Nikon Strikes Back At Sony With First Full-Frame Mirrorless Cameras (theverge.com)

After weeks of teases, Nikon has unveiled its first brand new full-frame mirrorless cameras to challenge Sony in the mirrorless market. As The Verge notes, the Z7 and Z6 are "basically a tit-for-tat response to Sony's A7III and A7RIII, and Nikon is aggressively going several steps beyond what Canon has attempted with mirrorless cameras." From the report: The Z7, coming on September 27th, has a 45.7-megapixel sensor, 493 focus points, and 64-25600 ISO. The Z6 will follow in "late November" with a 24.5-megapixel sensor, 273 focus points, and 100-51200 ISO. The cameras bring with them an all-new Z mount system that will debut with a 24-70mm f/4 "kit" lens. With the lens bundled, the Z7 will run $3,999.95, with the Z6 at $2,599.95. The lens runs $999.95 on its own and has a minimum focus distance of under 12 inches across its zoom range. A 35mm f/1.8 prime ($845.95) will be available at launch as well. There's also a 50mm f/1.8 prime ($599.95) coming in October that Nikon tells me has astounded some of its engineers with sharpness and edge-to-edge clarity. The company is releasing a $250 FTZ adapter that will allow these cameras to support Nikon's F-mount lenses. The adapter offers "full compatibility" (support for autofocus and auto exposure) with over 90 lenses. "Nikon is promising basic compatibility with approximately 360 existing F lenses for those that don't mind handling focus and exposure," reports The Verge.

Comments

Re:Slashdot is dead

[thesupraman]

Yep.

Sony A6000

[Anonymous Coward]

I purchased the older Sony A6000 recently at a heavily discounted price. Really happy with it. You don't need to use the flash to take photos inside. Very fast focus which is good for taking photos of my dog who will not sit still for a second.

Re:Sony A6000

[Anonymous Coward]

your a doosh

Re: Sony A6000

[Anonymous Coward]

His what?

Re: Sony A6000

[Anonymous Coward]

So says the iPhone or android phone photographer who only ever looks at photos on a small phone screen! Yeah, your phone takes DSLR quality photos!

Re: Sony A6000

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe reply to the correct post?

Re:Sony A6000

[PixetaledPikachu]

You do realize that the need for flash use depends more on the lens than the sensor? Go back and learn photography 101.

He could be saying that the sensor produce very usable image at high ISO.

Re: Sony A6000

[Anonymous Coward]

His "a" douche. As opposed to his backup "b" douche (which I believe is also a beaver themed pokemon).

Looks like a solid effort

[OYAHHH]

Straight outta the chute for Nikon. As an avid photographer, Canon gear here, it is nice to see some competition in what I think is a bit of a stagnant market.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[OYAHHH]

I would love to have one of those f0.95 50mm primes they plan on releasing in 2019. Now that would be a fun toy to say the least.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Brett Buck]

You don't really need that, with current-day levels of ISO performance, you can literally take hand-held pictures of stars at night with a F3.5 lens, and little degradation of the quality.

  You may have needed F-.95 lenses in 1960, when Tri-X was as fast as it got, but not when you can easily operated at 5- and even 6-digit ASA levels.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[OYAHHH]

I want it for the depth of field performance which is certainly not achievable with f3.5.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss focus often enough with a 50mm f/1.4 on a 35mm camera that I doubt it would be as useful as it sounds.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[OYAHHH]

I have a 50mm f1.4 and I do pretty well with it focus wise. I would say i hit focus about 75% of the time.

I'm not expecting 50mm f1.8 performance from a f0.95 lens.

But, I certainly expect it will be easier to use than the world's most difficult lens, the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro lens. I have one of those and my ratio of good to bad is around one good to around ninety-nine bad.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha,

There are literally people modding this guy up for his ignorance as to why a f0.95 lens would be desirable.

WOW!

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only DoF but several other aspects too. It is oh so funny when people make as hat claims like Brett Buck.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

I never have focusing issues on my Canon 80D with the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Kjella]

Straight outta the chute for Nikon. As an avid photographer, Canon gear here, it is nice to see some competition in what I think is a bit of a stagnant market.

Seems to me Sony has doing a good job whipping themselves in the mirrorless market. Looking just at full frame they've had their balanced, resolution (r) and sensitivity (s) based lines. And the a9 that is a FPS monster.

a7 (2013)
a7r (2013)
a7s (2014)
a7 II (2015)
a7r II (2015)
a7s II (2015)
a9 (2017)
a7r III (2017)
a7 III (2018)

I won't compare them to other brands, but my impression from the reviews is that every one of them has been a quite substantial upgrade over its former "self". So much so that some people are whining over how quickly their old camera is dropping in value, well that's how progress works like when computers had crazy YoY improvements. It's the Canon/Nikon fans that have been waiting and waiting for when they're going to make a countermove, well this is Nikon's attempt. I guess it's okay but I don't think they're winning over many Sony customers, this is more like let's stop the bleeding and try to keep Nikon users on Nikon. I don't think many are buying this unless they are already pretty heavily invested in that system.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Malc]

I donâ(TM)t believe you. Maybe you only shoot static objects? People move though and with an in-focus depth of less than 1 cm, itâ(TM)s easy for example to get the tip of sonebodyâ(TM)s nose in focus and their eyes out of focus, which is essentially a useless photo. And yes, I also have an 80D and a 50mm f/1.4.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

With what camera?
Brett?
With what camera?
Because I have a a7sIi and a 5Ds and a GH5with a speedbooater and let me tell you, there is a shit ton of image degradation at high ISO.

I mean it is magical compared to film, but what you’re saying isn’t really true.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[johannesg]

You don't really need that, with current-day levels of ISO performance, you can literally take hand-held pictures of stars at night with a F3.5 lens, and little degradation of the quality.

To take a halfway decent image of the milky way, you need something like ISO3200 (which is fairly noisy on most camera's, if they even support it at all), and keep your shutter open for something like 20-30 seconds at f3.5.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Tough Love]

To take a halfway decent image of the milky way, you need something like ISO3200 (which is fairly noisy on most camera's, if they even support it at all), and keep your shutter open for something like 20-30 seconds at f3.5.

And you can't just use a tripod, you need something like this otherwise your stars will all be little streaks.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. For action or BIF photography I use my 400mm prime. Missing focus because of objects shifting is not a property of the lens. You will get that with any lens if you don't know how to work it. Learning to track BIF is no easy thing.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you're talking about. There is nothing compelling about the new Nikon cameras, especially at that price point.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[thegarbz]

You don't really need that, with current-day levels of ISO performance

Huh? Who cares about ISO performance? Large sensor, low aperture, the point is to take photos that look like melted chocolate with a background of smooth jazz.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Is ISO the right metric for the sensitivity of a silicon sensor?

Seems like the noise floor is also part of the story.
As you go to higher ISO ratings, don't you loose dynamic range?

In other words, the detail in both dark and shadow you can capture in a well lit scene is better than the detail you can capture in the same scene with less light. ISO rating in film shifted the dynamic range over different light level ranges, so the story was a bit different. With silicon, it's the same sensor for all ISO settings, and all you can do is shift the ADC ranges, but in a great camera the ADC range should be set to get everything the sensor sees, so there is nothing to shift.

These gadgets are amazing in what they can capture. So amazing that ISO really doesn't tell the story.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the retard, you didn't say "basically" or "literally".

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

I want it for the depth of field performance which is certainly not achievable with f3.5.

I want it for the current which is entirely dependant on the resistance of the circuit!

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

But without using absurdly large apertures the image is still in acceptable focus after a slight movement. Also the autofocus system on my camera is designed to be accurate enough for f/2.8 lenses but no faster. "Knowing how to work it" is not the issue I have.

Even my focusing screen will not show the actual depth of field on an f/1.4 lens, let alone an f/0.95 lens, so manual focus is not a good option either.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

I want it for the depth of field performance which is certainly not achievable with f3.5.

The auto-focus has too be crazy good to shoot at f/0.95. We're probably talking millimetres of depth of field.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one weird camera. Typically, the auto focus is limited by the amount of light and thus focusing is always done with the aperture wide open. Cheaper lenses have smaller maximum aperture. Take the Sigma 150-600mm lens for example. At 600mm the maximum aperture is f/6 which means that entry level DSLRs cannot focus at 600mm because they require at least f/5.6. So a larger aperture should not limit the auto focus as you suggest. It should work even better.

