Nikon Announces Development of Full Frame Mirrorless Camera (petapixel.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from PetaPixel: Nikon has just officially announced the development of its upcoming full frame mirrorless camera, finally confirming months of rumors and leaks. The new full frame mirrorless system will be built around a brand new lens mount that "explores a new level of optical performance," but existing Nikon DSLR lenses will also be compatible with the camera using a specially designed F-mount adapter. "The new mirrorless camera and NIKKOR lenses that are in development will enable a new dimension in optical performance with the adoption of a new mount," Nikon says. "The system is the result of Nikon's unsurpassed optical and manufacturing capabilities gained through more than a century of imaging expertise. Proven reliability and trusted performance are core traits of Nikon Digital-SLRs, and decades of feedback from professional creators around the world has further contributed to the development of this system." Nikon says that by finally jumping into the full frame mirrorless market, the company "reaffirms [its] commitment to providing photographers with the ability to capture images that are richer and more vivid than ever before." Features, specs, and pricing will be available at a later date. Nikon did however release a video yesterday teasing the new camera.

Comments

Other companies have had this for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not new. They timed the information release to affect the stock price.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[cayenne8]

I know that both Nikon and Canon are working on their versions of a FF mirrorless camera.

I have 2 main concerns....

1. What's the form factor of the camera?

2. Current lenses to work with new camera

The first one, is that coming out with a FF mirrorless camera that is tiny as an iPhone is not going to do well for me.

I have a Canon 5D3, and the form factor and ergonomics of this size and form of camera works when shooting most events I shoot. A concert for example, using larger lenses, you need this to get a good grip on it, and also to be able to hit the manual controls as needed quickly during a shoot like that where you may have to quickly change ISO/Shutter Speed/Aperture.

Having a tiny body on a camera with tiny controls or basic things buried in menus just won't work in the heat of battle.

And for lenses....well, I guess an adaptor would work, but not the optimum choice.

I've read discussions about flange distances, sensor/lens distances, etc.

But my main thing is, aside from substantial investment in good L glass....is that IMHO, for the most part, you're not going to change the laws of physics any time soon...and not reduce the size significantly for the lens types out there, so, why come up with a new mount?

Why not make a mount that accepts your current lenses natively (in my case, EF), but if you have new features, have maybe new connect pads that the new lenses will use, but would be ignored by the current lenses, etc.

I'm looking forward to seeing what FF mirrorless offers, but I hope they do it right for the pro level or prosumer level needs.

Re: Other companies have had this for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is iPhone full frame?

Re: Other companies have had this for years.

[hcs_$reboot]

FF is 24x36 mm. Given how Apple shrinks everything, I doubt they packed a FF sensor in an iPhone (plus, that would require a way larger lens, distant from the sensor, which would make it vividly visible!)

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[hcs_$reboot]

Sony does this pretty nicely. But when Nikon does something, it's always a professional build, plus the current optics etc... I think it's worth the wait.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[hcs_$reboot]

Nikon was also late to provide FF sensors cameras in the early 2000s, long after Canon (the reason was an inaccurate technical consideration). When they did, the result was spectacular.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

From what I have seen of higher end mirrorless cameras the form factor would likely be more similar to my old spotmatic but without the mirror box. Most mirrorless cameras have a much shorter register distance so adapting old lenses to them is simply having an extension tube with the correct mounts on either end to maintain the proper focal range. The benefits of doing away with the mirror box

Control wise I can't speak to Nikon's layout but having used Canon and Pentax DSLRs I find the Pentax setup to be substantially easier and more logical. I would imagine that Nikon's mirrorless would have a similar control layout to their current DSLRs.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[thegarbz]

the form factor and ergonomics of this size and form of camera works when shooting most events I shoot

Events .... You're not the target market.

Or rather your events are not the target market. I too have a large bulky FF DSLR that I use for "events" (In my case weddings and racing photography). But boy am I looking for something else to avoid having to take that with me on holidays.

FF mirrorless cameras are not there for your battle. They are there for those who actually prefer having something small without sacraficing quality to get it.

And for lenses....well, I guess an adaptor would work, but not the optimum choice.

Of course they are not the optimum choice. What they are is a tool to provide optimum choice, especially when a specific lens isn't available to suit your formfactor.
Excpect Nikon / Canon to launch their cameras with maybe 2-4 lenses and an adapter. Expect things like fisheyes, ultra long focals, a wide selection of fixed wide aperature lenses to take a while to develop. Expect to be thankful for the adapter so you don't need to invest in what would otherwise be a completely incompatible camera system.

Why not make a mount that accepts your current lenses natively (in my case, EF)

For the same reason why they are attempting to remove the mirror in the first place. By bringing the lense closer to the sensor plane it allows you to optimise a lot about the size and quality of the lens. It is the reason why micro versions of typical lenses (e.g. micro4/3rds vs 4/3rds) are smaller physically and have the better edge to edge sharpness, ... typically anyway. Unfortunately changing this distance makes the resulting lens incompatible without ... an adapter.

but I hope they do it right for the pro level

The pro level is not the target market. Expect something that may come close in image quality to their DSLR counterparts in the same price range, but expect them to come up short in both features and price from the top of the line cameras.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can just leave the EF adapter attached to the camera and change your lenses.

Hopefully they'll just provide "open" interfaces so that third parties can build grips and mounts with suitable knobs and buttons, possibly movable, wherever you want them. The result would be lighter and more versatile than the current cameras.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try a Sony A7

Re: Other companies have had this for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, no.

Full frame cameras have a sensor that is the equivalent size to 35mm film. See that tiny lens on your iPhone? If you had a 35mm sensor behind your tiny little phone lens 90% of your picture would be black with a tiny photo in the middle. OR your phone could crop the black out, but then why have a huge sensor?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/full-frame-cameras-deliver-impressive-image-quality-but-heres-why-you-might-not-need-it/

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[petermgreen]

But my main thing is, aside from substantial investment in good L glass....is that IMHO, for the most part, you're not going to change the laws of physics any time soon...and not reduce the size significantly for the lens types out there, so, why come up with a new mount?

Putting a DSLR lens mount on a mirrorless camera would be giving up the main advantage of a mirrorless camera. The lens flange can be closer to the sensor because there is no need to leave room for a mirror assembly.

Having the lens flange closer to the sensor allows for the rear element of the lens to be closer to the sensor.. This makes the overall system smaller and lighter and particually benefits wide angle lenses which can often use a simple single-group design on a mirrorless where they would have to use a retrofocus design on a SLR.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[chispito]

But my main thing is, aside from substantial investment in good L glass....is that IMHO, for the most part, you're not going to change the laws of physics any time soon...and not reduce the size significantly for the lens types out there, so, why come up with a new mount?

