full frame mirrorless nikon?

If the image quality is anywhere near the AW1, AND is waterproof. AND has interchangeable lenses, it should be a winner. I've got a loaner Nikon AW1 to play with till the new year, can't wait to see what it can do.
 
IMHO, Nikon did better on their first mirrorless camera than canon (eos-m vs Nikon one). It may not be apsc, but i thought it was a pretty good camera.. Already on its third generation body. The eos-m second gen is not even sold in US.

Whether they do better than the Sony remains to be seen since Sony is already on their second gen body (a7mk2).. If u count the rx1..then third en body.

Gary
 
Being a brand-agnostic, it doesn't concern me very much whether Nikon does better than Canon, or than Sony, or Panasonic/Olympus, or vice versa. What I'm interested to see is what Nikon comes up with and how well it works, independent of how it measures against other manufacturers' efforts in speculation.

Once it's out there, of course, how well Nikon's offering performs against other similar choices becomes more of an issue if it seems interesting enough to buy. However, as I said earlier, I tend to trust Nikon more than most other camera makers. They don't always get everything right, but most things they produce are usable and solid performers.

G
 
This ^^^^^

My hope is that Nikon will fully develop out it's tradition of lenses for any mirrorless.
So far native primes have kept me in Fuji and away from The a7 line although, the FE55 on the a7s could almost be a one cam one lens affair for me.


Nikon has such a great tradition of producing killer glass.
It will be exciting to see their FF mirrorless system mature.
 
competition = better price point + increased feature/function + speed to market + innovation = good news for us consumers! I am also brand agnostic. bring it on, maybe 2015 the year for FF mirrorless hot market.
 
First of all this is still just a rumor. That being said I am glad Nikon is joining the party at the deep end. The sub 35 full frame is very crowded at the moment.
 
Competition is good :D. I am hoping this will help the pricing situation. Right now apsc is still the best in terms of
- price
- weight
- overall size
- cost
Whether we are talking camera body or lens or mirrorless or dslr..

If u got a lot of legacy ff native canon or Nikon glass, then u got skin in this game. I have a lot of Nikon glass around, but never wanted to upgrade to Nikon ff dslr.. Mirrorless, a lot depends on price, overall weight, and features. In they come in around $1200 and has a Sony a7 like user control style interface w/ the dual control dials and the separate exposure comp dial, I would go for it.. Knowing that they are going to have a adapter for legacy glass like they did for the Nikon One. I would love to c a 40f2 pancake for this setup as well.

My Nikon apsc dslr is now coming up to 4 years old and not seeing very much use.. Have not had much urge to upgrade. Mirrorless may definitely change that picture :p

Anyway just wishful thinking on my part.
Gary
 
Gary

Do you use your Nikkors on the A7?
Between one mirrorless or another adapters are going to be very similar.
I bet the a7 loves old nikkors.
 
I do use the nikons on the a7.. But the Nikon mirrorless would bring full af support, aperture controll, full automation and full exif for those newer autofocus lens I still have.. Versus at best aperture priority and manual focus.

On the a7, I tend to use the lenses like I did during the days of my f3/fe2/fm2.. Leave the lens set at appropriate zone focus and f8. If I got time to focus great, if not depend on my zone. W/ the a7, my max iso is 3200..

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
Competition is good :D. I am hoping this will help the pricing situation. Right now apsc is still the best in terms of
- price
- weight
- overall size
- cost
Whether we are talking camera body or lens or mirrorless or dslr..

If u got a lot of legacy ff native canon or Nikon glass, then u got skin in this game. I have a lot of Nikon glass around, but never wanted to upgrade to Nikon ff dslr.. Mirrorless, a lot depends on price, overall weight, and features. In they come in around $1200 and has a Sony a7 like user control style interface w/ the dual control dials and the separate exposure comp dial, I would go for it.. Knowing that they are going to have a adapter for legacy glass like they did for the Nikon One. I would love to c a 40f2 pancake for this setup as well.

My Nikon apsc dslr is now coming up to 4 years old and not seeing very much use.. Have not had much urge to upgrade. Mirrorless may definitely change that picture :p

Anyway just wishful thinking on my part.
Gary
Click to expand...

Agreed, competition is good for all.
I don't see how nikon would come inat the low end(1200) pricewise when they are really competing with Sony and Leica. I see them using their name recognition to place themselves between Sonny and Leica in terms of price.
 
I think Sony has established the price point for ff mirrorless. I suspect that the current a7mk2 price has enough margin to play w/ that they could go down to 1200 and still make a good profit. If Nikon or Canon comes in at the d610 or d750 price point, given the following
- user either needs to invest in an adapter for non-mirrorless Nikon lenses
- or just buy all new native mirrorless lenses
- or they do a Pentax style mirrorless where no adapter needed but loses advantage of smaller size and weight..
I not sure it is a good marketing move to put yourself between a7 and Leica m drf in price.

Gary
 
With the Sonys very much "half-finished", the FF EVIL market is there for the taking. I seriously doubt Nikon is up to it, but I hope I'm wrong. :)
 
As I remember u had both the a7 and a7r...what do u think are the areas that are half finished out if curiosity. I guess a better way to ask as I think about it.. What do u think Nikon needs to do vs a Sony a7 maybe?