Yes, aperture AND focal length are both factors for DOF. That is why a 50mm f/0,95 has other uses than a 400mm f/4, for example.

Also, if you have a f/0,95 lens then you should get several stops shorter shutter speeds which means freezing movement even better. This is why you use ND filters in daylight, to get longer shutter speeds with the same aperture to get the DOF etc that you want.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

The DoF for a 50 mm f/1 lens (on a Canon 7D mark II) at 150cm distance is about 33mm. Entirely doable for auto focus.

Re:Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, pumping up the ISO reduces the dynamic range.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that DoF also depends on the distance to the subject, right?

So basically you're using the wrong lens or using it in the wrong way. Congrats.

(There's a reason 200mm f/2 lenses are so popular for portraits.)

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

The accuracy of a phase detect autofocus point will not keep getting better and better the wider the aperture of the lens. It has some accuracy based on its dimensions and it requires some minimum aperture in order not to start blocking the light it needs to work at all.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

That is precisely what the AC stated. The camera keeps the aperture wide open when acquiring focus. Hence it is most likely incorrect to claim that the auto focus works with a f/2.8 lens but not a f/1.4, for example. The latter will give more light for auto focus use.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, phase detection autofocus accuracy is limited by geometry.

If there is enough light, more light does not increase the accuracy of an autofocus point.

If there is a wide enough aperture, a wider aperture does not increase the accuracy of an autofocus point.

Too narrow an aperture will prevent operation of an autofocus point even if there is enough light.

Too little light will prevent operation of an autofocus point even if there is a wide enough aperture.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, read the OP's post again. The OP claimed that the auto focus wouldn't work with larger apertures, which is a false statement. A smaller aperture might have that effect, nut not a larger.

Smaller apertures means by definition a smaller amount of light hitting the sensor. Your two last claims make absolutely no sense at all. It doesn't matter how good the lighting conditions are, the auto focus will not work if the lenses widest aperture is smaller than f/5.6 on many DSLRs, expect PRO models which can often auto focus down to f/8. Going from f/2.8 to f/1.4 will not make the auto focus not work.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the OP. I did not claim the autofocus wouldn't work at larger apertures, I claimed it wasn't accurate enough at larger apertures. There is a difference.

Please take your straw man somewhere else.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Youâ(TM)re obviously trolling because somebody who can afford the 200mm lens wouldnâ(TM)t wouldnâ(TM)t pair it with the APS-C body as described by the OP.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? Lots of photographers prefer the APS-C crop-factor bodies. There are several reasons for this. One is economics. I myself would rather spend money on glass than camera body. Bird photographers often have both a full frame and a crop-factor for different use cases.

Re: Looks like a solid effort

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your basis for this claim. To quote the AC above who seems to know a little bit about auto focus:

If there is enough light, more light does not increase the accuracy of an autofocus point.

If there is a wide enough aperture, a wider aperture does not increase the accuracy of an autofocus point.

Too narrow an aperture will prevent operation of an autofocus point even if there is enough light.

Too little light will prevent operation of an autofocus point even if there is a wide enough aperture.

Based on this, the auto focus ought to be as accurate at f/2 as at f/2.8.

I'm waiting for the Panasonic GH6s

[future assassin]

and their organic sensor. My GH5s already does awesome video in ISO 12800 and is just as good or better in stills than my A7s was. In video at high ISO it walks on the A7s.

Some GH5s iso 12800/Zuiko 8mm FE 1.8 video in nightclub/rave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:I'm waiting for the Panasonic GH6s

[OYAHHH]

My gut says we are talking apples and oranges. You're obviously interested in video performance which is fine. And I am sure your Panasonic is a great machine for that purpose.

Myself I am interested in stills photography. So the Panasonic just has never proved all that appealing.

To each his own I suppose.

Re:I'm waiting for the Panasonic GH6s

[future assassin]

I do more stills than video, the video there I was just learning video and the camera but I'm stills 99%. I have a couple dedicated Gh5s albums https://www.flickr.com/photos/...