Why not make a mount that accepts your current lenses natively (in my case, EF), but if you have new features, have maybe new connect pads that the new lenses will use, but would be ignored by the current lenses, etc.

You can make wide lenses smaller (and cheaper) by reducing the flange distance. Also, moving the mounting ring even a half inch back will bring the center of gravity of your camera + lens closer to you, and make a significant difference in balance when shooting with medium to long lenses.

Personally, I used to shoot Canon, but I don't ever want to buy a lens again that's larger and heavier than it needs to be. Sony, Fuji, and Oly/Panny all look pretty good about now...

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[Trailer Trash]

Presumably "new mount == new lenses"! Which, is good for only them.

I have a Sony a65, and there are newer versions of that series that are even better. Sony bought the camera business from Konica-Minolta, and the cameras are *really* good, including essentially mirrorless technology (not quite, as they still have a translucent mirror to send some light to a focusing grid).

If you have to buy a bunch of new lenses, might want to check out the options.

Re: Other companies have had this for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

And in exchange you get a mandatory LCD based focusing and composition system with worse battery life and an increased susceptibility to heat build up.

I'm not saying this is bad for everybody, I just don't see the trade offs being automatically better.

It's going to be extremely tough to get the battery life anywhere near what we're used to without making it massive.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[cayenne8]

Events .... You're not the target market.

Or rather your events are not the target market. I too have a large bulky FF DSLR that I use for "events" (In my case weddings and racing photography). But boy am I looking for something else to avoid having to take that with me on holidays.

FF mirrorless cameras are not there for your battle. They are there for those who actually prefer having something small without sacraficing quality to get it.

Well, while I agree largely with your full post, the part above I'm not so sure about.

I would posit, that these first FF mirrorless cameras, are not going to be coming out cheap for "the masses".

I'm guessing these initial offerings will at least come out at the prosumer market, and in the $3K or so range.

You're common, every day shooter as you describe, isn't likely to be buying these, but people that WORK and earn with this level of equipment will be the ones Canon/Nikon will need to be pleasing, and get them on board with the new systems.

I would think they'd start with flagship type units, and then, get the masses interested (who mainly don't know first thing about FF vs crop sensors and the like), and see that "the pros" use these and I want one too.

After that, then they put out the Rebel level type mirrorless in full swing.

I wonder if it would make sense for Nikon/Canon to put out at least 2 different form factors of the bodies...one for more point and shoot with high quality (like you described) and one with a larger body that is more suited to take on an even shoot?

And too...I'm not sure what the market for the smaller, easier point and shoot will be when these all come out, I mean look how the cell phone cameras are improving and are "good enough" for the masses, who don't want to be bothered by carrying around extra detachable lenses, or bother learning about ISO/Shutter speed/Aperture...?

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[roc97007]

I have many of the same concerns. Being backwards compatible to existing lenses is important. My three FX bodies are compatible to Nikon lenses back to the seventies, and not being able to use my older glass would be a deal killer. The mentioned adapter might be ok, depending on what you lose when you use it. (For instance, an adapter that didn't support AF would be unacceptable.) Making the new mount accept your old lenses natively is what Nikon had always done in the past -- I can mount almost any lens Nikon has ever made, (with AI conversion (replacing the f ring) on lenses made before 1977), on my D3s. (Exception being specialized lenses that extend into the body). I'm curious why they didn't do the same thing this time.

I didn't see a mention of what kind of card the new camera will use. Nikon killed the D4 by insisting the owner use two different types of storage. That, and outrageous prices for the D5, are the only reasons I'm sticking with the D3s.

Tiny body, tiny controls, also a deal killer here. I shoot action and sports, and having a reasonably large body with widely spaced controls is imperative. I've handled a Sony alpha mirrorless, and it seemed small and crowded. (Otherwise, astonishing feature set, like VR built into the camera instead of the lens. Sony has come a long way. They just don't feel right in my hands.)

The picture is probably a stock photo, but it *shows* a viewfinder. Hopefully they'll have an electronic viewfinder and not make you hold it a foot away from your face and stare at the back, like a pocket camera.

The good news is that our existing pro bodies are going to last a long, long time.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[zlives]

i agree, the masses are happy with their mobile device cameras and those will get better. camera's as a separate entity is for the enthusiast and pro's. heck even Nikon admitted as much last year with their new "focus" on high end market.

Re: Other companies have had this for years.

[chispito]

And in exchange you get a mandatory LCD based focusing and composition system with worse battery life and an increased susceptibility to heat build up.

I'm not saying this is bad for everybody, I just don't see the trade offs being automatically better.

It's going to be extremely tough to get the battery life anywhere near what we're used to without making it massive.

Agreed on all counts. However, my point was that if you are going to introduce a mirrorless camera, you need to play to the strengths the design. Using the exact same mount versus an adapter/spacer nets you all of the drawbacks you listed and far fewer of the benefits (though LCD focusing can be an advantage at wide angles with focus peeking).

Re: Other companies have had this for years.

[Cederic]

Yeah, I know what you mean. My mirrorless camera dropped to 63% battery remaining after just 600 photographs last week.

Maybe if I'd switched the LCD screen off and used the viewfinder I could've got more? Or maybe if I want to take more than 2500 photographs in a day I should invest in the battery grip, rather than just carrying around a second battery as I do now.

As for the heat, well, it's a good job I change lenses occasionally and let the heat out. Shooting in 36C heat in Malta was clearly impacting the camera's operator.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

But my main thing is, aside from substantial investment in good L glass....is that IMHO, for the most part, you're not going to change the laws of physics any time soon...and not reduce the size significantly for the lens types out there, so, why come up with a new mount?

Putting a DSLR lens mount on a mirrorless camera would be giving up the main advantage of a mirrorless camera. The lens flange can be closer to the sensor because there is no need to leave room for a mirror assembly.

It's a new mount ("FX"), but there will be an adaptor so lenses of the current ("F") mount can be attached.

Nikon's backwards compat is pretty ridiculous, going back in 1959 (though you won't get the gee-whiz stuff):

* https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

Certainly better than Cannon, where you can't even put full-frame lenses on crop-frame cameras. With Nikon you can mix and match (with FF cameras auto-cropping as needed).

