New full frame mirrorless cameras

[Cesare]

With nikon and canon both in the process of releasing full frame mirrorless cameras, it seems like the technology has moved on enough that the age if mirrors will soon be behind us. I think the key technology that has made this possible is the on-sensor phase detection, which was the main reason to stick with AF DSLRs as their AF performance was quite simply a step beyond what was possible with contrast based AF.

A few years back i'd have said nikon and canon as the only sensible games in town for cameras, which was obviously a declining market and hence unlikely to get the required investment from another manufacturer to create a third option.

Yet here we are with canon, nikon, fuji and sony all producing a range of high quality and competing camera systems. Exciting times!

 

[gavreid]

Some believe that they've missed the boat but they both have the optics, brand recognition and marketing...

 

[eternumviti]

I feel a littl hacked that the new Nikon mirrorless will have a new, larger lens mount. Perhaps there will be an adaptor for the F-mount lenses.

 

[Cesare]

I feel a littl hacked that the new Nikon mirrorless will have a new, larger lens mount. Perhaps there will be an adaptor for the F-mount lenses.

I expect so - they'll want you to buy their new lenses, but i'd be surprised if they don't make an adapter

 

[albireo]

it seems like the technology has moved on enough that the age if mirrors will soon be behind us.

I think I might have missed a few key recent advancements but - what exactly did you feel was wrong with mirrors, and why do you suspect 'the age of mirrors' should soon be behind us?

Because when I look at these mirrorless products, I don't necessarily see ground-breaking tools that are beautifully solving key issues that plagued digital photography tools until now. I see new designs, with a number of advantages and a number of disadvantages.

For example, take this new Nikon mirrorless announcement: from the first teasers, it looks like a sizable camera with a large mount and large lenses. I thought one of the advantages of mirrorless was to provide DSLR-level performance in a compact package?

Take Fuji: they're releasing pro-level 200m f/2 big-a$$ photoreporter-style lenses. Their latest camera is big and arguably heavy. What is the advantage of this class of products over a traditional top-end DSLR?

Overall, I would ask why is the 'mirror' the focus of so much design interest and innovation in digital photography? If it is because mirror-based designs come with significant weight and bulk premium, I think producers are barking up the wrong tree, as the mirror is only one component of the final weight of the setup, with lenses having arguably a much bigger effect.

Sure, Fuji has the XT10/XT20 and you can pop a 27mm pancake on there for a nice compact setup, but I don't see a lot of development in the 'pancakes' area. I see a lot of vulgar high-range high-aperture do-it-all zooms that, plugged onto the Fuji XT10 make it just as big and heavy as a humble D3200 from Nikon.

So where does the big advantage lie and why should mirrors be forgotten?

Genuine question, as I really struggle to see anything apart from marketing in this.

 

[Dev]

The only advantage I can think of is lower noise. Some mirrors make a lot of noise and can cause (albeit small) vibrations.

 

[Stunsworth]

I think I might have missed a few key recent advancements but - what exactly did you feel was wrong with mirrors, and why do you suspect 'the age of mirrors' should soon be behind us?

Personally I prefer mirrors as I've yet to see an EVF that rivals a good mirror SLR - I'm willing to be proved wrong on that. Then there's the question of battery life. On the positive side the view through the viewfinder ought to always be 100% of what's being captured, something that's limited to a handful of SLRs with mirrors.

The winners are the manufacturers as there's no complex, and expensive, mechanical mirror box to include. I suspect lower manufacturing costs in the major factor in the move.

 

[Lefty]

I feel a littl hacked that the new Nikon mirrorless will have a new, larger lens mount. Perhaps there will be an adaptor for the F-mount lenses.

Reports are indicating that Nikon are producing an F-mount adaptor. I'm watching with interest to see how this develops as I still have my Nikon lenses. This is what I am hoping for:

• F-mount adaptor bundled with camera and works flawlessly (including with D type lenses)
• Prices no higher than equivalent Sony models (£2k for a 24MP model and £3.2k for a 45MP model)
• Nikon UI / ergonomics are preserved (i.e. I don't have to delve into menus for everything and the camera feels good in the hand)
• Proper weather sealing
• All day battery life
• A great EVF (big, responsive)
• Fast, accurate AF

Exciting times indeed!

Lefty

 

[Lefty]

I think I might have missed a few key recent advancements but - what exactly did you feel was wrong with mirrors, and why do you suspect 'the age of mirrors' should soon be behind us?

Because when I look at these mirrorless products, I don't necessarily see ground-breaking tools that are beautifully solving key issues that plagued digital photography tools until now. I see new designs, with a number of advantages and a number of disadvantages.

For example, take this new Nikon mirrorless announcement: from the first teasers, it looks like a sizable camera with a large mount and large lenses. I thought one of the advantages of mirrorless was to give DSLR performance in a compact package?

Take Fuji: they're releasing pro-level 200m f/2 big-a$$ photoreporter-style lenses. Their latest camera is big and arguably heavy. What is the advantage of these class of products over a traditional top end DSLR?

Overall, I would ask why is the 'mirror' the focus of so much design interest and innovation in digital photography? If it is because mirror-based designs come with significant weight and bulk premium, I think producers are barking up the wrong tree, as the mirror is only one component of the final weight of the setup, with lenses having arguably a much bigger effect.

Sure, Fuji has the XT10/XT20 and you can pop a 27mm pancake on there for a nice compact setup, but I don't see a lot of development in the 'pancakes' area. I see a lot of vulgar high-range high-aperture do-it-all zooms that, plugged onto the Fuji XT10 make it just as big and heavy as a humble D3200 from Nikon.

So where does the big advantage lie and why should mirrors be forgotten?

Genuine question, as I really struggle to see anything apart from marketing in this.

Some of the advantages that I think are worthwhile:

• On sensor AF - much more accurate so back / front focus issues are not a problem. True that you can get this in 'live view' on a DSLR, but the implementation is always inferior to that of the regular through viewfinder AF (i.e. that which is accomplished using off-sensor AF chips)
• What you see is what you get (EVF)
• No mirror slap (this was a big deal on the D800E who's mirror slap combined with the 36MP resolution meant you had to use faster shutter speeds than you might be used to in order to get sharp results)
• 'Live view' AF is just as fast as viewfinder AF (again, due to on sensor AF)

One major disadvantage I can think of is the potential to burn your sensor if pointed at / near the sun as there is no mirror in the way to protect it.

I don't think people who buy full frame mirrorless cameras do so because of weight savings anymore. As you say, these are minimal and the pro market doesn't care.

Lefty

 

[Mr Perceptive]

I feel a littl hacked that the new Nikon mirrorless will have a new, larger lens mount. Perhaps there will be an adaptor for the F-mount lenses.

A larger diameter lens mount allows wider aperture lenses to be deployed, and more range with til;t-shift, its the former thats more headline grabbing, as a 50mm F1 lens no doubt would be in demand, and offer something that their rivals can't.

Genuine question, as I really struggle to see anything apart from marketing in this.

The biggest advantage of mirrorless is WYSIWYG, you get a true representation of the image on the screen with a live histogram. Yes running electronic screens drains the battery, but battery technology is moving fast, and I don't think poor battery life will be something we will be talking about in years to come.

No mirror box, can make the body more compact, but will require lenses with a different backfocus position to suit, to a legacy lens will require a spacer of some sort to compensate for the lack of mirror box.

When we get consumer sensors with global shutters then mirrorless will really move ahead with the promise of much higher framerates and no rolling shutter limitations.

Reports are indicating that Nikon are producing an F-mount adaptor. I'm watching with interest to see how this develops as I still have my Nikon lenses. This is what I am hoping for:

• F-mount adaptor bundled with camera and works flawlessly (including with D type lenses)
• Prices no higher than equivalent Sony models (£2k for a 24MP model and £3.2k for a 45MP model)
• Nikon UI / ergonomics are preserved (i.e. I don't have to delve into menus for everything and the camera feels good in the hand)
• Proper weather sealing
• All day battery life
• A great EVF (big, responsive)
• Fast, accurate AF

Exciting times indeed!

Lefty

You left out a proper battery charger in the box, unlike the A7iii which you have to charge in camera via USB unless you invest in an external charger!!!

 

[Lefty]

You left out a proper battery charger in the box, unlike the A7iii which you have to charge in camera via USB unless you invest in an external charger!!!

Oh wow - that is stingy from Sony!!

 

[alanbeeb]

As someone who had to send back their Nikon D600 to fix the oil-spot problem (oil from the mirror mechanism contaminates the sensor giving me little grey blotches on the image ) I really like the idea of mirrorless full frame! I keep dreading the return of the problem, every time I take the image files off the camera the first thing I do is check for the blotches, which spoils the joy a bit.

 

[Pete MB&D]

I still use 200 year old chisels and planes, I won’t be jumping ship any time soon.

Pete

 

[Joe P]

I've also read that Nikon will be making an adaptor, so you will be able to use old Nikkors on the new mirrorless bodies, but not vice versa. If Nikon doesn't do this their mirrorless system will likely flop because it won't take advantage of the millions of Nikkor lenses out there.

A mostly pointless and info-less promo video, but, hey, that's all that's available at the moment.

Joe

 

[Yank]

I feel a littl hacked that the new Nikon mirrorless will have a new, larger lens mount. Perhaps there will be an adaptor for the F-mount lenses.

With the mirror out of the way it frees them up to have the rear element closer to the plane of the sensor, so the adapter will probably be an extension tube of some sort.

It would have been a waste for them not to make this big change. The new optics could be quite a step up.

 

[zippy]

I'll be keeping my Digital (mirrored) SLR for serious stuff, but have moved on to carrying a good quality compact camera for everyday use - for most purposes they're just as good, and the worst camera is the one you didn't bring because it was too heavy !

 

[matthewr]

I'm not convinced. The main advantage of mirrorless was to make digital rangefinders like the Fuji X-Pros with all the traditional advantages of a rangefinder over an SLR.

An underwhelming set of advantages and a new lens mount sounds like a non-starter to me if you have any lenses.

 

[Joe P]

This, apparently, is the mirrorless adaptor, as shown in a patent file or whatever they're called.

Lens on the left, adaptor in the middle, camera on the right.

The thingy that has some Nikon nerds getting frothy is 21 — a semi-transparent mirror — which will reduce the amount of light hitting the camera's sensor and perhaps degrading quality a bit.

Joe

 

[Yank]

The thingy that has some Nikon nerds getting frothy is 21 — a semi-transparent mirror — which will reduce the amount of light hitting the camera's sensor and perhaps degrading quality a bit.

Reminiscent of the old Canon Pellix...

 

[Cesare]

The benefits of no mirror is a smaller lighter camera, less mechanically to go wrong, shorter registration distance, so simpler lenses for wide angle, 100% viewfinder, any effects (film mode, B&W etc) applied to the viewing image, easier hand-holdability due to lack of mirror slap, 1st class video support rather than an add-on, quieter in operation, bright finder when shooting in the dark, no autofocus adjustment per-lens required, or calibration required. Those for a start.

Downsides? Lack of an optical finder.

So for my money, it's the system of the future.

I'm a big fan of cameras with mirrors, but even I can see there's an endgame in play with these newer cameras.