 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jk
|
As manfufacturers move from complex DSLRs to mirrorless I have been considering would I buy a Nikon mirrorless. Rumours abound that since Canon has added mirrorless to their camera portfolio that Nikon will do the same. In fact Nikon did this a while back but the Nikon1 range of cameras never really made it to mainstream use. I think this was due to the small size of the sensor CX (13.8x10.38mm) compared to FX and DX. So the question is ....... If Nikon went mirrorless what sensor size is preferred FX or DX? |
|||||||||
jk
|
FYI Comparison of sensor sizes. Attachment: IMG_1006.JPG (Downloaded 61 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
One of my criteria for purchase of a Nikon mirrorless camera would be that the current lenses should also be freely useable on the new camera. So a mirrorless FX camera would need to work with current DSLR camera lenses. I dont care if this means using an adapter to increase the rear focus distance. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
If we were able to check back to the old forum you would find way back in about '08 that I was a keen advocate for the Nikon mirrorless, it's almost inevitable. Just like 35mm overtook 4x3" and 4x3" replaced 10x8". Replacing the ground glass screen and glass negatives. BUT it will take a while. It's not that long since Graham posted an image of himself in Africa with a 4x3", perhaps with a wire frame viewfinder? These cameras were pretty much the norm for high quality images in that era. Some would argue that wire frame was good because you could see outside the frame and it aided composition... It was still dumped eventually as was the external, clip-on exposure meter found on some cameras like the Leica. Today we are looking at 45MP on a 35mm full frame sensor. Way beyond any resolution ever seen by film and in my opinion overkill in terms of the need for definition by anyone except perhaps scientists and people who create 40 foot billboard images, but I am only a small voice. The masses seem to see ultra high resolution capture as their holy grail and many others follow, the trend keeps camera manufactures in business. Perhaps not just for the ultra high resolution but for the other benefits the camera designers bundle like greater and better high ISO performance and better dynamic range etc. For most uses 75 to 90% of the captured resolution will be thrown away before the target viewer has a chance to see it. But at least it's nice to know it was there once...  To stop this post wandering too far from topic, in a sense mirrorless is similar to the ground glass screen. What you see is what you get. It's the technical implementation of the process which seems to be the stumbling block. How to display what the lens sees in a viewfinder, in real time and with an acceptable resolution. It can be achieved optically as with the SLR but I think for now delay and poor resolution are inevitable until the engineers can create a screen which matches the sensor gathering power. i.e. the matching resolution. They have done it with the sensor, why not the display? However, processing that amount of data will inevitably take some time, even with powerful, dedicated processors which of necessity must be tiny and not be power hungry. The problems with the ground glass screen, which were accepted in the day, was the image was reversed and you needed to have a black cloth to put over the back of the camera and the photographers head so the photographer could see the screen. It had to be accepted then because that was the only was it was going to happen. Just as the current photographer has to accept the current limitations of mirrorless and the cumbersome DSLR. Sony I believe produce a small full frame (FX) body which, with an adaptor, can be fitted to Nikkor lenses, no bigger than a packet of cigarettes. Produces good video and stills, essentially it's a box with a sensor and a screen with a slot for a memory card. It's not far removed from the plate glass screen camera but much smaller. With a clip on loupe to examine detail one can see exactly what the camera will record. Personally I would love an electronic version of my beloved Bronica S2a, 60x60mm single lens reflex with a ground glass screen waist level viewfinder with pop up shield and built in loupe. That camera was wonderful to compose the image, rather than the eye level viewfinder which many use as a sight, to aim the lens at the target, like a rifle. As for sensor size, bigger the better. If they can make 45MP FX sensors then why not put two together and make a 48x36 90MP combo. It can be done, some technical cameras do that and electronically marry the two (or more) sensors images seamlessly into one. Sorry to ramble but it's an interesting question, close to my heart. If you got this far, thanks for reading! |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
Bought 2 new cameras this September, a D850 which I have and an Intrepid 8x10 for later this month. Both will replace older, less advanced models, a D6100 circa 2014 and a 8x10 Karona View circa 1910. Picked up a used Sony 5000 mirror-less E mount, to try it out prior to a possible acquisition of their anticipated next high MP release. Decided to stick with Nikon.  The Karona would have cost too much for an overhaul. I'm not against mirrorless, it's just not for me right now. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
