Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Chris

      The other thread about whether Canon is dying (doesn't seem to be) got me thinking about the ruggedness of Canon and Nikon, the great Canon EF mount and autofocus, and wouldn't it be nice if they could follow Sony's innovation with the ruggedness and usability of Nikon and Canon?

      And now Nikon is saying that not only they will have a mirrorless version of what I assume is the D850 and D650ish, it will have a new lens mount. I feel Nikon has been handicapped compared to Canon because of the smaller lens mount for a long time. From the look of their teaser video, the lens mount looks huge, which I think means +++!!

    • Vilen

      The video teaser definitely looks a bit grandiose, but if it helps Nikon drum up excitement and through the mirrorless market, it is worth it. The light strips 🌈in the video remind me of Tron.

      I used to be a big Nikon fan about 10 years ago in the days of shooting weddings for living. All of my gear was Nikon. However, my journey in the photography started with Canon then transitioned to Nikon and now to Sony.

      The last transition was the most interesting one as it was because of a mirrorless cameras that Sony rolled out, Sony A7s. Since switching over I never looked back, slowly expanding my lens collection.

    • dr

      About... Friggin... Time. Nothing like coming to the party a.. . Decade... Late...

      Not sure if the option would have changed my decisions. Since I'm nothing more than a pragmatic enthusiast, my first priority is size... Second is the breadth of ability. Third, breadth of lens options. For me, the multi-pronged approach to cutting size down associated w/ the m4/3 standard made the most sense to a photog like me. Not only do you get smaller by killing the mirror box, but you also get smaller by projecting a smaller image circle (but not so small as to completely leave you out of the bokeh game).

      I almost went with Sony when they came out, but waiting for their lens roadmap to develop wasn't something I was patient enough for. It'll be years. I'd like to see where they go with it though. Tons of people have been pining away for full frame mirrorless options.

    • dbreunig

      Nikon and Canon entering the mirrorless market today feels like Blackberry entering the touchscreen/app market. Though in a much smaller market with longer purchase cycles. The similarities are pretty uncanny, right down to the (potential) slow demise due to existing professional install bases.

    • tomstar3000

      I'm excited for Nikon. I'll also be happy if Canon can pull this off too.
      Nikon, really needs to their mirrorless camera to be awesome if they want to stay in the game. Their DSLR fans aren't going anywhere, but Sony is fighting a battle with two giants and their holding their own.
      I switched to Fujifilm 3 years ago and mirrorless really suits my shooting style. I won't go back to DSLRs.
      Now I'm on the new Sony A7 system, I've gotten really cozy with the system.
      I'd go back to Canon of they offer something up that bests Sony. I'm not holding my breath.
      Competition is good for the consumer.

    • Pa

      Didn't both Canon and Nikon have nice full frame inter changeable lens Leica style range finder cameras - back in the early 1950S?? Or thereabouts?

      I wish they would make something kind of like that today with modern sensors and AF and articulating LCD displays - they're not going to be real small due to the requirements of lens image circles large enough to cover a full frame sensor,

    • tomstar3000

      Yeah, Nikon (1948) and Canon (1935ish) did have rangefinder cameras first.
      Mirrorless cameras have an advantage, because there is no mirror box to get in the way. Allowing the lens designer more flexibility, especially when designing wide angle lenses.

    • Pa

      But rangefinder cameras had no mirror boxes.

      Mirrorless cameras have a similar body depth and size to the old rangefinder cameras, but with modern AF and moveable LCD displays ( or OLED or whatever is curent display tech ).

      Yes, shallower body depth works better for extreme wide angle lenses, and SLR bodies were thicker due to the mirror box. But the lens size is strongly related to the image circle needed to cover the film/sensor in the film plane, hence even in modern mirrorless cameras, full frame lenses aren't really smaller than DSLR lenses for FF bodies.

      But that's what I was saying - a modern mirrorless full frame body about the size of the pre war rangefinder camera with modern sensors, AF and tiltable LCDs would be very desireable even if bigger than the present Sony series of bodies.

      Maybe even incuding old style splitimage range finding might be rather handy too - they were very fast to focus in skilled hands, even in low light....

      One thing I do wish in spite of higher and higher ISOs, would be a cameras that could shoot at a lot lower ISO - think of how long a shutter speed you could use with an ISO of 10 or 12 - like Kodachrome was back in the late 1930's.... without any ND filters.

    • tomstar3000
      Tom Chamberlain

      I agree with everything you said. Lens focal length is calculated the same with every camera, regardless of sensor size.
      The real shortcoming with mechanical rangefinders is keeping the focus mechanism maintained. Even Leica rangefinders fall out of alignment over time. I love the rangefinder style camera, like the Fujifilm X-E3, I would love that camera with a 24mmx36mm sensor, but only because of all the beautiful legacy glass.
      I couldn't agree more, I want to see the camera manufacturers make camera models that have a low native ISO setting.

    You've been invited!