Nikon Announce the NQR

[Steve Axford]

Get real Lance. I have never, until now, raised any argument for mirrorless, so to say I " always seem to be trying to convince us that they are the "answer"" is quite ridiculous. I honestly don't care what you use, I was merely responding to what I saw as as an odd joke by Rick and having a, possibly pointless, discussion with Arthur. You could easily have ignored the entire thread, but you chose not to.

[I @ M]

Sure there are still some problems with mirrorless, like the EVF, but it's hard to see that it's not going to be the future. It's a simpler camera that theory says will produce better results for the same price.

Get real Lance. I have never, until now, raised any argument for mirrorless, so to say I " always seem to be trying to convince us that they are the "answer"" is quite ridiculous.

The way it is written in the first quoted post seems to contradict the second quoted post.

Sometimes Steve, I really wonder about your thought process.

[Lance B]

I didn't say you necessarily, Steve.

[jim]

The way it is written in the first quoted post seems to contradict the second quoted post.

Sometimes Steve, I really wonder about your thought process.

The first quoted post is on this thread, so doesn't really contradict the second. Unless you take "now" to mean "this instant".

[Steve Axford]

[QUOTE=I @ M;1350649]The way it is written in the first quoted post seems to contradict the second quoted post.

Sometimes Steve, I really wonder about your thought process.[/

My thought process is that if I write several things within this thread, they should generally be taken together. I believe that most others would also follow this convention.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say you necessarily, Steve.

Since I am the sole poster who is suggesting that mirrorless would be the way of the future - who else could you mean?

[arthurking83]

For someone who is not arguing, you do seem to be biased strongly in one direction, at least going by your arguments????? .....

I reckon you've read something into my bias that is not actually there.

If I do have any bias for or against EVF vs OVF, it would actually be towards EVF, for sure.
In theory it would make a far superior system overall.

If it appears that I have a bias the other way, it's only because current EVF systems and tech haven't surpassed enough of what OVFs are good at.

I suppose it's akin to the old LCD vs CRT comparison. When the new tech abilities outperform the old in all the important points .. count me in too.

[Steve Axford]

Thanks Arthur. I agree that the EVF has some development needed, but it will happen. I also think that some more thought is needed about what to display. I find that when I use a display and when I look through the viewfinder I want to see different data. I like to see a relatively clean picture in the viewfinder whereas I like to see more data on the display. With the Sony at least, they are set the same. I think this needs some work, but more on the human interface side than just technology. Perhaps some very easily found buttons to change the EVF or display contents. I guess this will be an evolutionary process.

[Lance B]

[QUOTE=Steve Axford;1350703]

The way it is written in the first quoted post seems to contradict the second quoted post.

Sometimes Steve, I really wonder about your thought process.[/

My thought process is that if I write several things within this thread, they should generally be taken together. I believe that most others would also follow this convention.

- - - Updated - - -



Since I am the sole poster who is suggesting that mirrorless would be the way of the future - who else could you mean?

The general trend for the mirrorless advocates and disciples of the new religion is that mirrorless will take over the world and that to want anything else is just being a dinosaur. You have been very much pushing the mirrorless barrow in this thread and you make the comment that OVF will be completely replaced in the future and I just don't see that happening or as it being necessary simply because we can have the best of both worlds with an OVF and live-view that emulates EVF. I also don't think that it has to be an "either - or" argument.

[MarkChap]

Warning: Now Gentlemen, Let Us Keep It Polite In Here Please

[Steve Axford]

[QUOTE=Lance B;1350723]

The general trend for the mirrorless advocates and disciples of the new religion is that mirrorless will take over the world and that to want anything else is just being a dinosaur. You have been very much pushing the mirrorless barrow in this thread and you make the comment that OVF will be completely replaced in the future and I just don't see that happening or as it being necessary simply because we can have the best of both worlds with an OVF and live-view that emulates EVF. I also don't think that it has to be an "either - or" argument.

Could I ask how you see that a mechanical mirror assembly will survive in a device that can easily by purely electronic? Mirrorless is not a technology, but simply the removal of the mirror assembly and then using anything else. To me, and many others, including Arthur (please correct me if I am wrong here, Arthur), this makes a lot of sense. The technology and implementation still has a little way to go, particularly the human interface, but a mechanical device which solved a problem for film cameras is very unlikely to survive for long in the digital era where there is a digital solution to the problem. To assert that I am making this a religion is a bit over the top, don't you think? I learnt many years ago not to get emotionally tied to any hardware or software.

