Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Nikon Announces Development of Full Frame Mirrorless Camera (petapixel.com) 118

Posted by BeauHD from the welcome-to-the-club dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nikon Announces Development of Full Frame Mirrorless Camera More

Nikon Announces Development of Full Frame Mirrorless Camera

Comments Filter:

  • Other companies have had this for years. (Score:1)

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

    • Re:Other companies have had this for years. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @08:28AM (#57006060) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • 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

      • 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 p

        • 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

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by zlives ( 2009072 )

            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.

          • 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 se

      • 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.

      • 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...

        • 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.

          • 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: (Score:2)

            by Cederic ( 9623 )

            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

      • 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.

      • 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 le

    • Re:Other companies have had this for years. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @09:13AM (#57006286)
      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.
    • 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.

  • Keeping an eye on developments... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DigitalSorceress ( 156609 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @08:15AM (#57006002)

    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... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @08:31AM (#57006068)

      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.

      • 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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by inking ( 2869053 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @08:21AM (#57006030)
    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: (Score:3)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )

      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by werepants ( 1912634 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @10:42AM (#57006848)

        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.

        • 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.

          • 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 s

      • 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.

    • 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 sy

      • 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.

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

      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: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        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.

    • 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

      • 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 perpendicula
  • 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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @08:44AM (#57006128)

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

    Well done, Nikon! Bravo!

    • 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

      • Re:Now that smartphones have become ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by E-Lad ( 1262 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @10:36AM (#57006812)

        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.

        • 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.

      • 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: (Score:3)

          by jabuzz ( 182671 )

          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 h

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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        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 l

        • 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.

    • 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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        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: (Score:2)

      by MpVpRb ( 1423381 )

      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

    • 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.

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

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

    • Re:Done before (Score:4, Informative)

      by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @09:40AM (#57006450)
      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).

      • He must be thinking of the Leica SL [leica-camera.com], 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: (Score:2)

        by Herve5 ( 879674 )

        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... [leica-camera.com]

    • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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: (Score:2)

      by zlives ( 2009072 )

      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.

  • 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 muc

  • Can't we go back to calling them EVIL cameras [alphatracks.com]?

Slashdot Top Deals

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Close