Leaked pictures and video of the new Nikon mirrorless full frame camera
- Thread starter joe1946
- Start date
i think most of Nikon's lenses offered at the beginning are probably to be affordable vs the more expensive 2.8 glass. a f4 zoom will be approachable for a lot more people than a 24-70mm 2.8. they have 3 fast primes but the "cheaper" fast rather than f1.4 fast.
Rome wasn't built in a day. i hope they offer a solid converter for all of the other Nikon glass.
david
Rome wasn't built in a day. i hope they offer a solid converter for all of the other Nikon glass.
david
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Actually I think f4 is fine - id like something with more reach 
24-70/4 could actually be fine if it is small and cheap - I get along fine with the 70-200f4 enjoying its compact form over the 70-200 2.8
Im a fan of nikon but consistently underwelmed - they dont seem to bring stuff that changes the game enough for one to actually wantto pay for it.
Im a really happy user of D600, 70-200/4 , 1995 20-35 and 1995 50 1.8 - its a great photo package!
Ultimately what 'problem' will these cameras fix that cant already be fixed with a sony or canon?
Stills wise one of nikons problems is that thier 2010 or so system is really good and not really worth upgrading from.
24-70/4 could actually be fine if it is small and cheap - I get along fine with the 70-200f4 enjoying its compact form over the 70-200 2.8
Im a fan of nikon but consistently underwelmed - they dont seem to bring stuff that changes the game enough for one to actually wantto pay for it.
Im a really happy user of D600, 70-200/4 , 1995 20-35 and 1995 50 1.8 - its a great photo package!
Ultimately what 'problem' will these cameras fix that cant already be fixed with a sony or canon?
Stills wise one of nikons problems is that thier 2010 or so system is really good and not really worth upgrading from.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Nikon could get my attention with..
-high synch speed flash
-stills to social easily
-nef video
-10bit 4k video
-super video AF
-non crap 24-150
A d600 without a mirror, less so
-high synch speed flash
-stills to social easily
-nef video
-10bit 4k video
-super video AF
-non crap 24-150
A d600 without a mirror, less so
Sometimes I wonder if you are me... as I could have said the same, and my name is David P! ("David Peterson")
Actually I think f4 is fine - id like something with more reach
I hope they make a 18-105mm f4 for DX mirrorless like Sony has, that is one of my favorite cheapie run and gun lenses.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
These are FF cameras and need a 24-150.. the same thing as a DX18-105, f4 would have narrower DOF in FF, the lens could be 4.5 and still useful.
It could even be f5.6, and if it has amazing OIS with sensible ergonomics/construction together with a great range (such as 24-150, it is a pity the Sony 28-135mm didn't really go that wide) then it will be a very popular run and gun lens indeed!
I imagine that soon enough Nikon will bring out a mirrorless equivalent of their Nikon 24-120mm F4 VR G lens, but a bit more reach than 120mm for run and gun on a FF would be nice. As I find when R&G that you'd often be picking off candid shots at an event when that each reach is really handy to have.
I imagine that soon enough Nikon will bring out a mirrorless equivalent of their Nikon 24-120mm F4 VR G lens, but a bit more reach than 120mm for run and gun on a FF would be nice. As I find when R&G that you'd often be picking off candid shots at an event when that each reach is really handy to have.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
This
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
To give context to my 'anti nikon' posts. I have used Nikon for my business of making images for three decades, they have consistently until maybe 2008 (the birth of DSLR motion) delivered 'must have items' that meant I was a constant buyer.
Some stuff I bought from nikon..
Nikkormat, F301, F3, FM2 (many), F4, F100, D1 (three), D3, D70, D90, D600. Each was a superb tool.
(Nerds will note no F5, or D2 as they were not 'significant upgrades' that would move my business forward)
Glass, 14/2.8 through to 600/4
After 2008 I bought 5d2, 7d, EX1, FS100, F3, FS7 Gh4, BM Micro. My money going in the main to Sony, while contiuing my use of nikkor glass, (Ive bought no Sony glass)
Last edited:
What changed in 2008?
Say the D800 and D750 for example were both very significant camera releases.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
For still images 20mp is professionally to me acceptable - Ive had billboards on the 12mp D1 that look great. The D600 makes fine images, if I were a sports 'tog Id want an (D4?) or D5 for AF and FPS. But if you dont do sport the D600 is amazing!
So the D800 and 750 gave nothing relevant to the stills side. No reason to upgrade.
On the motion side they.. did nothing to make me desire to chop in my FS7 (!) or really desire another 8bit no ND camera with poorly positioned ports.
They brought nothing to the party that would push my business forward.
(BTW I shot a 14 day assignment on the D850, stills - it was great, just like my D600, but heavier - but the screen was still s*%t in the sun, and the flash synch is still low, so it brings 'nothing)
Last edited:
So from the stills side your complaint is that stills tech in general plateaued? Which had nothing to do with Nikon specifically.
That is no surprise.
And the same will happen to video cameras too, but it will take a bit longer before it happens. Although arguably some think it is happening already.
That is no surprise.
And the same will happen to video cameras too, but it will take a bit longer before it happens. Although arguably some think it is happening already.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
On the stills side, for me, Sony's eye-detect AF is the biggest thing to come out in the last few years. It's the only feature that made me want to get a new camera for stills (switched from a 5D2 to an a7R II). I don't think Nikon will have something like that on its first gen mirrorless cameras, and even if they do, it wouldn't be a reason to switch if they don't bring something else too.
On the video side, though, there's plenty of room for improvement. If the new camera records 4k 60fps 14-bit RAW video, I'm getting one. But we all know that's not happening: it will have the same old weak 8-bit codec and not-so-flat pseudo-log profile. Thanks but no thanks. I think I'm getting a pocket 4k.
On the video side, though, there's plenty of room for improvement. If the new camera records 4k 60fps 14-bit RAW video, I'm getting one. But we all know that's not happening: it will have the same old weak 8-bit codec and not-so-flat pseudo-log profile. Thanks but no thanks. I think I'm getting a pocket 4k.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Indeed stills did plateau, (apart from 'fast to Social'), but the industry moved, we now need to deliver.. 20mp stills, 1mp stills to social NOW, and video both social clips through to full on cinematography.
Arguably nikon do deliver video for social clips (but no ND or usable AF) but the rest?
Canon moved.. C300 C100, C700 etc and even a little box camera I forgot the name of and some video lenses. Sony moved too - FS7, A7 cameras that have a good (im not sure why) hold in video etc. Nikon, nothing yet - OK a 45mp camera that no one needs and a fake go pro that we all forgot.
Nikon
I'm in favor of having the option. I like fast glass also, but sometimes it's nice to be able to go lighter, like when trekking.
