indeed cause headaches and eye strain.
3. With intensive use there is the risk of getting short sigthed and getting macular degeneration.
4. For professionals and enthusiast amateurs which use their cameras a lot he recommends OVFs to avoid eye problems.
5. The eye degeneration problems by the short viewing distance of smartphones are meanwhile very well documented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom