Why is there always rumors about Nikon?

[fmw]

You missed the major advantage of the mirrorless which is smaller size and weight.

I didnt miss it - that part is just complete bullocks. The laws of optics dont care at all if you have a mirror box or not. The only place at which you can gain in size and weight in this respect is with wide angle lenses. Depending upon how well your sensor can handle steep angles of incidence.

Otherwise mirrorless is smaller simply because the sensors are often smaller. And if they arent, as with the Sony FE cameras, you just have a poorly balanced system with little grip, and EVERY lens you have has to be bigger than their DSLR counterpart to compensate for the missing mirror box. Meaning your camera weights the same and your lens bag just got heavier.

That is a strange thing to say. My current camera has exactly the same size sensor as my DSLR and weighs less than half with or without a normal zoom lens attached. My telephoto zoom fits in my pants pocket. You are simply mistaken.

Using retrofocus lenses isn't a disadvantage because they are also used on DSLR's.

I didnt said retrofocus lenses are a disadvatage to mirrorless, I said mirrorless will have to use retrofocus wide angle lenses as well, because symmetric wide angle lenses quickly run out of possible maximum aperture and then you have to go for retrofocus anyway.[/quote]

You suggested that an advantage of a mirrorless would be the use true wide angle lenses. While that is true, you are comparing DSLR's and mirrorless cameras. Since DSLR's don't and can't use them, it is a meaningless comparison.

Nothing wrong with disliking mirrorless cameras.

I never said anywhere I wouldnt like mirrorless ? I thought for a long time it will be the future. Well, I still think it will become really successful, very likely dominant, possibly even killing of SLRs in the end. But I dont think it will be for the reasons people think it will.

Your writing suggests you dislike mirrorless. I think mirrorless will kill DSLR's over time. I think the reason will be size and weight. That is what moved me.

I like the Fujifilm X and G systems because they are really well done, with good glas, and in 5-10 years the X system will very likely be as good as DSLRs in respect to lens choices (in fact it might be superior overall in that category, the average lens quality for Fujifilm X is very good), flash support, and overall performance - minus the fact it obviously will still only be APS-C.

I'm not sure it will be APS-C. I think technology will take us to even smaller sensors. We have some decent smaller ones as well as full frame in the Sony line right now.

Personally I think all Nikon has to do is allow EVF during lifeview, with all the possible features, and to allow to permanently lock the mirror up, which would be a requirement for certain wide angle lenses - then you can haven have 100% of the advantage of mirrorless on a DSLR but still keep the OVF for when you need its advantages.

Again, except for size and weight which is what mirrorless is all about, at least for me and many others.

 

[Solarflare]

Why Buy a DSLR?

What it boils down to for me is the OVF (optical viewfinder) vs. EVF (electronic viewfinder) question.

I stongly disagree. OVF vs EVF is actually just one of many variables of a system. I find the notion that somebody would pick their system based on viewfinder type alone quite riddiculous.

Its not even clear to me whats the better choice, OVF or EVF. Sure, EVF can have some additional information display, and especially for smaller sensors the viewfinder can be a lot better, but how important are these displays to a skilled photographer, and how many of these displays are actually getting implemented in the first place in the system in question ? And it also has many potential issues with EVF, like lag especially in more challenging scenarios, limited dynamic range unable to preview the scene as its recorded - ironic since some people believe EVF guarantees WYSIWYG - being too bright in low light, flickering with artificial light, general discomfort of many people using them including issues of people with visual defects, and it will always require current to run, putting stress of the sensor and draining a battery much quicker than a OVF camera as well.

And if I had to pick the most important topic for any system - its always lenses. Not even sensor size and certainly not viewfinder type. In fact viewfinder type doesnt actually do anything at all to the final image. Except EVFs might have a bit more noise because they constantly read the sensor, thus increasing the temperature and thus increasing the noise.

Follow-focus is still a win for DSLRs, and lens adaptation is a win for mirrorless, to name just two examples.

Actually follow-focus is pretty good on recent mirrorless, like the Fuji X-T2.

Lens adaption however, I'm not sure how important I should rate this. Especially since no, its not a clear win for mirrorless. Most mirrorless systems arent that good at adapting, because they have a crop factor. The one system that doesnt is a Sony, and I have quality issues with that system. All in all, I like the idea of adapting a lot, but adapting has somewhat of a toy nature to it.

When it comes to native lens selection, DSLRs still have the strong advantage. The only ones who really challenge sheer number of choices is MFT, who however still have a lot of holes in their selection, the only ones who challenge the glas quality of Nikon F, Canon EF and Pentax K is IMHO Fujifilm X.

So who, these days, all other things being equal, would choose an entry-level DSLR with a small mirror-box finder?

So far the bang for the buck ratio of entry level DSLR hasnt been challenged by mirrorless much. Even Fujifilm so far cannot challenge that, despite them having the cheap but well performing glas in their two XC zooms - their X-A* offers lack a viewfinder at all. And these DSLR rely on autofocus anyway, so the inferior viewfinder isnt a big issue really.

 

[Solarflare]

You suggested that an advantage of a mirrorless would be the use true wide angle lenses.

Oh my.

COULD !!!!!

I said in the past I believed they COULD be better. By using near symmetrical, straightforward Biogon designs instead of retrofocus Distagon designs. Biogon and Distagon being the terms Zeiss coined for these types of lenses.

I explained in detail why I no longer think so, too. Do I have to repeat myself ? Only Leica really looked into the issue of digital sensors handling steep angles of incidence, and bright wide angle lenses need to be retrofocus anyway. As they have to be for DSLRs, always.

Your writing suggests you dislike mirrorless.

Then please stop reading stuff into my postings I didnt write at all !

I see advantages in both EVF and OVF and quite frankly I probably would prefer to simply have both.

I think technology will take us to even smaller sensors.

Well then have fun with those, I persume. For the enthusiast I on the contrary see that medium format gets in our grasp now.

 

[pixmedic]

obviously some things need to be pointed out here. again

mirrorless cameras are smaller than their mirror-box DSLR counterparts. thats just a fact. FX mirrorless bodies are smaller than FX DSLR's, APS-C mirrorless bodies are smaller than APS-C DSLR's, and in some cases APS-C mirrorless bodies are the same size as m4/3 bodies.

size matters. to disregard smaller size and weight as being a major component of choosing a camera is just plain stupid. if lugging around 50lbs of gear doesnt matter to you, then fine...but its absolutely a concern for some people and a legitimate factor when considering a system. especially when the mirrorless systems can provide everything a dslr can for most peoples needs.

as for lenses...
whoever said mirrorless lenses had to be bigger than their DSLR counterpart is wrong.
my fuji 18-55 f2.8-4 lens is smaller than both the nikon and canon counterpart, and the fuji is a faster lens.
its even smaller than my tamron 17-50 f2.8 was.
my fuji 35mm f2 is smaller than my nikon 35mm f1.8 was. its actually more the size of the older MF 35mm f2.
and thats comparing DX to DX lenses.
if you drop down to m4/3, the lenses get even smaller (yes, smaller...because mirrorless cameras DONT NEED BIGGER LENSES)
lens size is largely a product of the sensor it has to cover and the electronics the manufacturer wants to put in it.

fuji and sony lenses are as good as anything nikon and canon produce. Fuji has an absolute fantastic lineup of both consumer and pro grade lenses that cover everything from 18mm to 400mm so unless you need/want more than 400mm, Fuji has you covered. the few speciality lenses that canon and nikon make account for such a small section of the market i hardly even count them. I will put fuji pro lenses against anything leica makes any day of the week with full confidence that the only difference you will find is on one of those rediculous MTF charts, but nothing end product.

but hey, what do I know?
ive only only owned olympus m4/3 cameras, and nikon 1 cameras, and fuji cameras, and nikon DX/FX cameras, and sony DSLR's...
so ive used plenty of lenses for all these systems, and personally seen the differences.