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[another_twilight]

where you can't even put full-frame lenses on crop-frame cameras

I think you mean that there are some lenses made specifically for their crop-sensor line (EF-S) that can't be used on full-frame cameras. You can certainly use any FF Canon lens on a crop body. Why not take advantage of the different format to offer people more choice? EF-S lenses are often cheaper than comparable EF lenses, just as the crop bodies are cheaper than the full frame counterparts

The Canon EF mount goes back to 1987, not as impressive as Nikon's 1959 but not insignificant.

In some ways it's akin to the Apple/OSX and Microsoft/Windows decisions. You can maintain backward compatibility, but at the cost of supporting old systems and standards, or you can make a clean break to allow a better implementation of current technology at the cost of limited backward support via adapters.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[thegarbz]

I would posit, that these first FF mirrorless cameras, are not going to be coming out cheap for "the masses".

Of course not. These will be priced outside of the dwindling consumer market. I didn't mean to describe common every day shooters. I meant to describe slightly less common every day enthusiasts. There's a shitload of people out there with full frame cameras who have never made a dime off photography, and an even larger group who hobby with the occasional job (like me).

We'll see where it goes, but I doubt we'll see a proper professional targetted with these cameras.

I wonder if it would make sense for Nikon/Canon to put out at least 2 different form factors of the bodies

Doesn't the Nikon 1 series and the EOS M series already qualify for the consumer market here?

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[thegarbz]

You can certainly use any FF Canon lens on a crop body.

The Canon EF mount goes back to 1987

But you contradict thyself.

That's was the GP's point. Nikon's F mount is the original SLR mount. Every FF SLR lens made by Nikon with notable single exceptions countable on one hand work on all SLR and DSLR cameras.

Canon changed their SLR mount from FD to EF in 1987 meaning that no you can not mount any (I assume you meant every) Canon lens on a crop body or otherwise.

You can maintain backward compatibility, but at the cost of supporting old systems and standards, or you can make a clean break to allow a better implementation of current technology

Yep good analogy. Canon is like Apple / Microsoft. Nikon is more like Unix opting for a well designed mount that didn't have the restrictions that prevented autofocus from being implimented 30 years later in the first place. :-)

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

They were still ahead of Pentax which didn't have a FF digital until a couple years back, yes I do mean 2 years ago.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[another_twilight]

The GP stated that "you can't even put full-frame lenses on crop-frame cameras" and appeared to be confusing the limitations of Canon's EF-S vs EF mount.

My comments were addressing that and I mentioned 1987 to try to be specific about what I was referring to. If you read that as a contradiction, I apologise for not being clearer, but suggest as well that you consider the context of my statements.

Canon's switch to the EF mount allowed them to move away from mechanical focus and concentrate on a completely electrical interface between body and lens. This gave them a significant advantage in the speed of their auto focus, which is why they captured the sports and (to a lesser extent) nature market in the early 90s and which gave them a significant lead in the early DSLR field.

Nikon AF lenses rely on the body having a focus motor. Most do, but the smaller, lighter Nikon bodies do not and therefore while the AF lenses work, but don't have auto focus. AF-S and AF-P2 have focus motors built in and will work on either bodies that have a focus motor, or newer, lighter bodies that do not. So, while all AF type lenses will fit the Nikon body, some combinations will not have Auto Focus (usually older lenses with newer, lighter bodies). More, when canon went from FD to EF, they sold an adapter to allow older glass to be used with the newer mount. It wasn't ideal, but nor was it 'cannot use'.

So no, Nikon isn't UNIX. They've hacked on their original mount, produced models that aren't completely backward compatible but are only 'mostly' so and were slowed by their need to continue to support their large customer base. Like Microsoft (but done 'right', perhaps). Canon made a clean break with their older tech to implement something new that gave them some significant advantages in the short term. More like Apple.

ref: http://www.nikon.com.au/en_AU/...

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Caveat - I'm not and have never been a photographer, but I've had friends and partners who were and have sat in on enough discussions, conversations and comparisons to have an interest in the technologies and processes. The competition between these two companies has been nothing but beneficial for customers.

Re:Other companies have had this for years.

[thegarbz]

The GP stated that "you can't even put full-frame lenses on crop-frame cameras"

You're right, sorry I misread probably because my brain couldn't parse the obvious wrongness :-)

Canon's switch to the EF mount allowed them to move away from mechanical focus and concentrate on a completely electrical interface between body and lens.

Indeed. My point was that Nikon was able to eventually adopt an electrical connection without changing the mount. IMO the Canon mount is incredibly wasteful on space in their cameras, but on the upside it's so much larger in the first place. But given their original mount was so small they probably didn't have the space for it either and just applied a "go big or go home" approach to the new one.

Canon made a clean break with their older tech to implement something new that gave them some significant advantages in the short term.

Most photographers would not consider adapters that require optical correction to be even remotely acceptable. It's a downside of the mount to focal plane distance changing in the wrong direction. On the upside you should be able to adapt FD lenses to EOS-M cameras in theory. Though I doubt it would make much sense, some of the greatest canon lenses were made in the EF era.

They've hacked on their original mount

I disagree on this but only semantically. If you want to talk about Camera models that is fine, but talking camera mounts there's nothing hacked about the F mount and nothing at all incompatible with older lenses. Even without autofocus the optical image path is preserved and in full working order. They extended their mount with new features but it was far from a hack. Canon didn't have the space so they went a different route and in the process went big allowing them to add features in a different way (electrical contacts vs autoindexing rings), and their advantage was short lived due to the increased cost of lense based motors at the time.

But really your summary is right. There's a lot of Nikon vs Canon stuff, the reality is they leapfog each other with developments while bringing benefits to consumers of both systems as they go. Then Olympus come along out of left field and provide something completely unique in a few places. Phase detection on sensor, combined in lens and in sensor anti-shock, live exposure measurement. I do sometimes get jealous of my girlfriend's camera, especially when they weigh our bags at the airport.

This already exists?

[Anonymous Coward]

My Olympus epl5 is mirrorless and takes the full range of DSLR lenses

Re:This already exists?

[MrMr]

But not full-frame. That is the moderately interesting part.

Re:This already exists?

[idontusenumbers]

Yes, but does Olympus have "Proven reliability and trusted performance"? What about "unsurpassed optical and manufacturing capabilities gained through more than a century of imaging expertise"? When they made it, were they trying to "explore a new level of optical performance"?

Re: This already exists?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it does not require any adapter to fit DSLR lenses

Re: This already exists?