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
As I remember u had both the a7 and a7r...what do u think are the areas that are half finished out if curiosity. I guess a better way to ask as I think about it.. What do u think Nikon needs to do vs a Sony a7 maybe?

Gary
Click to expand...

Hi Gary.

The main thing is not to get too proprietary and think everyone only will want to use Nikon lenses. EVIL means a small package and we know what the best small lenses in the world are. They will have a real hit if it works with M glass.

That means short register mount and thin sensor cover. They can always add a fancy adapter to make the nikon glass AF etc.

That's the biggest hurdle, and frankly I very much doubt they will clear it. Greed will shrink their pie.

Next, they will have to match Sony's MF aids, which really are the best I've seen, though now I prefer a RF---that took a lot of shots LOL--that doesn't sound too hard except nobody else has done it yet.

There's really nothing to stop them hitting a home run except the inevitable design by committee politics. The tech is ready to go. But there would be trade-offs for that home run machine, as it's thin cover may limit AF and video performance a tad.

The really really smart thing would be to make two machines, one optimized to do what I describe above and the other just to please the AF and video crowd.

Again, that would not be hard.

As to the Sony's weaknesses, besides the buzz-kill sensor stack, which hamstrings the camera in a multitude of ways, the interface is far from elegant, esp the menus, and the RAW files are execrable. The build is nowhere near the Canikon FF DSLRs or Leica, in fact I preferred the nex-5 for build quality. But it's OK. Not terrible, not great.

As always I have to add: you see great photography with the A7 series, despite the flaws. The smearing, at least is smooth. The centers are very very good with a bunch of glass. For many shots that's all you need anyway. And the smearing lessens the closer you focus on all of them.

Many shooters a lot better than me love the A7. That's why I need every advantage, aka Leica M9. LOL
 
I'd be careful about getting my hopes up - a Nikon FF mirrorless might simply turn out to be a DSLR with an EVF..

I'm doubtful Nikon would create a new FF lens mount, although anything is possible. Their best chance of profitability is to
1. convince people to buy FF where the margins are higher
2. sell more FX lenses for same reason
3. convince existing DX customers to upgrade to FF, either mirrorless or traditional DSLR.

DX may be the sweet spot for price/performance, but Nikon has let that slide (how long until a D300 replacement arrives, and a good set of primes for DX?), concentrating instead on the higher margins to be had from FX offerings.

If they retain the same FX mount and lenses, however, they will not fix the user problem of the large/heavy camera bag. Once you buy a few FX lenses, you're in the same boat as Canon users.

Fuji now has a mature product with excellent primes and zooms. If the Nikon FF mirrorless is physically bigger and heavier (including lenses), they will have trouble convincing the faithful to remain in the fold. They would be reluctant to cannibalise sales of the D750/600/810 by releasing a whole new smaller system with smaller mount but still full frame. They face some tough decisions. I hope they get them right. Nikon's ergonomics are amongst the best in the business. It would be a shame if they started to lose market share.
 
What if the new Nikon came with a fixed 24-85 manual zoom AF lens at 1699?
would you consider it a homerun?
 
uhoh7 said:
Hi Gary.

The main thing is not to get too proprietary and think everyone only will want to use Nikon lenses. EVIL means a small package and we know what the best small lenses in the world are. They will have a real hit if it works with M glass.

That means short register mount and thin sensor cover. They can always add a fancy adapter to make the nikon glass AF etc.

That's the biggest hurdle, and frankly I very much doubt they will clear it. Greed will shrink their pie.

Next, they will have to match Sony's MF aids, which really are the best I've seen, though now I prefer a RF---that took a lot of shots LOL--that doesn't sound too hard except nobody else has done it yet.

There's really nothing to stop them hitting a home run except the inevitable design by committee politics. The tech is ready to go. But there would be trade-offs for that home run machine, as it's thin cover may limit AF and video performance a tad.

The really really smart thing would be to make two machines, one optimized to do what I describe above and the other just to please the AF and video crowd.

Again, that would not be hard.

As to the Sony's weaknesses, besides the buzz-kill sensor stack, which hamstrings the camera in a multitude of ways, the interface is far from elegant, esp the menus, and the RAW files are execrable. The build is nowhere near the Canikon FF DSLRs or Leica, in fact I preferred the nex-5 for build quality. But it's OK. Not terrible, not great.

As always I have to add: you see great photography with the A7 series, despite the flaws. The smearing, at least is smooth. The centers are very very good with a bunch of glass. For many shots that's all you need anyway. And the smearing lessens the closer you focus on all of them.

Many shooters a lot better than me love the A7. That's why I need every advantage, aka Leica M9. LOL
Click to expand...

I think where I agree w/ u the most is the Sony raw file. From what I have read, the new Sony a7mk2 is built much better.. The sesnor stack is a place I would somewhat agree.. But then they never designed any of their cameras to work w/ legacy glass. Where they are weak compared,to Fuji for example is a good selection of in-house native prime lenses. They do gimmicks like the 28f2 and then add two adapter for it for example or they have too many zooms compared to prime lenses in the mix.

Nikon mirrorless just waiting to c which way they may end up going. Anyway interesting thoughts..

Thanks
Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top