I think mirrorless is the future. its already so close to traditional DSLR's its almost scary.
m4/3 and even 1" sensors are already better than DX sensors in DSLR's from a decade ago.
big clunky DSLR's are fine if you need huge tele lenses, but for the average consumer who doesnt want to walk around the park with
20lbs strapped to their neck, the smaller profile of mirrorless cameras will only become more and more appealing.
the size and weight difference between my fujix-e2 with 18-55mm lens and my D7100 with 17-50mm lens was significant.

 

[chuasam]

Did you know that the Swedish Volvo cars is a Chinese company?

Yes.
Did you know that Hasselblad is owned by DJI (another Chinese Company)
The Japanese government wanted Fuji to bail Nikon out to avoid being taken over by a Chinese company as a point of national pride.

maybe this is why Nikon isnt really doing much in the mirrorless market.
what if Fuji buys into nikon and they basically merge. Fukon? Fujikon? Nikuji?
the conglomorate would already have a mirrorless setup in the fuji camp, and the dslr section covered with Nikon.
could be quite the power couple.

They've been a casual couple for years. Even back when Fuji made DSLRs with Nikon bodies.

 

[Solarflare]

mirrorless cameras are smaller than their mirror-box DSLR counterparts. thats just a fact.

If all you have for defending a statement is "thats just a fact" then maybe that means you dont have anything to back you up.

I repeat: laws of optics dont care if you have a mirror box or not. All that matters is sensor size/image circle, focal length, maximum aperture. That plus extra space for features like autofocus etc. Thats also why Leica M cameras have always been so small: no autofocus there.

If you have no counterargument other than "thats just a fact", you're obviously wrong.

 

[pixmedic]

mirrorless cameras are smaller than their mirror-box DSLR counterparts. thats just a fact.

If all you have for defending a statement is "thats just a fact" then maybe that means you dont have anything to back you up.

I repeat: laws of optics dont care if you have a mirror box or not. All that matters is sensor size/image circle, focal length, maximum aperture. That plus extra space for features like autofocus etc. Thats also why Leica M cameras have always been so small: no autofocus there.

If you have no counterargument other than "thats just a fact", you're obviously wrong.

zomg...really?
you really want to go on record as saying that mirrorless cameras are in fact, not smaller than DSLR's?

if so, please explain to me oh enlightened one, exactly how focal length, aperture, and autofocus come into play when comparing camera body sizes?

i mean, what exactly do you think i actually need to back up that statement?
have you not seen mirrorless cameras or DSLR's before?
do you want me to take some pictures for you to illustrate?

'cause frankly, im sticking with my statement as being a fact, and you being very very wrong.

 

[Elpistolero]

Seriously, just this week there was a rumor that Fuji is buying Nikon, or "helping" Nikon. It seems like every other month there is some sort of rumor about Nikon closing its doors, selling, merging, etc.

Why is that?

Someone told me it's because Nikon sits in the #2 spot and Canon is in the #1 spot and they want Nikon to fail and shut down. Wouldn't Canon become a monopoly in the DSLR market if Nikon would cease operations?

I mean should we be worried? Or is just flat out total BS that people are spreading or lost in translations that people are taking way out of context in hopes it would somehow harm Nikon?

It's a total soap opera!

You shouldn't be worried.
Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi as a member of the MUFG group (Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group)
In Japan, there is a system called "keiretsu" a quote from wiki will explain you how this system works
A member of this keiretsu is the largest bank in Japan, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi

"A keiretsu (literally system, series, grouping of enterprises, order of succession) is a set of companies with interlocking business relationships and shareholdings. It is a type of informal business group. The keiretsu maintained dominance over the Japanese economy for the second half of the 20th century.

The member companies own small portions of the shares in each other's companies, centered on a core bank; this system helps insulate each company from stock market fluctuations and takeover attempts, thus enabling long-term planning in projects. It is a key element of the manufacturing industry in Japan."

More about Mitsubishi keiretsu click here.

Nikon's role in this keiretsu as a part of the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is to make precision instruments.

Beside cameras Nikon make some bad ass precision instruments, metrology scanners, sport optics and other instruments like microscopes. I've linked all of them to the main page.

Also Mitsubishi is heavily involved in military industry, so there is always a business for Nikon.

So no worries