[nitehawk214]

Olympus/Panasonic m4/3 cameras need an adapter to fit a Nikon or Canon lens. A Canon or Nikon FF Mirrorless camera will need an adapter to fit an existing Canon EF or Nikon F mount lens.

One of the great drawing points of the m4/3 system is they can adapt to any lens from any FF camera.

The only way to not have an adapter is to have a brand new lens for the new mount.

Re:This already exists?

[MrMr]

I'm pretty happy with my OM2n as far as reliability and performace go. But admittedly Olympus has only been around a puny 99 years with their imaging expertise.

Keeping an eye on developments...

[DigitalSorceress]

As a long-time Nikon owner, I am keeping an eye on this.

The big draw of Nikon for me is that nearly every lens they ever made fit onto their modern cameras .. though not all of their camera bodies can provide full connectivity (the older AF lenses used a screw drive type system where newer ones have internal motors etc..) the higher end newer cameras are backward compatible mostly

Granted, I don't own any really old manual lenses anymore (I sold them along with my film cameras years ago) .. my lenses are more modern, but the promise of Nikon that the lenses I have are an investment that I can keep using.. well, that's a big pull for me.

Anyway, I saw a lot of hype about mirrorless stuff but was always kinda "meh" but

Full Frame
~and~
with an adapter/mount to make use of my not insignificant lens investment

This could be serious win.. but I"ll still be cautious and not run out to be an early adopter...

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirrorless designs allows for better optimization of the lens. One of the prime optical design constraints of an SLR camera lens is to allow sufficient clearance between the rear element of the lens and the film/sensor. This is to allow space for the mirror mechanism. Without that space requirement it should be possible to either makes lenses shorter, better, or cheaper. Because old/existing lenses support the mirror space the adapter will simply add the mirror space back in via a simple mount extension.

The other advantage or mirrorless is you don't have the weight and space of the mechanism within the camera body itself, plus, the mechanism always introduces some vibration.

Getting rid of the mirror it is an all around win.

To ensure the user is still able to view their subject through the lens, the camera body will require a suitable digital view finder equipped with a high-resolution LCD streaming the image directly from the sensor.

Really, mirrorless is a win-win design, and my prediction is that 5 years from now all major DLSR cameras will be mirrorless.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[Anonymous Coward]

To ensure the user is still able to view their subject through the lens, the camera body will require a suitable digital view finder equipped with a high-resolution LCD streaming the image directly from the sensor.

I don't think I've seen a mirrorless camera yet that provides a viewfinder LCD of sufficient resolution to duplicate what you get with a proper DSLR. Yes, you need a very high resolution viewfinder display in order to allow a photographer to properly focus the shot. I've yet to see a mirrorless camera with one.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[Anonymous Coward]

    It's not a total win-win. The camera still has to focus, Sony mirrorless do this by stealing some of the light with a pass-through. 1/3 of the light is used for focusing, and 2/3 of the light is sent to the sensor when the picture is taken. It also allows the camera to do real-time focusing when shooting video while still capturing on the sensor.
  I think I read somewhere they were working on focusing using the actual sensor so they wouldn't need to split the light, but don't think that's been released yet.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, the cost-benefit may not quite be there. But it is perfectly possible to make acceptable an electronic view finder (EVF) using existing technology.

This display can achieve 1443ppi.

These displays can achieve >2000 ppi.

What do we actually need?

Assuming the EVF has room for a modest 12mm x 9mm LCD, pixel-perfect reproduction of a modern 50 MP DSLR sensor (ca 8000x6000 pixels) would require 6000 lines over 9mm, or 666 lines per mm. That's actually pretty high, in PPI space it comes out at 16650 ppi. YIKES! It would have to be down-sampled by at least a factor of 1:10 (linear, by area it's 1:100) for it to be achieved using current technology.

Of course my calculation here may be a waste of time as the limiting factor will be the resolution of the human eyeball. I'll leave that calculation to someone else.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[magarity]

I think I read somewhere they were working on focusing using the actual sensor so they wouldn't need to split the light, but don't think that's been released yet.

It's called Dual Pixel Auto Focus and Canon has had it for years now.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Biggest issue I've had with Canon's EOS M mirrorless was the LCD was pretty much impossible to see in full sunlight. That is, I can't see what I'm trying to take a photo of. Sort of a pain.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[nitehawk214]

Another issue with the calculation is that the EVF is pushed up real close to your eye and is less than an inch in size, so comparing it to a phone resolution doesn't show everything.

I don't think you need a 20+ megapixel readout on the EVF to make it usable. Have you ever pixel-peeped one of those high megapixel images? Yeah, no inch-sized display is going to show that detail no matter how close you press it against your eyeball.

The Olympus E-M1 II has a 2.36MP EVF for its 20MP camera sensor. It is decent, but not perfect, I am not going to pay Hasselblad or Leica prices just to get a better EVF. The best features of the EVF are the abilities to boost the image during low-light conditions, and adjust the brightness so it doesn't blow out your eyes.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[Anonymous Coward]

I primarily do macro photography, and can't stand mirrorless bodies. The viewfinders are way too low res to tell if I have focus, and autofocus pretty much doesn't work on very small focal planes with moving subjects. I've used Sony's most recent alpha mirrorless, and that thing needs at least 4x its current resolution to actually be usable.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to provide adequate manual focus, the viewfinder image must be at least 1:1 with the image sensor. If the viewfinder doesn't have enough pixels, then it has to have an electronic zoom function, which makes operation inconvenient (constantly flipping between focusing and composing mode.)

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[Cederic]

Leica sell a mirrorless camera that lets you focus using an optical viewfinder.

Most of the other manufacturers let you use focus peaking. I find that far easier to use than a DSLR to really pick my focus point and its superiority increases as I get older and my eyesight starts to go.

Then there's the digital zoom that lets you pick just a segment of the image to fill the viewfinder/LCD and assess the zoom.

But hey, I'll acknowledge that I take a lot of out of focus photographs. That's mainly because I take a lot of photographs and/or forget I've left the camera in manual focus. It's rare that I fail to get an in-focus photograph of a subject at all - and when I do, it's usually fast moving wildlife that isn't going to piss around waiting for me to manually focus anyway.

In short, mirrorless manual focussing is every bit as good as SLR for me, if not better.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only for manual focus. Also Auto-focus systems need direct access through the lense. Auto-focus working on data read by the chip is orders of magnitudes slower.

Re:Keeping an eye on developments...

[RespekMyAthorati]

Really, mirrorless is a win-win design, and my prediction is that 5 years from now all major DLSR cameras will be mirrorless.