The Intrepid is an amazing project Mike, thanks for mentioning it, very interesting. I have both halves of a Schneider - Kreuznach Symmar f5.6 210mm dual f12 370mm lens, it has a good iris but not the shutter.   According to the Intrepid website their 4 x 5 camera seems very affordable. This is something I find very interesting, away from the world of microscopic dot photography... Mmmm https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/products/intrepid-camera |
|||||||||
Eric
|
The new Sony FX claims to have solved the viewfinder blackout. If that's true they have removed one of the big problems with mirrorless. I believe the other mirrorless challenges are...battery life, battery life and battery life. I also wonder if using existing Nikon lenses partially defeats one of the main benefits of mirrorless.....light weight. The Fuji XT2 requires another two extra batteries in the grip to perform anywhere close to a Nikon. This adds significant weight. Their pro quality lenses also approach Nikons similar lens, weights. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Fuji is a good camera with several novel features....it just falls short on some of the basics that as a DSLR user I took for granted. Nikon mirrorless needs to remember the basics. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:If we were able to check back to the old forum you would find way back in about '08 that I was a keen advocate for the Nikon mirrorless, it's almost inevitable. Just like 35mm overtook 4x3" and 4x3" replaced 10x8". Replacing the ground glass screen and glass negatives. BUT it will take a while. It's not that long since Graham posted an image of himself in Africa with a 4x3", perhaps with a wire frame viewfinder? These cameras were pretty much the norm for high quality images in that era. Some would argue that wire frame was good because you could see outside the frame and it aided composition... It was still dumped eventually as was the external, clip-on exposure meter found on some cameras like the Leica. "The biggest obstacle to achieving sharp, correctly exposed and composed photographs, is the speed and ease of taking the photograph." The sentiment, if not the exact words, of Ansel Adams. "Immediacy is the death knell of quality photographs".....my modern take. Development of most things, cameras included, is focused on improving the ease of use, efficiency and the supposed surety of best results. They may well improve the users ability to 'capture' a moment...but It's questionable whether they improve their photographic eye. That only comes from repetition and thinking about what you are doing....enemies of immediacy. I guess I would start be questioning what the driving factors are that lead us towards dispensing with mirrors? Is it the noise, the vibration, the bulk, the durability? Or Is it just really a manufacturing benefit? Making cameras lighter might have some benefit when you want to carry a camera around all day...but it's irrelevant when you stick a big specialist lens on the front. (as I know to my cost) The moment you consider an interchangeable lens mirrorless camera you are appealing to someone who will have lenses for every occasion and therefore must accept carrying what's needed for whatever eventualities they may face. No matter how clever you may be in thinning the bag contents for the perceived event...you always get caught out. Well I do!! I recognise that future developments will improve on the shortfalls of current mirrorless cameras. But I am not sure making cameras smaller...which then require add on grips to fit most hand sizes; making them power hungry...which necessitates a plethora of batteries in your pocket; packing them with in camera effects....which confuse and baffle with choice..........is the way forward. I feel Nikon have evolved a perfect ergonomic design and functionality in their camera bodies, especially in the 750 and now 850. If Nikon follow the current mirrorless body trends, I fear they will lose some of that natural feel. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think that you are right Eric. However with the use of AF I find I need some extra help as before I woudl ensure that what i wanted to be in focus via the split image or microprism screen now I need to have the AF confirm it. and unfortunately it is not always correct but the XT2 is a street ahead of XT1 but still behind my D500. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I think that you are right Eric. Interesting. I've been getting a few oof shots with the XT2 and was blaming myself. I did notice in AFC mode using 9 multi point that it struggled to give a continuous 4-5 burst of in focus shots...only 1 or 2 were sharp.  They were better when the subjects were static!!! Attachment: IMG_1257.JPG (Downloaded 44 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Nice photograph Eric, do these bird only have one leg? Seem a little odd... Perhaps you are suffering the leg eater firmware update... Like the Sony alpha, star eater firmware update I just read about. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Nice photograph Eric, do these bird only have one leg? Seem a little odd... All birds have a tendency to stand on one leg when relaxed. I clearly wasn't upsetting them. Lol But in this instance they may have fallen off ....as there were a couple of Mergansers looking for them....or maybe THEIR legs had dropped off and were searching for them? Attachment: _DSF2793_sRGB.JPG (Downloaded 43 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
This poor old heron had lost both his feet..... Attachment: _DSF2665_sRGB.JPG (Downloaded 43 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
But this one had still got his feet.... Attachment: _DSF2894_sRGB.JPG (Downloaded 43 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
This poor chap had lost his body... Attachment: IMG_1254.JPG (Downloaded 43 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
The Redshanks DID have two 'shanks".... Attachment: _DSF2469_sRGB.JPG (Downloaded 43 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
And the Mergansers did have heads.  Attachment: _DSF2730_sRGB.JPG (Downloaded 43 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
The lighting was not good on this day, so I wasn't very happy with results, having to bump up the ISO and withstand the gale that was blowing. (At least the high shutter speed masked that!) I am however coming to the realisation that with distant birds even 800mm isn't sufficient...and perhaps even undesirable! I still couldn't fill the frame meaning cropping was necessary which given the poor lighting and howling gale meant high ISO...not the best recipe when cropping required. Although the forum software has softened these images, I am not impressed with the sharpness, even on my screen. It could be operator error or unfamiliarity with the Fuji or a combination of the degrading factors mentioned above. But I have to say my patience is running out with the mirrorless Fuji for this type of application. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Bit of leg pulling going on here! ROFLMAO! My thoughts keep coming back to a story I read about an African photographer who hid partly submerged in a watering hole to get close up's of Lions gathering and drinking. After two days he got his photo's and managed to retreat without being eaten by Lions or Crocodiles, I think he may have needed a shower though... One of my neighbours works as a ranger in Grizedale Forrest, he has shown me photo's of the semi wild Wolves they have in an enclosure in the forrest. He has some very natural looking photo's of them, quite convincing. Not sure what that has to do with anything but I just thought somebody might be interested. LOL Long lenses are never long enough, I had a 400-f4 with the dedicated X2 multiplier on DX which equated to 1200mm f8 but even that wasn't long or fast enough for me. So I gave up on long lens photography, since I have no yearning to sit in a pond for two days to capture a photograph of a bird of ANY species I have also given up on targeting birds, If one has the audacity to fly nearby then I might take a snap shot, as was the case when the Red Kite was hunting in the middle of a car racing venue recently. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric, have you tried increasing Clarity (Lightroom). I agree with Robert about telephoto use and the continual need for a longer lens. This is my reason for thinking that I need to use a 45MP camera. It is easier to crop a sharp high resolution image than to carray a huge telephoto! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Eric, have you tried increasing Clarity (Lightroom). No, because I don't use Lightroom. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Edit, Eric, you were too quick for me! You can access Clarity> Camera RAW in Photoshop as well as Lightroom, not sure Eric has Lightroom... In the 'Filters' Menu>   I agree, Clarity does a good job of more clearly defining the subject in an image. I usually limit myself the about 25% setting. I feel much more and it looses realism, or looks 'over cooked'. Also what might help even more is 'De-haze' at the bottom of the lightroom list of adjustments, very slight application is all that's needed, 3 or 4 points are the most I use on most images I apply it to, usually Clarity is all that's needed. Clarity isn't sharpening as such, more micro contrast, as I see it. It doesn't usually produce a halo effect on most images although it can easily look over done, hence my personal imposed limit of about 25%. In Lightroom you can select the subject alone and just apply the adjustment to that if you wish. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Edit, Eric, you were too quick for me! I have a PS action that does micro contrast...I haven't processed these files through Photoshop though...yet. They were just tweaked on the iPad. But the point is...I want better clarity and quality in the 'captured' (sorry Blythe) image. Of course there's all sorts of digital magic that can be done to improve the appearance but the underlying IQ needs to be there. I know I am not comparing apples with apples, but.the images from the Fuji in the field do not seem to be the same underlying quality of the D750 I previously used. Apart from location, weather and a whole host of possible causes, the obvious difference could be the FX sensor in a Nikon body. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Is that now the famous Starlight Express? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:But the point is...I want better clarity and quality in the 'captured' (sorry Blythe) image. Of course there's all sorts of digital magic that can be done to improve the appearance but the underlying IQ needs to be there. I realise that and it's fundamental, like my Red Kite, it's rescued, it was nothing much more than a blob in the original image, although you could see the pupils in the original NEF, (managed to avoid 'capture!!! LOL). That shows through even though I did my best with it. Post processing should only need minor tweaks, not major rescue. I was just trying to draw attention to the existence to the similar feature in Photoshop that exists in Lightroom, the existence of which isn't always common knowledge given it lives in the filters menu rather than the edit or image menus. The ability to run a JPEG or RAW image through ACR at any stage is handy. Obviously there isn't as much to be recovered from a JPEG but sometimes it's surprising what you can recover. A chap who lives not too far from here went to a Loch in Scotland, some enterprising locals feed the sea Eagles at a particular place and they provided a hide on a boat nearby. They enticed an Eagle down, he caught it just as it lifted a Salmon from the water, a spectacular image with water droplets and action packed. No doubt his camera would have been on rapid shutter, to catch that critical moment. I understand it cost him a packet but what a photograph. It was at a camera club exhibition in the Barrow Maritime Museum. Now, was that cheating... Or should he have had to sit hiding on the little boat for two days to catch that moment? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:Is that now the famous Starlight Express? Without a doubt! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric and I use CS6 so we dont get the latest feature available to CC subscription. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: I don't believe its always cheating! You only have to look at many published images to recognise a degree of 'pre arrangement' was necessary. That may be just being told where a bird sits...or where a rare bird is frequenting. But it might extend to captured creatures in decorated cages! I don't believe many wildlife winning shots are serendipity. I think if the capturer ( ) is trying to give the impression it was exposed on the fly, in the wild and have it used as a measure of his/her skill....it is cheating. But if you just want the best shot of a creature you can get, purely for the aesthetics of the photo, then all actions are fair game. These days, just don't want 'that' photo enough... to put myself through a lot to get it. Lazy old git. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:Eric and I use CS6 so we dont get the latest feature available to CC subscription. Ah, Thought it was available in Bridge too but that may only be CC as well. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think it is in MetaRAW which is why I was advocating its purchae for Mac and Windows. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:jk wrote:  Dont tell jk, but I do have a 'non connected' version of CC which has the clarity option. I just hadn't read or registered its name in ACR.I also haven't used it for as long as I can recall ( I've been using jpegs while I got used to the Fuji so no ACR) ....forgot about its use. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: I still think it's like The Hogwarts Express... so I've added a young wizard. Attachment: Snapseed.jpg (Downloaded 25 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Sorry Jonathan ...wandering waaaay off topic as usual. I would like to see how the Sony alpha 9 performs compared to Fuji in terms of viewfinder blackout and battery life as it's presumably the same sensor that Nkon would use?? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:I would like to see how the Sony alpha 9 performs compared to Fuji in terms of viewfinder blackout and battery life as it's presumably the same sensor that Nkon would use?? Well on paper... Not real paper you understand! The a9 seems to answer some of your needs. Zero viewfinder blackout, ~2000 exposures per battery and 20 FPS. Not sure about the AF... https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a9-full-review/2 I think this is similar to the camera I encountered when I was photographing the Mini-Series race meetings last year which was probably an a7. The young lad who was using it had a bag full of mixed lenses, Nikon, Canon and Samyang, with a couple of Zeiss thrown in for good measure. He assured me they all worked perfectly with appropriate adaptors. What struck me was the tiny size of the camera body compared with the lenses. He used it mainly for video but also took stills. To me the reason to have interest in these mirrorless reflex cameras is to remove a cumbersome mirror mechanism, the pentaprism and reduce the weight, bulk and depth of the lens mount, allowing for a greater flexibility of lens fitment across other lens makers mounts. All that must reduce the cost of manufacture, allowing for more R&D to perfect the new designs and advance the output IQ, ease of use and versatility of the camera. Really all it is is something to mount the sensor, recording memory and exposure controls. In the meantime I enjoy my D3!  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Succinctly put! But I would question the last point because it's also the thing you have to hold in your hand. Removing the pentaprism is one thing. But manufacturers seem to have the notion that photographers hands are getting smaller, because in their actions to reduce size and weight, they are making the units too small in the hand. This is especially true when adding even modest length lenses as it makes it unbalanced. Their answer is to offer the battery grip, which conveniently adds more desperately needed battery help but also adds back the body height they chopped off to meet its marketing brief of the 'smallest lightest serious camera on the market'. It's crazy. Holding the D850, despite being heavier, alongside the fully tooled up XT2, the Nikon felt much easier in the hand. Ok Nikon short to mid range lenses are going to be heavier than Fuji but on the longer lenses, Fujis offerings are still quite weighty. When added to the inferior hand feel I think the Nikon D850 would be the ergonomics winner. So going back to the thread title... If Nikon follow the same route as Fuji, with wholesale size reduction and compromised battery capacity, then I wouldn't be tempted with a Nikon mirrorless. Because in addition it would still have standard Nikon lens weight.....unless they introduced a whole new range of lightweights for mirrorless. I certainly won't be waiting to see what they might come up with. It will either be ....persevere with the Fuji (despite feeling a little conned by weight claims) or switch to the D850. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:
Ah! I don't often hold my cameras in my hand while taking photographs, except maybe the D3300, which is pretty tiny, even with the 18-105 lens. I would say 80% of my planned photographs are taken using my surveyors tripod, perhaps 10% mainly motorsport and field sports like rugby or football, using a monopod. The remaining 10% are are hand held, probably taken ad-hoc in the paddock or where I am unwilling to take a tripod, for whatever reason. All plants and flowers are taken using one of the tripods. Anything longer than 200mm, except casual snap-shots tend to use the tripod, bipod or monopod. I find a bipod very handy for plants and flowers, also for insects. With a bipod you can easily move in and out to follow a butterfly or bee. Granted a grip is handy to carry the camera, with lens attached and for hand holding it provides good... grip? Perhaps the manufacturers of these small cameras could produce a folding handle of some sort, perhaps even a strap handle or something. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Just realised something!! For years I did exactly what you do...working commercially I always used a support. It was only when I retired that I adopted a more cavalier approach and made do with handheld for hobby photography. It was ONLY THEN that I started my quest for lighter equipment. It never dawned on me till now that it was a change in shooting style that prompted the heavy camera complaint. Lately I've been using the monopod again ...as in these bird shots. Of course I NEVER use a shoulder strap on my camera (only on the bag). I carry it in my hand with a lanyard round my wrist. So it's not surprising I am bemoaning grip size. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I dont use a battery grip very often unless I am shooting motorsport. I got the battery grip for my XT1 and hated using it. Same for D700, D800. I will not buy a grip for the D850. I almost always shoot hand held. IfI am shooting with long telephotos I use a monopod. At night or lowlight I shoot on a tripod. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:Just realised something!! Pleased to be of assistance! Some of your remarks during our exchanges have had a big influence on my photography, added to my engineering background, I always seek a solid mount for my camera wherever possible. One of my mates from way back when often said I was so good at welding because my hands shake a lot. It's true, but for photography that's not good, so a heavy, solid tripod is important! You would have laughed had you seen me capturing the Hogwarts Express, up to my ankles in water lugging my big heavy tripod across the moorside bog together with the D3 at midnight. You have sometimes mentioned seasickness when watching hand held movies. I realised a similar issue exists with stills. More than once you have commented that continuously experimenting with various 'oddball' image processing software was just a wast of time, better to really get used to one and master that. So I got the Adobe CC photography package. It all made sense and has helped my photography over the years. Going OT can be good! Sorry JK! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I dont use a battery grip very often unless I am shooting motorsport. I got the battery grip for my XT1 and hated using it. Same for D700, D800. I had to get the XT2 grip...as it was on half price offer. I don't believe the D850 needs the extra grip for holding, the body grip deep enough. Of course having the second set of controls on the grip is useful for portrait shots. I find the smaller bodies cause me to have lesser hold on the camera. There is a tendency for my 'pinky' to drop off the bottom and serve no support function. This means that when using the index finger to operate the camera there are only my two middle fingers actually supporting the body, (apart from the left hand of course) If the body height is sufficient I get all three fingers holding the grip, which is a 50% increase in support and puts less turning stres on the middle two fingers. I guess this exacting requirement may be more significant with me hand carrying as opposed to using a shoulder strap? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Spendthrift! And I thought you were from Yorkshire. I got a metal grip for £20 which has an Arca attachment so it fits on my tripod easily. It adds a tiny amount of weight but makes for a better grip for the camera. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
I think a lot of people who are buying mirrorless "graduate" to buying the big lenses for mirrorless are doing it so they will be able to exist with only the one body. I think that's a mistake. The mirrorless have a really huge advantage in size and weight if you stick to a few prime lenses. If you are going to add weight, there is not real reason not to go with a top of line DSLR (thought I admit that I have used the D500 only a handful of times). If you need light, silent, pocketable, go mirrorless. if you need high quality, really fast focus or long lenses go with DSLR and tripod ! just me  |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think you are right Tom. D500 is great for me for long telephotowork but I expect to use D850 moe for everyday at 24MP and occasionally for my landscapes at 45MP but never at that resolution for portraits. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
TomOC wrote:I think a lot of people who are buying mirrorless "graduate" to buying the big lenses for mirrorless are doing it so they will be able to exist with only the one body. You of course are quite correct Tom....it makes a lot of sense to dedicate specific equipment to specific tasks. The trouble with that philosophy however, is that unless the use is equally shared, one item may get little use...as per your D500. This holds two discomforts for me. I've always subscribed to the one camera scenario...or at least one system... to avoid confusion in functionality. Even when working professionally, despite carrying two Nikons, I preferred to change lenses on my 'favourite' body ...rather than swop bodies. But in fairness I was rarely rushed on my type of assignments. Had I been a press photographer, that might have influenced my practises. I just found the whole juggling two lots of cards and batteries more of a distraction than simply swopping the lens. Silly I know. The other reason is my morbid dread of expensive equipment sitting idle. Probably my Yorkshire ancestry. But you are right, where there is a clear divide in camera capabilities, it does seem to be a fruitless exercise trying to bend one camera to match the other's prowess. I suspect my desire for simplification is also fuelled by the presence of the IR camera, also in the bag, adding further 'unrest'. Perhaps I need to compartmentalise my photographic excursions and only take what needed for that outing. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I agree Eric. It is about habits, strategies and approaches. I wouldnt say anyone was wrong but alllow each to sort out preferences and ways of working. In the end....... Many ways to skin a cat! |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Eric- I admire your Yorkshire approach! But this is sort of a unique situation...here we are...lots of money spent on Nikon lenses (you really get screwed in the 2nd hand market). Fuji comes along with great products, mostly at about 25-33% of Nikon prices and about the same percent in weight (especially if you stick to just a few prime lenses). If the D500 lasts half as long as my D300s (and it should) it will be a pretty cheap investment. I have a few lenses in the closet that I never should have purchases (200mm F2 anybody but most of them will be worth more as a tax write off if I donate them to a school program at this point. So I trim my Nikon lens shelf a little and try to stay "somewhat" restrained in Fuji purchases...it's the best of all worlds |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Eric- PS...I've always felt the way you do about not changing stuff around...until now. I used to always have 2 setups that were identical and one would wind up with almost no use when the time came to upgrade them...and who can explain that. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
TomOC wrote:Eric- I took the brave step of getting rid of all my Nikon gear.....mainly to fund my wife's iPad habit. My Nikon bodies were older models and the lenses were more suited to my professional needs. I had a willing buyer for much of it, in a young man setting up a marketing company in London and wanting to keep purchases down to necessities while he built his business. So I decided I would never give Fuji a fair try while looking over my shoulder at the tried and tested Nikons. I don't regret doing it, as I still feel the euipment I had was not ideal for my retired needs.(i.e. More travelling) But in using the mirrorless, I have realised, like most things, its all about being fit for purpose...and the Fuji has dead spots in its uses, which I never experienced with Nikons. Actually that's not true! I did experience some shortfalls trying to use the D750 in certain professional situations. Anyway...I am content with the possibility that a Nikon restock may be on the cards. The only question is how fully to equip the Nikon system and what part the Fuji system will play in a more realistic horses for courses scenario.... ...and whether I can live with these different bedpartners. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric said.... "fit for purpose...and the Fuji has dead spots in its uses, which I never experienced with Nikons." I agree there are instances where using my Nikons is preferable to my Fujis. Eric, can you tell us your instances where you find this lack of functionality? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Eric said.... "fit for purpose...and the Fuji has dead spots in its uses, which I never experienced with Nikons." The one that immediately springs to mind is the camera dies, if its turned off and on again too soon. It's a known fault that necessitates taking the battery out and replacing it to resurrect the camera. It has to be the body battery ...which means removing the grip first! Not 21century electronics and a pain. It's happened about 3 times to me. The camera HAS to be on CL or CH to get a continuous view of a moving subject. Even so it's like a slow motion flicker movie. If I set it on S single shot it still loses the subject due to black out...even with boost on. This means I HAVE to take more exposures than I need to. It may be I haven't had enough trial and error but I still haven't got the best AFC mode for flying birds. I don't think it refocuses fast enough in AFC. If I shoot a series of exposures of moving critters, there WILL be at least one out of focus image in every sequence. Add to this the battery life and the not so light package when using long lenses and it means....I don't think the Fuji is an action camera. I know there are X series wildlife photographers. I just think they could make like easier for themselves with a DSLR. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I havent found the on/off/on issue but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. The AF settings are OK for me, I will try and dig out my settings. A mirrorless will 'never' be as good as a good DSLR. (Never say never). I dont think the two different AF technologies provide a good crossover but there are advantages to both but the mirrorless has a moving target weakness. Battery life, yes but -- just carry more batteries. There are other items as well. I will reassess when I have my D850 but the D500 and D850 will be faster Af than the Fujis but are heavier! Always a trade off. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I havent found the on/off/on issue but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. This thread sort of discusses the issue of lock ups. I've only experienced it when the camera was ON, but idle and asleep, and wouldn't wake up. I got into the habit of switching it OFF and back ON again...sometimes it works, but other times I need to open her up. https://www.fujix-forum.com/threads/x-t2-locked-up-during-shoot.63145/ |
|||||||||
highlander
|
As someone who recently abandoned mirrorless and went back to the DSLR fold, a lot of the comment reflect my findings. I also hand hold, and hate neck straps. You can see my comments here: http://blythestorm.com/2017/10/13/why-i-abandoned-mirrorless/ |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Nice shots, Eric. The quandry we face today ...which equipment to buy I still maintain that the only real advantage in going mirrorless is to cut down on weight and size. Using old Nikon lenses on a mirrorless camera has no appeal to me at all...if I want the big stuff, I will grab the D500 - no mirrorless camera on the market can match it and it's only marginally heavier than a fuji xt2 (but quite a bit heavier and larger than an xp2) For me, the x100 series is king but the xp2 is the emperor ...I made a mistake when I started buying the whole lens kit...why not get the "best" like the 16-55 vs the kit lens 18-55...well, the weight, stupid (I say this to myself) ... I take one or the other of these everywhere I go. Try as I might, I never came close to doing that with Nikon only.I love the hybrid finders !!!!! but they haven't replaced the Nikons for everything and likely won't just my stupid opinion tom |