I don't have the GH5s anymore as I mostly got it for video and will be too busy to hit up nightclubs and raves for several months so no point of having it depreciate anymore more in value but after going back to my Em1.1 I miss the Gh5s size and ergonomics. The button layout was so nice.

Re:I'm waiting for the Panasonic GH6s

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Flickr own whatever you put there, the way Facebook does?

Re:I'm waiting for the Panasonic GH6s

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd. The A7s scores more than 4 times as high on DxOMark's Sports score, where all else equal I would expect a sensor with 4 times the area to score 4 times as high.

I wonder if the A7s is doing something else wrong. Neither of the two cameras supports raw video so the on-board processing will affect the video.

Re:I'm waiting for the Panasonic GH6s

[Cederic]

No. Flickr is also now owned by Smugmug, whose customer base under that brand includes a very large number of professional photographers.

Finally!

[fahrbot-bot]

I can pursue my hobby of photographing vampires with D/SLR quality results ...

Re:Finally!

[Solandri]

I realize this is an attempt at a funny. But the mirror was only used for the viewfinder. The light path to the film/sensor was always straight from the lens. And if you really wanted a SLR without a mirror which needed to flip up, you could always get a rangefinder even back in the film days. (Actually, the B&H article on rangefinders is a lot more informative and interesting than the wiki article.)

Those use a small mirror or prism in the light path to generate the image in the viewscreen. Contrary to most people's concept of how light works, blocking the light path in an out-of-focus plane does not create a hard shadow at the in-focus plane. It creates a soft shadow (look at the edge of the shadow of your head vs your leg in sunlight). And if the obstruction is small enough, the soft shadow only appears as a slight dimming of the overall image.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! I am SO going to have to just DUMP ALL my current cameras and lenses and ABSOLUTELY RUN to get this new Nikon kit. I mean, just SECONDS after Nikon announced this, my cameras no longer can take pictures. I get blank frames!! Once I have this NEW KIT in my hot little consumer hands then I can use my Visa to pay off the MasterCard and vice versa for a few years.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you really wanted a SLR without a mirror which needed to flip up

I think you don't quite understand the 'R' in SLR.

Re:Finally!

[Aighearach]

And yet, when I press the "live view" button on my DSLR, the mirror moves the heck out of the way!

Re: Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could not see them through the viewfinder but they would register on the sensor. It was the silver in the film composition that made it impossible to picture them before digital.

Re:Finally!

[thegarbz]

Vampires live in the dark, liveview is worthless in the dark.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

The rangefinder cameras by Leica and their clones use a completly separate light path for the viewfinder and the film. These are the two small windows you see in the front of the camera at the level of the viewfinder. Some of them show different markers depending on the focal length of the lens mounted in front, but the overall field of view doesn't typically change. There's a mechanical link from the focus mechanism of the lens to the mirror or prism device that is used to show the distance of the focal plane in the viewfinder, but it uses light from the second, typically smaller of the two windows. No light from the main light path lens -> film is ever diverted.

Re:Finally!

[ChrisMaple]

SLR without a mirror which needed to flip up

The Canon Pellix and Canon EOS RT. Alas, there is not yet a manufacturer of a pellicle DSLR.

No idea

[future assassin]

hence my I put on a watermark but too lazy to upload anymore photos on there.

Nikon uses Sony sensors

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hardly striking back when Nikon buys and uses Sony sensors.

Re:Nikon uses Sony sensors

[hcs_$reboot]

And dpreview[dpreview.com] talks a lot about the F-mount, but is not so enthusiastic overall.

Re:Nikon uses Sony sensors

[Aighearach]

Yeah, but who else are they going to name-drop when it isn't as good as the Pentax full frame?

Re: Nikon uses Sony sensors

[Anonymous Coward]

Itâ(TM)s not a review. Expecting enthusiasm wouldnâ(TM)t be realistic.

Re:Nikon uses Sony sensors

[Anonymous Coward]

Commerce makes for strange bedfellows.

NEED vs want

[Somervillain]

NEED and want are 2 different phenomena. I can find plenty of jerks who will tell me that all you need is an iPhone. I am confident a lot of people WANT a 50mm f 0.95 lens and would be happy to pay whatever Nikon asks.

I use a full frame DSLR with nice Sigma Art Prime Lenses because I WANT to take nice photos. This is not directly relevant because I am a Canon guy, but when they release their full frame mirrorless body later this year, if they offer a f 0.95 lens, I will be very interested. I take a lot of photos at f 1.4 now at dusk of my children playing when I get home from work. If it was sharp at f 0.95, I would be very intrigued by what it could offer. Also, I live in New England. Our days are shorter than a lot of the country and light is scarce when we're not working, so while you are right that we don't NEED a lens that fast, I would happily pay for one to get lower ISO photos in dim light (assuming it is actually sharp and usable at f 0.95. Sigma Art lenses are sharp wide-open, but lot of Canon lenses need to be stepped down for maximum sharpness).

Re:NEED vs want

[Tough Love]

You can never be too rich, or too thin, or have too fast a lens :)

Re:NEED vs want

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, which is why I love my EF 400mm f/2.8 prime from Canon.

Re:NEED vs want

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the usefulness of fast long lenses but you photographers can't say squat without mentioning that YOU have this or that $$$mm F/$$ lens. It really is the only reason you post, so you can brag like that. But this is the age of cheap credit and there's people living on the street with enough credit to buy that 400 2.8 about which you're puffing. So, big fucking deal. What do your images say? What do they make people, even you, feel? What will History see in them? Or are they just pretty? That is what photography is about, not the size of your dick.

Re:NEED vs want

[kobaz]

If you have proper spending/saving habits, you don't "need" credit actually. Credit is great with all the points (I currently get 3% cashback on everything I buy). I also pay everything off in the same billing cycle so I haven't paid interest in probably 20 years on a traditional credit card. So basically I'm making 3% on everything I buy... pretty sweet deal.

If you can't afford the $400 lens, don't buy it until you can. Sure, I might put $5000 on a 0% credit card to buy a few things, but I also have enough in savings and then some to pay it off in any month I want. And I'm not rich either.

Re:NEED vs want

[Anonymous Coward]

I sincerely hope you don't own a car or even a half-decent bike. Because what you are saying is basically because someone else cannot afford it is just for showing off. You are a sad little person.

*FOCUS* point?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, an apology - English is not my mother tongue

I am still learning English, and I wonder if *FOCUS* point is correct

I still remember my teacher taught me the word *FOCAL* - as in Focal point

Many thanks in advance for your valuable correction(s)

Re: *FOCUS* point?

[Anonymous Coward]

The focal point refers to the lense, is it wide angle or telephoto etc. The focus points are to do with the automatic focusing system. The greater the number the more likely it will crrectly focus on the area of interest.

Re: *FOCUS* point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Focal point is the point where the lens focus the light (on the sensor). If that point is in front or behind the sensorâ(TM)s surface, the photo is out of focus.

Focus points are the points of the frame/image that the camera uses to determine if the image is in focus. A simple example is if the subject of the photo (e.g. somebodyâ(TM)s face [normally their eyes]) is off to one side, you want that point in focus, not the centre of the image.

Re: *FOCUS* point?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. That's the focal length.

'Focal point' is better expressed as 'point of focus', except, as you mention, 'points of focus' being read by digital sensor technology. I'm not a digital camera user so I can't speak to that, but even manually focusing there is usually an issue with the plane of perfect focus being a curved surface and not a true plane, both upon the (for me, film) and in the subject field. In a well designed lens this curve stays within the emulsion layer of film but digital sensors have 'zero' thickness so this is readily seen in the files produced. Though not shooting digital I'll be the first to say the stringent requirements of a zero-thickness digital sensor has forced the production of marvelous optics. I can take advantage of them, even shooting film. Thanks opticians!

Re: *FOCUS* point?

[ChrisMaple]

The great improvement in optics available to consumers in the last decade or so has been made possible by nano-coating, which substantially reduces reflections. Reduced reflections means more elements can be used, so more aberrations can be corrected. Sigma has been leading the industry with new high quality designs.

The down side of these super lenses for a full frame camera is that they're heavy, many of them over a kg.

Re: *FOCUS* point?

[Anonymous Coward]

A kg is not all that heavy for high-quality super telephoto lenses. So it all depends on what type of lenses you are talking about. And Sigma is not quite as good in the super telephoto segment as Canon e.g.

Start Over?

[ewhac]

The Z7 [ ... ] has a 45.7-megapixel sensor, 493 focus points, and 64-25600 ISO. The Z6 will follow in "late November" with a 24.5-megapixel sensor, 273 focus points, and 100-51200 ISO. The cameras bring with them an all-new Z mount system that will debut with a 24-70mm f/4 "kit" lens. With the lens bundled, the Z7 will run $3,999.95, with the Z6 at $2,599.95.

Oh, sure. Start your lens collection all over again.

Meanwhile, you can get a Pentax K-1 full-frame DSLR body -- 36 megapixels, 33 focus points, ISO 100-204800, sensor-shift stabilization -- for well under $2000.00, and it still natively supports K-mount lenses manufactured 50 years ago.

Re:Start Over?

[Anonymous Coward]

Start your lens collection over __and pay 3x the cost for each lens__.

Re:Start Over?

[Anonymous Coward]

The dynamic range is terrible at that high ISOs. And I much rather have the Canon IS then sensor-shifts.

Re:Start Over?

[siege72]

First: the Pentax is still a DSLR, not a mirrorless. Apples and oranges.

Nikon made the correct decision. The F mount has a number of limitations, especially with wide-angle and large aperture lenses. The large mount and short flange distance _theoretically_ means most DSLR lenses could work with an adapter (Canon, Pentax, Minolta). I've also read that the Z mount's size may allow for better IBIS.

Re:Start Over?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Z7 [ ... ] has a 45.7-megapixel sensor, 493 focus points, and 64-25600 ISO. The Z6 will follow in "late November" with a 24.5-megapixel sensor, 273 focus points, and 100-51200 ISO. The cameras bring with them an all-new Z mount system that will debut with a 24-70mm f/4 "kit" lens. With the lens bundled, the Z7 will run $3,999.95, with the Z6 at $2,599.95.

Oh, sure. Start your lens collection all over again.

Or you can keep your F-mount lens collection and simply buy the adaptor.

aah.. That's such a nice advertisement

[ripvlan]

What's the tech behind this?

Wait for the reviews

[nehumanuscrede]

Personally, I don't really have any major need for a mirrorless system since the body size reduction is rendered moot
once I start connecting up the big glass. In fact, the weight difference may alter the balance quite a bit on the bigger
tele-photos ( 300mm f/2.8 and larger ).

I suppose the on sensor stabilization would be a benefit for some of my lenses, but the majority already have VR and
those that don't I typically use with a tripod anyway. It's nice Nikon retains the use of F mount glass ( to the relief of all
the folks invested in it ) but an adapter is just another piece of hardware that can go bad on you.

In addition, since the sensor is always active during composure ( like all mirrorless and / or live view on a DSLR ) I
suspect it's going to burn through batteries at an accelerated rate necessitating the need to carry several of them.
( Heh, so much for weight reduction :D )

The lack of a secondary card slot is going to turn a lot of folks off to it. ( Though it does have Wi-Fi and Blutooth on
camera without external adapters ) Since they went with the XQD format ( not an issue for me as my bodies already
use it ) I can see why Nikon is offering their own branded versions of the card now.

Not bad for a first attempt at it I guess.

Will have to wait and see what the field reviews say.

Re:Wait for the reviews

[RespekMyAthorati]

In addition, since the sensor is always active during composure ( like all mirrorless and / or live view on a DSLR ) I suspect it's going to burn through batteries at an accelerated

That's for damn sure. I love being able to shoot all day on one battery with my Nikon DSLR.
Also, I hate EVF's. It's like trying to compose through mosquito netting.

Canon

[Only Time Will Tell]

I'm hoping Canon wakes up from its long snooze and introduces some mirrorless bodies that can natively accept EF lenses.

Re:Canon

[h8sg8s]

That's the problem with mirrorless designs from existing camera companies with millions of lenses in the field. Nikon agonized over this for over a year before giving in the the adapter method of supporting existing lenses. Seems Cannon is still arguing internally on the subject. The problem is the "back of lens to focal plane" distance in mirrorless is much shorter than in traditional SLRs. Sony didn't have this problem because there were no lenses pre E or FE to deal with. We'll have to wait and see how Cannon deals with it.

Re:Canon

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, what about the Konica and Minolta lenses Sony inherited?