Except you get stuck with an electronic viewfinder, which is massively inferior to an optical one. IMHO.

Better late than never

[inking]

This is very much a good thing. Nikon is one of the last of the major manufacturers to finally start producing mirrorless interchangle-lens cameras. Up until this point, Sony has been the only major manufacturer producing full-frame mirrorless cameras, which many have criticized for having bad colors, bad ergonomics and what not—whether it is because they really don’t fit those users or because of the extreme tribalism when it comes to camera brands in the community is a separate issue. So now we will have two full-frame manufactures using the same sensors made by Sony in different bodies with different lenses.

This will probably make many people happy because of the fact that they can use their old glass and have access to Nikon’s support network. It will also make Nikon happy, because they now have a very good reason to release the all same lenses they have released for decades re-engineered for mirrorless’s shorter flange distance, i.e. making them smaller and lighter.

Re:Better late than never

[dargaud]

This is very much a good thing

Is it ? Is that just a glorified point and shoot ? I very much like having a viewfinder, thank you. It's much easier and faster to see it the focus is correct than on a back screen (big pixels) or, god forbid, the horrible digital viewfinders that some cameras have. And if you are far-sighted, the viewfinder can be set to your eye so you don't have to continuously put your glasses on/off. But maybe I'm missing something.

Re:Better late than never

[thegarbz]

I would hardly say better late than never. As you said there's only one other manufactruer producing FF mirrorless cameras. As for the general mirrorless cameras with interchangable lenses, Nikon has been in that business for 7 years already. They certainly weren't late nor the last in that market either.

In fact one could argue they entered precisely around the point where reading sensors continuously and displaying the image to the user stopped being such a massive compromise in quality. Even the 4/3rds system prior to 2010 left a lot to be desired compared to their mirrored counterparts.

Re:Better late than never

[oh_my_080980980]

No it's pure crap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Bottom line you want to see what the lens sees not the sensor.

As others have said, it's just point and shoot. Sad dad for photography when this is heralded as an advancement for SLR cameras.

Re:Better late than never

[Anonymous Coward]

EVF have come a long ways. I was in the opposite camp when DSLR cameras first came out. My reaction was: lose the damn mirror!

Re:Better late than never

[werepants]

I very much like having a viewfinder, thank you. It's much easier and faster to see it the focus is correct than on a back screen (big pixels) or, god forbid, the horrible digital viewfinders that some cameras have.

It has a viewfinder, but if it follows a similar design to existing mirrorless cameras, it will be electronic. Like you, I can't stand those things - in every camera I've tried with one, there's a latency in the display, so what you are seeing lags behind what is actually happening, and the resolution is limited since it's really just a minuscule LCD they are cramming into the body in front of the eyepiece. Optical viewfinders are the only way to go for me.

Re:Better late than never

[chispito]

I would hardly say better late than never. As you said there's only one other manufactruer producing FF mirrorless cameras.

To be fair, Fujifilm have a really mature APS-C system and skipped FF mirrorless entirely and went to medium(ish) format.

Re:Better late than never

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's pure crap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Bottom line you want to see what the lens sees not the sensor. As others have said, it's just point and shoot. Sad dad for photography when this is heralded as an advancement for SLR cameras.

I think there's something nostalgic about looking through the lens, but a lot of photographers adapt really quickly to electronic viewfinders and don't look back.

Re: Better late than never

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends what you're doing. An EVF is essential for taking photos through a solar filter or ir photography.

But it sucks balls if you're needing to spend a lot of time composing for things like wildlife or nature photography.

Re: Better late than never

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends what you're doing. For nature photography, the battery life is going to be an issue. In extremes you might wait hours for the shot you're looking for to appear where you need it.

Likewise for sports photography, an EVF isn't likely fast enough and likely won't be for quite some time.

Re:Better late than never

[nitehawk214]

The EVFs on most mirrorless cameras have a diopter. I wouldn't say they are quite the same as an optical viewfinder, but I bet you haven't used a new or high end one. I have never used a Nikon camera, but I can almost guarantee they won't fuck that up.

Re:Better late than never

[Solandri]

It will also make Nikon happy, because they now have a very good reason to release the all same lenses they have released for decades re-engineered for mirrorlessâ(TM)s shorter flange distance, i.e. making them smaller and lighter.

Mirrorless only benefits wide-angle lenses. Specifically, lenses with a focal length shorter than the distance from the lens mount to the sensor (that is what focal length literally is - distance from the lens to the plane it's focusing on). In a SLR, the traveling mirror meant the rear-most lens element had to be further than a certain minimum distance from the sensor. To produce focal lengths shorter than that (wide-angle lenses) required a retrofocus lens design. Basically two lenses on top of each other. One is the real wide-angle lens that you want. A second is a lens to take the light from that wide-angle lens and shift its image so it emanates from a virtual lens which sits in the mirror's path. The second lens is the reason for the higher cost (and larger size) of wide-angle lenses for SLRs.

With a mirrorless camera, you no longer need a retrofocus design. You can simply take the wide-angle lens and mount it at its focal length from the sensor. Mirrorless makes no difference to normal and telephoto lenses, and thus offers no benefits at those focal lengths (other than smaller body size). And in fact the focus range for some existing SLR lenses may not work with the smaller distance between the mount and sensor of a mirrorless body. You'll either need a spacing adapter to place it at its SLR mount distance, or the lens' focus mechanism will need to be redesigned.

Re:Better late than never

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to use the volume that the mirror swing would otherwise pass through opens up new design possibilities for more than just wide angle lenses. Many 50 mm lenses and many wide range zooms have rear elements very close to the mirror. Take a look at a lens cross-section drawing, the many corrective elements are arrayed to either side of the effective focal length point.

Re:Better late than never

[Cederic]

As others have said, it's just point and shoot.

They were talking utter bollocks too.

But hey, don't let that stop you feeling superior the thousands of professional photographers making their living shooting with mirrorless cameras.

Shit, you'll be telling me next that Leica full frame mirrorless cameras are just point & shoot. Go for it, we could all use the laugh.

Re:Better late than never

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony sensors have a nasty highlight rolloff and Sony cameras tend to use aggressive noise reduction (read: smoothing out fine detail) to achieve their low-noise appearance. Panasonic's MFT bodies consistently stomp Sony full-frames into the ground. Sony cams can't capture fine detail and brighter areas worth a crap. Frankly, MFT is the perfect sensor size.

Re:Better late than never

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very much a good thing

Is it ? Is that just a glorified point and shoot ? I very much like having a viewfinder, thank you. It's much easier and faster to see it the focus is correct than on a back screen (big pixels) or, god forbid, the horrible digital viewfinders that some cameras have. And if you are far-sighted, the viewfinder can be set to your eye so you don't have to continuously put your glasses on/off. But maybe I'm missing something.

If you've never wanted a 10x zoom button on your viewfinder then that's great for you, but obviously I'm going to question either your honesty or competence.

Re: Better late than never

[Camembert]

The top EVFs, for example in Leica SL or the top Fuji APS camera) are really quite good these days, very high resolution, no latency, with a button you can magnify the center which is good for manual focus when needed, you can immediately get an idea of exposure and white balance. The one disadvantage I noticed is usage in high contrast situations like on a very sunny day.

Re: Better late than never

[Camembert]

There is a catch however. Sensors work best with light falling perpendicular on it, not with light falling under an angle in the corners, like from a symmetric wide angle lens that was close to the image plane. This was much less an in issue in the age of film. Leica has a special layer of microlenses on the sensor of its M camera to compensate this for those who use their old lenses. I once saw a diagram of the sony rx1 lens and it had plenty of rear elements, I assume to get the light falling perpendicular on the sensor edges.

Re: Better late than never

[werepants]

I used a high-end Sony mirrorless recently, and while it was an improvement on EVFs of the past, it was still very limited compared to the optical viewfinders you'll find on a true full-frame DSLR. You need tremendous resolution to be able to manually focus on the fly, or even to really confirm focus visually. And a magnify button is just a bandaid - you have to choose between seeing the full frame or having enough resolution to confirm focus. And what if your subject isn't centered in the frame?

There ARE situations where seeing exactly what the sensor sees is convenient, but for that, DSLRs already have the problem solved with the back LCD. Overall, the EVF seems to be an inferior solution.

Opportunity to go “small” medium forma

[Camembert]

I think that instead of going FF, Nikon has the differentiation opportunity to go “small medium format”, with a sensor of the size as used by the compact hasselblad mirrorless camera. Older FF lenses could still work in a sensible crop mode.

Now that smartphones have become ...

[Qbertino]

... the de-facto standard for taking pictures, we're finally leaving the steam-age of photography.

Well done, Nikon! Bravo!

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The de facto standard if you're a shit kid with no understanding of photography whatsoever.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that is the de facto standard for picture takers.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep-- in the 70s and 80s, photography was a pretty magical thing. It was inaccessible to a lot of people.

Hmm. I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with the gp post or not.

I just got a DSLR. It's *way* better than my cell phone, but also probably unnecessary.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[hcs_$reboot]

Reason to that was/is professional photographers and their old habits / inability to adapt to progress, and these cameras being expensive are bought mostly by professionals. The mirror comes from the negative film on rolls era (basically the 20th century), there was no digital sensor in the camera and the mirror showing the scene "as it will be on film" [but not exactly with the same colors etc...] was a winner at the time ; and it took ages for pro photographers to trust a mirrorless camera. Since quite some time now, the mirrorless cameras viewfinder shows the scene *exactly* as the picture is to be, clear and nice, as the image comes from the sensor, and a lot of progress was made in the screens department.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Somervillain]

Your comment shows that you really have no understanding of photography and I will bet money you take terrible photographs. Most people graduate from smartphones to DSLRs or mirrorless cameras once they have something in their life worth photographing.

Find a moderately competent photographer and compare the results from any modern professional DSLR to any smartphone and you'll see a huge difference. There's a reason professional photographers don't show up to a wedding with just an iPhone.

Simply put, your photos are visibly not as good as they could be, but I suppose you make up for it in the satisfaction you feel in your smugness. Saying that "now that you have a smartphone, who cares about a real camera?" is about as intelligent as saying "now that we have rideshare electric scooters, why does anyone use cars?"

A lot of us enjoy taking photos that look much better than yours. This announcement is not for you, but for Nikon shooters, it is an exciting glimpse into the future of the tools we use for taking nice photos.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[oh_my_080980980]

Ummm no photography was very accessible. You could develop film in your own house.

Today we've entered the world of crap/disposable technology that barely holds a candle of what we used to have.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[E-Lad]

Camera bodies, and whether they're digital or film come and go. Honestly, I have no idea why people get so mesmerized by them. The real magic is in the lenses, and the photographer's ability to frame a scene. A "clear and nice" image doesn't come from the sensor; it comes from the glass you put in front of it and the ability of the photographer to regulate the light going through those lenses. Sensor performance is really neither here nor there in the vast majority of situations.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[oh_my_080980980]

You are a fucking jackass with zero knowledge of photography. The optical view finder shows you what the CAMERA LENS sees, not the film. This is what you want to know. What the fucking sensor sees is fucking irrelevant because sensor quality will vary and changes over time. It will be an approximation of the actual image.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Photography was expense and the development process was too complex for many people. The above poster is correct: "It was inaccessible to a lot of people."

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[MpVpRb]

Smartphones have replaced cheap cameras for taking quick snapshots and pretty much killed the cheap camera market

They are nowhere near capable of shooting a great photograph. It's physics

Top quality lenses are the size they are because of the physics of glass and light

Same with top quality sensors

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[jabuzz]

Really I think you will find what the sensor sees is what gets recorded by the camera and therefore is pretty important and will be *PRECISELY* the actual image recorded by the camera when you press the shutter.

In a mirrored camera what you see in the viewfinder is an approximation of what you will get when you press the shutter. With a mirrorless camera with a sufficiently good electronic viewfinder what you see in the viewfinder is what will get recorded by the camera.

Now we could have an argument about how good EVF are and that the mirror is better because EVF's are rubbish. However what you have written is factually incorrect period.

Ultimately ditching the mirror will lead to better photographs because the gap required between the rear of the lens and the sensor/film degrades the quality of the achievable image, especially with wide-angle lenses.

There is a reason rangefinder cameras have remained on the market despite the SLR.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[jythie]

I still use a Canon 300D, a positively ancient DSLR, for a lot of my stuff and friends who use smartphone cameras (often with much better sensors) are often amazed at the pictures it can take.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Kjella]

Reason to that was/is professional photographers and their old habits / inability to adapt to progress, and these cameras being expensive are bought mostly by professionals.

Or more likely, the lenses. From what I understand most pro photographers have way more invested in glass than in bodies and adapters are less than ideal. They last decades if you treat them nicely so you don't want to invest in a mount that flops, like for example Sony's A-mount seem to be dying. And I dare you to find a photography shoot-out where you easily tell what brand of camera the photographer was using, it's way more QWERTY vs DVORAK than horse vs automobile. Really wish they'd agree on a common lens mount for mirrorless FF though like MFT did for smaller sensors, but I wasn't really expecting it.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Photography was expense and the development process was too complex for many people.

Seriously? Photography was cheaper'n shit in the 80s.

Same as it is now.

Shit quality, of course, but that's what happens when you don't a) spend weeks of your life studying how to operate a camera and compose a shot and b) spend shitloads of money on glass.

Re: Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Easily. I'm not a pro, but my expensive pro lens alone cost more than either of my bodies and if I bought it today, it would be more than both combined.

Any lens works in easy conditions, expensive lenses are about those other situations that are more challenging.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[hcs_$reboot]

Either you didn't understand my post. Or need some sleep maybe ... ;-)

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[nitehawk214]

Unless you are getting paid to do it, taking pictures at all is unnecessary.

But that isn't why you do it. You do it because you want to keep a record of events, to share with friends/family, for art, or just because it is fun. If you get more enjoyment or better results out of using a DSLR, who is some "shit kid" to tell you "you could just take snapshits with your phone"?

If people only did things that were necessary, this would be a pretty shitty world.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[nitehawk214]

Yeah, you have it right. If you are going to stick with Nikon-F or Canon-EF lenses, it doesn't matter if you get a mirrorless camera or not. Reinvesting in lenses is a very big deal and Canon and Nikon don't want to put off their customers.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

>'the de-facto standard for taking pictures,'

If you are taking snapshots!

If you are serious about photography then you won't use a smartphone since these are closed systems. What you see is what you get.

With a DSLR I have access to 300mm+ telephoto lens or 1:1 macro lens that have far better optics than you get with a smartphone. Also, I can trigger multiple speedlights or studio strobes with my camera. Additionally, I can shoot tethered to a laptop where I can easily review the images in real-time on a larger screen.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Top quality wide aperture wide angle lenses for use with SLRs are very, very good. What a mirrorless design makes possible is a top quality wide aperture wide angle lens that weighs 8 ounces instead of 3 pounds.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Cederic]

Seriously? Photography was cheaper'n shit in the 80s.

When a single photograph cost me more than a day's income (which was the case in the 80s) it sure as fuck wasn't cheaper'n shit.

I certaiinly didn't carry a camera in my pocket that could take thousands of photographs for a marginal cost of 20 minutes charging its battery.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[thePsychologist]

de-facto standard? Seriously? For every snapshots that's true. However, full-frame cameras are not targeted at people who want every snapshots and selfies. Full-frame cameras are for people who want high-quality shots at a variety of focal lengths, often in tougher lighting situations like wildlife and sports where smartphones are next to useless.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Canon 300D (EOS Digital Rebel) lying around too, 18-55mm kit lens and all. 8 megapixels and much lower sensitivity than my 750D, but anyone who tells me that it takes bad photos can shove it squarely up their butts.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[ayesnymous]

I use my iPhone all the time for daytime photography, but it is out of the question for astrophotography and zooming.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[thegarbz]

A "clear and nice" image doesn't come from the sensor

No. A visually pleasing and artistic image comes from the glass. A clear and nice image most definitely comes from the sensor

Sensor performance is really neither here nor there in the vast majority of situations.

I see you're a daylight only / studio photographer. More power to you. In the meantime advances in sensors have lead to a wide world of images that previously were physically impossible to capture.

But hey that's art. You may not like those resulting images in which case the digital age probably isn't impressing you too much.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd assume the latter.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

When a single photograph cost me more than a day's income (which was the case in the 80s) it sure as fuck wasn't cheaper'n shit.

This comment really shows the versatility of made-up shit. There is nothing you can't prove with made-up shit!

I guess the only problem with made-up shit is that the shit that you prove with it tends to be a bit shit.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Camera bodies, and whether they're digital or film come and go. Honestly, I have no idea why people get so mesmerized by them. The real magic is in the lenses, and the photographer's ability to frame a scene. A "clear and nice" image doesn't come from the sensor; it comes from the glass you put in front of it and the ability of the photographer to regulate the light going through those lenses. Sensor performance is really neither here nor there in the vast majority of situations.

"There are some _great_ landscape photos. But not very many." - David Hockney

I do bird photography, so stuff like auto-focus is very important to me and blah blah I can't even be bothered to finish writing this you arrogant twat.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[ebvwfbw]

Seriously? Photography was cheaper'n shit in the 80s.

When a single photograph cost me more than a day's income (which was the case in the 80s) it sure as fuck wasn't cheaper'n shit.

I certaiinly didn't carry a camera in my pocket that could take thousands of photographs for a marginal cost of 20 minutes charging its battery.

Where in the world did you get your stuff developed at? Maybe you were blowing them all up to 8.5X11" or something? I still have a ritz camera package for 35MM color print for 24 double prints and it was $22.76 in 1987. So even if you considered 1 per, that's still under a buck a shot. In 1983 minimum wage was what, $3.10 or something an hour? I remember the film itself was dirt cheap. This is at Ritz to boot, Fotomat (or your local destruct-photo) was cheaper. Prints are what cost you. I used to shoot a lot of slide film, then print it if I liked it.

Maybe if you bought Polaroid film, now you're talking some money. Crappy quality though quick picture.

I used to buy bulk B&W film as well and develop it myself. I must have bought a hundred of those tins over the years until I got married.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[Cederic]

Who the fuck said I had a job at the time?

Shit, the UK didn't have a minimum wage in the 80s and in the 90s I was working for less than $3.10/hour.

But hey, keep judging people by your own income level. Doesn't change the very substantial shift downwards in the cost of photography in the last 40 years.

Re:Now that smartphones have become ...

[ebvwfbw]

Who the fuck said I had a job at the time?

Shit, the UK didn't have a minimum wage in the 80s and in the 90s I was working for less than $3.10/hour.

But hey, keep judging people by your own income level. Doesn't change the very substantial shift downwards in the cost of photography in the last 40 years.

You said it cost you more than a day's income, so I believed you had a job. Maybe you know a money fairy or something? If you didn't have a job you need to let us know how you came upon your money. If it's an allowance from your parents I'm not impressed. It means nothing as a measure.

I used myself because I consider myself at the bottom back then. I mean bottom. I was just a step above homeless. Some of us when we hit 18, that's it. Out of the house you go. End of discussion. If I had $100 in the bank it was a wonder. Maybe we just had it that much better in the US than the UK? Maybe, I don't know. I remember when I was married I had about $300 in the bank. Not a whole lot. I made it work though. Those days are behind me. At least for now.