|||||||||
highlander
|
I have never had an issue with size. Weight yes. I moved to Fuji to reduce weight more than size, and then moved to Olympus which I found uncomfortably small. I loved the reduced weight, but I struggled to get a decent grip of the camera. In difficult terrain, and swapping lenses in the wet, you don't want fiddling about. Using gloves was impossible, and this meant I was going to struggle in winter. I think the designers of mirrorless have got it wrong, the issue isn't size as much as weight. Small cameras are fine, but there is a limit to what is actually practical and that is the size of our hands and how they flex when in use. I am a relatively small female and I don't have large hands so heavens knows how some 6ft blokes get on with little digital OM cameras. I think Olympus know this because the top end one, the OM1, is significantly larger than the OM10 and OM5 bodies. The Pro end lenses are also balanced to match that body, and again are larger. Still smaller than many Canon/Nikon/Pentax offerings of course, but I couldn't use an OM10 its just too fiddly. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
You may have a point on the weight v size issue. I wonder what a D600/750/500 would weigh, if they just stripped out the mirror and associated mechanism? I remember the significant and noticeable change in weight between the EOS RT and the standard EOS 650, back in my Canon days. Same body and controls, Canon just fitted a 45deg pellicle mirror. It lost a half stop of exposure and the viewfinder wasn't as bright as a standard slr. But with today's high ISO sensors the lost exposures wouldn't now be an issue.....and frankly all EVFs are inferior to optical, so we are already being asked to accept lesser viewfinder clarity. I've wondered for some time whether the manufacturers are merely trying to fill the compact camera gap that is being filled by phones? My wife's new phone has a 20mp camera that produces astonishing quality images. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Recent rumours indicate that the Nikon mirrorless may be FF. I certainly hope so. https://www.dpreview.com/news/5515939934/rumor-nikon-s-full-frame-mirrorless-will-sport-an-all-new-z-mount |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
Can't think of any features that it will have that would entice me to buy one. Too content with the D850 |
|||||||||
jk
|
D850 output is awesome. Attachment: 42E19F0E-4106-40CD-BF12-0588DA8EC83F.jpeg (Downloaded 18 times) |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
Sometime I'd like to get a used full frame Sony E mount for my older converted glass. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Wait for the Nikon mirrorless and you will get a better product! |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
From time to time I pick up inexpensive and often old lenses and convert them to Sony E mount. I have a Sony 5000 with almost a Dx sized sensor and it has a mount to sensor distance of about 18mm, compared to Nikons about 46mm. A lot of these adaptations work reasonably well but are clumsy and not reliable, sort of like when shooting film, where a few cover shots with the D850 can on occasion, save the day. The Sony style FF will not require any bells and whistles, just the basics to see how these lenses hold up with a larger sensor. |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
Would I buy a Nikon mirrorless camera? Yes; I have a 1 J5, it does the job for which I bought it, just about useless in bright sunlight. No; I wouldn't buy a camera with an EVF because my experience is that they don't provide what I expect from a viewfinder. My first SLR was back in the 1970s so manual focus, as a result I use the focusing screen to determine focus acceptability. With the EVF I used the resolution was insufficient to do that leaving me to trust that the AF had got it right. Sorry but for this former MF photographer that just isn't good enough. Maybe; If the EVF resolution were good enough and the screen behaved more like a traditional focusing screen I would consider it but only if I can still use my F mount lenses. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
See it's happening but no idea of when it will be available. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Probably on show at Photokina? http://www.photokina.com/fair/photokina-2018/photokina-2018-2.php |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Robert wrote:Probably on show at Photokina? Maybe Robert |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Recap from NR... https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/27/nikon-mirrorless-camera-rumors-the-big-recap.aspx/ It's looking very good... |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
Still using my coolpix P900 24-2000 mm. for my long shots, or small things filling the frame at 10m./30 ft. |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
Tha P900 is actually mirrorless but not interchangeable. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |