Nikon go Mirrorless, pt 2 (Thom Hogan)

Fuji is innovative, and has that FILM background. Fuji kocked colossus Kodak off of its pedestal in the USA, an incredible feat. And then...the film camera and film business shrivelled to next to nothing. Fuji worked with Nikon way back, before the D1 came out. Fuji has designed some amazing, all-new cameras. I bought their S1 Pro, S2 Pro, and S5 pro d-slr cameras: ALL of them were, in most ways, BETTER picture-makers than the Nikons of the era. Even built on second-tier Nikon bodies, and using Nikon F-mount and Nikon speedlights.

Better picture-makers from Fuji. Not better machines, but better picture-making devices.

The question, "If Fuji can do it, why not Nikon?" makes me want to say: becasue Fuji has soooooooooooooooo LITTLE of the market, that they can create a camera type, and be innovative, and NOT be tied down to a lens mount that dates to 1959. Fuji's camera business is part of a larger corporate parent, Nikon is an old,small company, and has a long, long legacy, tied basically to something they pioneered in 1959: the 35mm type SLR "system".

Nikon is Microsoft. Fuji is Apple. Nikon is Coca~Cola. Fuji is Rockstar.
 
Actually I think his favorite lens is the 28-200. For a while there he was comparing everything to it...
Um. There is no 28-200 ... either you talk about the AF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX or the AF-S 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VR.

Both lenses are pretty old now, thus relatively cheaply available on the used market. And yes, for what they offer - are they are kinda excellent. In absolute terms of course they are still only tolerable, not actually good. Not that sharp, certainly not brilliant in respect to colors, etc.


Isn't it 80 million Nikkor lenses that have been made?
IIRC they passed 100 million recently.


The G-series lenses do not work on vintage Nikon cameras, except at smallest aperture opening. The E-diaphragm lenses work properly and fully only on the newer bodies. The AF-P focusing lenses work only on the VERY-newest cameras. These three lens technologies have been coming on slowly. The AF-P focusing protocol uses stepper motors in the lenses, and will NOT work on "older cameras" that are just a few years of age!
The backward compability of Nikon F and thus access to used old lenses of high quality (only Leica is even superior with this, still being able to mount ALL Leica lenses, including screwmount ones with an adapter) is one of the main reasons I'm staying with this system.

AF-P has only been used with very cheap lenses. Considering that this technology is in every way inferior to the motors Nikon uses in highend lenses, I doubt it will ever find its way in lenses that would interest me.

Backwards compatibility is a high cost game and adds tech to systems.
Totally worth it though.


Since the idea behind mirrorless is to have a small, lightweight system then yes eventually I'd want to have lenses that match.
Well, thats wrong. That is NOT the benefit of a mirrorless system. Switching to mirrorless does NOT suddenly and magically make the laws of optics change. Thus, if you want to be more compact you have to shrink the sensor and/or stay with smaller lenses, i.e. prime lenses, dark lenses, and/or lenses without autofocus (the later is why Leica M lenses are so tiny in comparison).

But have same conditions - and mirrorless will especially with telephoto lenses have hardly any advantage.

The only real optical advantage of mirrorless is that the distance between lens and sensor can be made very small. This only really helps with wide angles though, they can be less retrofocus. Until the digital sensor can no longer handle the steep angles. Telephotos, well I guess you could try to make them more extremely telephoto so they're even more compact, but overall my guess is rather they usually have to be even longer than their DSLR counterparts, because they have to compensate for the short flange distance.



What about Nikon going in with the former 4/3 Consortium manufacturer's group or industry group?
MFT exists because the small companies wanted to unite against the big players. Thus Nikon is probably not welcome there.

I also would like to point out the only reason why 4/3 really exists in this form in the first place is history. When this started APS-C sensors have still been really expensive. But nowadays APC-S sensors are dirt cheap and there really is no good reason for putting 4/3 sensors into your system cameras except to keep excessive optics small.
 
Actually I think his favorite lens is the 28-200. For a while there he was comparing everything to it...
Um. There is no 28-200 ... either you talk about the AF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX or the AF-S 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VR.

Both lenses are pretty old now, thus relatively cheaply available on the used market. And yes, for what they offer - are they are kinda excellent. In absolute terms of course they are still only tolerable, not actually good. Not that sharp, certainly not brilliant in respect to colors, etc.


Isn't it 80 million Nikkor lenses that have been made?
IIRC they passed 100 million recently.


The G-series lenses do not work on vintage Nikon cameras, except at smallest aperture opening. The E-diaphragm lenses work properly and fully only on the newer bodies. The AF-P focusing lenses work only on the VERY-newest cameras. These three lens technologies have been coming on slowly. The AF-P focusing protocol uses stepper motors in the lenses, and will NOT work on "older cameras" that are just a few years of age!
The backward compability of Nikon F and thus access to used old lenses of high quality (only Leica is even superior with this, still being able to mount ALL Leica lenses, including screwmount ones with an adapter) is one of the main reasons I'm staying with this system.

AF-P has only been used with very cheap lenses. Considering that this technology is in every way inferior to the motors Nikon uses in highend lenses, I doubt it will ever find its way in lenses that would interest me.

Backwards compatibility is a high cost game and adds tech to systems.
Totally worth it though.


Since the idea behind mirrorless is to have a small, lightweight system then yes eventually I'd want to have lenses that match.
Well, thats wrong. That is NOT the benefit of a mirrorless system. Switching to mirrorless does NOT suddenly and magically make the laws of optics change. Thus, if you want to be more compact you have to shrink the sensor and/or stay with smaller lenses, i.e. prime lenses, dark lenses, and/or lenses without autofocus (the later is why Leica M lenses are so tiny in comparison).

But have same conditions - and mirrorless will especially with telephoto lenses have hardly any advantage.

The only real optical advantage of mirrorless is that the distance between lens and sensor can be made very small. This only really helps with wide angles though, they can be less retrofocus. Until the digital sensor can no longer handle the steep angles. Telephotos, well I guess you could try to make them more extremely telephoto so they're even more compact, but overall my guess is rather they usually have to be even longer than their DSLR counterparts, because they have to compensate for the short flange distance.



What about Nikon going in with the former 4/3 Consortium manufacturer's group or industry group?
MFT exists because the small companies wanted to unite against the big players. Thus Nikon is probably not welcome there.

I also would like to point out the only reason why 4/3 really exists in this form in the first place is history. When this started APS-C sensors have still been really expensive. But nowadays APC-S sensors are dirt cheap and there really is no good reason for putting 4/3 sensors into your system cameras except to keep excessive optics small.
It would be nice, just once, not to get a typo made such a huge deal.

Oh well. Yes, the 18-200, and the whole point was Rockwell was absolutely in love with it and compared it to almost everything in every review he did for quite a while afterwards.



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
 
Actually I think his favorite lens is the 28-200. For a while there he was comparing everything to it...
Um. There is no 28-200 ... either you talk about the AF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX or the AF-S 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VR.

Both lenses are pretty old now, thus relatively cheaply available on the used market. And yes, for what they offer - are they are kinda excellent. In absolute terms of course they are still only tolerable, not actually good. Not that sharp, certainly not brilliant in respect to colors, etc.


Isn't it 80 million Nikkor lenses that have been made?
IIRC they passed 100 million recently.


The G-series lenses do not work on vintage Nikon cameras, except at smallest aperture opening. The E-diaphragm lenses work properly and fully only on the newer bodies. The AF-P focusing lenses work only on the VERY-newest cameras. These three lens technologies have been coming on slowly. The AF-P focusing protocol uses stepper motors in the lenses, and will NOT work on "older cameras" that are just a few years of age!
The backward compability of Nikon F and thus access to used old lenses of high quality (only Leica is even superior with this, still being able to mount ALL Leica lenses, including screwmount ones with an adapter) is one of the main reasons I'm staying with this system.

AF-P has only been used with very cheap lenses. Considering that this technology is in every way inferior to the motors Nikon uses in highend lenses, I doubt it will ever find its way in lenses that would interest me.

Backwards compatibility is a high cost game and adds tech to systems.
Totally worth it though.


Since the idea behind mirrorless is to have a small, lightweight system then yes eventually I'd want to have lenses that match.
Well, thats wrong. That is NOT the benefit of a mirrorless system. Switching to mirrorless does NOT suddenly and magically make the laws of optics change. Thus, if you want to be more compact you have to shrink the sensor and/or stay with smaller lenses, i.e. prime lenses, dark lenses, and/or lenses without autofocus (the later is why Leica M lenses are so tiny in comparison).

But have same conditions - and mirrorless will especially with telephoto lenses have hardly any advantage.

The only real optical advantage of mirrorless is that the distance between lens and sensor can be made very small. This only really helps with wide angles though, they can be less retrofocus. Until the digital sensor can no longer handle the steep angles. Telephotos, well I guess you could try to make them more extremely telephoto so they're even more compact, but overall my guess is rather they usually have to be even longer than their DSLR counterparts, because they have to compensate for the short flange distance.



What about Nikon going in with the former 4/3 Consortium manufacturer's group or industry group?
MFT exists because the small companies wanted to unite against the big players. Thus Nikon is probably not welcome there.

I also would like to point out the only reason why 4/3 really exists in this form in the first place is history. When this started APS-C sensors have still been really expensive. But nowadays APC-S sensors are dirt cheap and there really is no good reason for putting 4/3 sensors into your system cameras except to keep excessive optics small.
It would be nice, just once, not to get a typo made such a huge deal.

Oh well. Yes, the 18-200, and the whole point was Rockwell was absolutely in love with it and compared it to almost everything in every review he did for quite a while afterwards.
I actually really want a 28-300 as a "do it all" single walkaround lens.
but I have other lenses on my list before that. Hey, it's only money.
 
Solar, There was, indeed, a Nikon 28-200mm lens. I still own one. I shot it for several years as my 'weekend trip' lens. It was fine on 6- to 10-megapixel APS-C. I shot it on the Nikon D70 and Fuji S2 pro, and it was fine across much of its range, especially where I shot it, f/7.1 or f/8 mostly. There were actually TWO, different, 28-200 mm Nikkor zooms that I am aware of. I own the second version, the AF-S G model.

You MIGHT want to do more research of the focusing abilitry of AF-P in the new 70-300, via Thom Hogan's research: the cheap little kit 70-300 with A-P is now a vastly better lens than the decade-old 70-300 AF-S VR lens; better optics, and much better focusing, even on a cheap D3400. According to Thom Hogan. He was surprised by the performance of the lens, optically, and in terms of AF speed. Apparently, you do not want silent AF for videio, and PRO-lens focusing speed from a $128 lens? That is why AF-P exists; the avility to make a cheap, slow lens focus as fast as a $2,499 pro-lens. Pretty sure the AF-P stepper motor type tech will be migrated to more lenses.

But anyway...mirrorless....I dunno. Nikon's dilemma with the F-mount, AF-P, E-lectrical diaphragm actuation, G-series gelded mounts....we've hit a crossroads, lens-wise. I am not sure which way Nikon will go, nor which would be ultimately best for us, or them.
 
The Nikon 1 S2 recently "disappeared from the shelves". From what I understand, if you use a cheap lens adapter, with no coupling, it does not support auto shutter speed. But the "Nikon 1 NIKKOR FT-1 F-Mount Adapter" is not-a-cheap-adapter. I know it gives a lot of lens couplings for V1 and J1 cameras, but what happens with the S2? Does it at least support auto shutter speed, at least with some lenses?
 
Now that I am in my second week as a Fujifilm shooter I have to say Nikon is probably doing the wrong thing. I can buy lenses for the Fuji system from 12mm to 400mm from Fuji and lenses from several third party manufacturers such as Zeiss. The lenses are better than the comparable Nikkors but they aren't cheap and a whole line of prime lenses is available. Nikon has only a couple of primes for the DX system.

The Fuji image quality is amazing. The cameras and the lenses are made from magnesium and aluminum instead of plastic. They are much smaller and lighter than their Nikon counterparts. After 1/2 a century with Nikon, I can tell you they need to do mirrorless like there is no tomorrow. They are clinging to obsolete technology. They need to be looking over Fujifilm's shoulder.
 
Now that I am in my second week as a Fujifilm shooter I have to say Nikon is probably doing the wrong thing. I can buy lenses for the Fuji system from 12mm to 400mm from Fuji and lenses from several third party manufacturers such as Zeiss. The lenses are better than the comparable Nikkors but they aren't cheap and a whole line of prime lenses is available. Nikon has only a couple of primes for the DX system.

The Fuji image quality is amazing. The cameras and the lenses are made from magnesium and aluminum instead of plastic. They are much smaller and lighter than their Nikon counterparts. After 1/2 a century with Nikon, I can tell you they need to do mirrorless like there is no tomorrow. They are clinging to obsolete technology. They need to be looking over Fujifilm's shoulder.
Yup, Fujifilm kinda kicked Nikon and Canons butt last year and so far this year. I think Fujifilm's approach to the market is wise. They don't seem to rush into the market as everything is well thought out and the quality is high. Attention to details is well noticed on my end. I think Nikon hit a home run with the D500 and I can see a full frame version of it coming next month. As far as mirrorless? I wonder if their even interested. Pentax is pretty much done unless someone snaps them up. I am waiting for the 80mm macro f/2 1:1 and the 8-16 f2.8 from Fujifilm.
 
Just an FYI to all, the "cheap" AF-P VR lenses work brilliantly on the Nikon 1 system (at least on the V2 I have tried them on) with the FT1 adapter... native focus speed (albeit center focus spot only) and the VR works like a charm.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top