As for photography, is it really that much cheaper? Sure, I have a canon DSLR and I think it has around 3000+ shots on it. The last one was probably around 12,000+ shots. Nice high res shots. Now if I go to print them, it gets expensive fast. I don't have a lab like I used to. So I'm back to a retail place. If I want trash, Walmart or the local other places. If I want a nice photo of my Daughter's wedding, that's some money. The one hanging in my living room was around $150. In the 1980s that same picture taken with my AE-1 would have been $20 all day long by a bunch of shops. Probably less than that if I shopped around. If I print it on my HP Laser printer? Yea, dirt cheap. Good for a lot of people, no where near the quality of that $150 print. In some ways I suppose, other ways I think it's probably more expensive unless I consider my income. If I consider my income now, hell yes. It's really dirt cheap. I pay a lot more in taxes than people make a year in the US. I know, that's probably not as impressive as it once was since a lot of people don't even pay taxes. We have a lot of freeloaders. I wanted to compare pictures from when I had no money to someone today that was in about the same situation I was back then and I know some people like that.

Done before

[davebarnes]

http://us.leica-camera.com/Pho...
who cares about Nikon?
Late to the party.

Re:Done before

[hcs_$reboot]

Not exactly. Leica does not show a "video" from the sensor. They use a separate viewfinder called a rangefinder, where you don't look through the lens, but through a viewfinder which is offset to the left and corrected thanks to a system of parallax compensation. Not saying it's a drawback (Leica owners are very touchy on this matter!), but it's different compared to Sony and coming Nikon (while mirrorless).

Re:Done before

[Somervillain]

I would guess people who have significant investment in Nikon lenses care. However, why do you feel the need to put them down? Leicas are far from mainstream and I have never seen a professional use them. However, if you enjoy Leica or Sony, enjoy. Maybe having extra competition will inspire them to produce better cameras or lower their prices. I have no plans on every buying this body, but competition is good for everyone.

Re:Done before

[nitehawk214]

He must be thinking of the Leica SL, which does have an electronic viewfinder and is FF. About twice as many pixels as the one in my Olympus E-M1 II. But there is no way in shit I am paying $6000 for a camera body.

My guess is Nikon will keep things at least fairly reasonable to be price competitive with Sony and Canon, not Leica and Hasselblad; so I am looking forward to this.

Re:Done before

[Herve5]

What you say is true for the Leica M that Dave Barnes mentiioned, but the Leica Q definitely features a full-featured EVF. (and has for two years) : http://us.leica-camera.com/Pho...

Re:Opportunity to go “small” medium fo

[hcs_$reboot]

Would be way more expensive.

It is full frame

[future assassin]

for the m43 mount. Besides hello Sony....

Re:It is full frame

[MrMr]

Well, if you want to redefine full frame everything can be, but in this universe the MFT sensor is quarter frame http://photoseek.com/2013/comp...

Re:It is full frame

[future assassin]

It might be small but still delivers kick ass results even vs my A7s. GH5s available light ISO 12800. 1080 didn't use 4k yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Not as sharp as it should be since I was shooting wide open F1.8

Question on this

[b0bby]

I haven't followed this stuff too closely for a while. My impression was that the sensor in a DSLR could be made more sensitve/less noisy since it was not designed to be powered on continually, but only when actually capturing the image. Is that still (or was it ever) a concern?

Re:Question on this

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, a constantly-on sensor will warm up a little, which causes some additional noise. In practice, that additional noise is negligible.

Re:Question on this

[Anonymous Coward]

The advantage of the mirror is that the image can be used for other things than the sensor itself:
a) direct picture for the photographer at zero latency (well, speed of light), at a resolution and contrast that no display can provide. Ever.
b) direct access to the light for the auto-focus, which is way faster and more precise than any auto-focus simply using the data from the sensor.

Mirrorless is nice for things that don't move. Say photo studio. Plants. Scenery.
Where things are less static, SLR. Say sports. Cars, trains, planes.

'Mirrorless' idiocy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like touting a new car model and calling it 'horseless', they present this like it's some kind of major advancement.

Linked Video

[nuckfuts]

Not knowing much about mirrorless cameras, I thought perhaps the linked "teaser" video would be informative. Wrong. The video is one and a half minutes of flashy, animated nonsense. Why bother linking it? What a waste of time.

Re:Linked Video

[zlives]

and now you understand marketing. if you let the product speak for yourself, you may end up with a informed consumer... and heck why would they buy anything.

Try a Leica Q?

[Herve5]

The only difference I saw from my mirror-Nikon was the color temperature in some cases. Which is of zero importance at the time of shooting (and I use grey cards when needed).
Two major advantages are the readability even at night, and the possibility to automatically zoom the image centre when in manual focus.
(disclaimer : I did sell all my Nikon gear for a Leica Q two years ago. 14-bit full-frame, zero-noise obturator and pocketable, two years before Nikon)

Things to consider

[nehumanuscrede]

For those, like myself, who are heavily invested in current Nikon Glass and DSLR bodies, the new mirrorless flavors beg a few questions:

1) Will an adapter be available for F mount glass, how much will it cost, does it introduce any restrictions ( work with teleconverters ? ) and will it impact IQ ?
2) Balance may be an issue when connecting a much lighter body on big glass ( super tele ) that effectively used the body as a counterweight.
3) What does the battery life look like on the mirrorless ? How much are the batteries ? Is it on par with current DSLR battery capacity ?
4) Ergonomics of the new body will be a big factor.
5) FPS, buffer capacity, sensor resolution, dynamic range, file size, type of storage medium, number of storage medium slots ( 1 or 2 ) are all factors.

Overall, I'll wait for the hype to die down and see what the field tests show.

Better than the NX1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most cameras are still playing catch-up with the 2014 Samsung NX1.
Not only does Nikon have to produce something bind blowing (based on where they are now) to usurp this 2014 technology, but it also has to do it at an insane price point. I compare ever modern mirrorless camera against this old 2014 camera, and 4 years later only a few manufacturers have produced products marginally better in some areas (but those improvements have come at a really high cost). I can't really see Nikon making this happen without a premium price point.

Useless marketing video

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure marketing video.
Interested in technology ?
Step away. You'll learn nothing, Just loose a few minutes of your life.
Just spent too much time commenting.
  Bye !

Pure Evil

[martinX]

Can't we go back to calling them EVIL cameras?