[Lance B]

Because I do not think that EVF's will reach a point where they can refresh fast enough for those that use their cameras for moving subject matter. Not only that, but many people just like OVF's rather than an electronic screen. Also, we can have a hybrid system as I pointed out where you get the best of both worlds if required. Again, why does it have to be either-or argument when both can be sold side by side - however, I think this last point is moot if there is a successful implementation of a hybrid system, ie; a traditional OVF and use live-view. My point is that I do not think anyone can categorically say that electronics will fill the gap or where photography will be in 10 or 20 years, it is all just pure speculation.

[Steve Axford]

Because I do not think that EVF's will reach a point where they can refresh fast enough for those that use their cameras for moving subject matter. Not only that, but many people just like OVF's rather than an electronic screen. Also, we can have a hybrid system as I pointed out where you get the best of both worlds if required. Again, why does it have to be either-or argument when both can be sold side by side - however, I think this last point is moot if there is a successful implementation of a hybrid system, ie; a traditional OVF and use live-view. My point is that I do not think anyone can categorically say that electronics will fill the gap or where photography will be in 10 or 20 years, it is all just pure speculation.

It's not really just speculation. Our photos are now purely digital (or at least mine are), and we find no problem with that, so why should EVFs provide an insurmountable problem? The reason that a hybrid system is at best only a temporary answer is because the mechanical mirror adds some constraints to the camera. For example, a crazy focusing method where the focus is taken from a screen other than the focus plane. Micro adjustment just isn't required with on-sensor focusing. Also, the lens can be placed much closer to the sensor with no mirror. This makes little difference with telephoto lenses, but can be quite important at the wide angle end. The lenses are cheaper to make, lighter, and sometimes considerably better. There is no down side as a lens can always be moved further away.

As an experiment, I thought I would see what DPreview thought of the current cameras - not really as a test for mirrorless, but as a test for what they think is currently the best cameras. Make what you want of it, but they put Sony (which is mirrorless) at the top in their top category and also 3 out of 4 other categories that I looked at. Even if you disagree, it is clear that some reputable commentators see mirrorless as providing significant challenges to the SLR. You certainly would not have seen that 5 years ago, and that is not pure speculation. They have complex reviews listing their reasons.

[Lance B]

Well, it is still specualtion, I'm sorry. Just because photos are now purely digital that doesn't make it follow that all cameras will also be purely electronic and that there are no OVF's, one does not preclude the other. A hybrid camera does not need to have a crazy focus system, OVF works perfectly well, by the way as it is much faster and can be just as accurate, as it can use both methods depending on what method of viewing you are using, whether live view which is contrast detect or phase detect with an OVF. My point is, they both have their merits and thus a hybrid system can work, much better than purely one system or the other, especially at a professional level of camera.

As for DPReview, their reviews these days leave much to be desired in many areas, IMO. They can put Sony up there at the top, but I have tried one and there is no way in this whole wide world that it is better for me than my D810. You see, this is the problem with someone making a pronouncement as to which is the "best camera" as it means nout to most people.

Anyway, I can see we are going round in circles. You won't convince me that mirrorless is the answer at this stage of play and I don't see them overcoming many of the obstacles that make OVF a better system in many ways and for many, if not most people, in the foreseeable future.

[Steve Axford]

It's great that you love your D810, Lance. I really wouldn't suggest you change. The whole reason that I responded to this thread was that I thought the joke about Nikon releasing a mirrorless camera, wasn't really all that funny as it could happen. I'm sure that, what either of us think will make not one jot of difference to the future camera market, so what we both say is speculation. Time will tell, as always.

[Lance B]

I agree that Nikon (and Canon) will probably release a mirrorless camera, possibly in the not too distane future. Will it be an APS C to "test the waters" or will it be a full blown FX cvamera? Who knows. However, I do think it will be sold alongside their OVF cameras for a very long time, if mirrorless proves to be a reasonable success for them. Please do not get me wrong, I am not poo-pooing mirrorless as it has it's place and has advantages, but for me, I would sincerely think that a hybrid is the immediate answer and this may even be what they are developing and why it is taking them so long to introduce it? Again, all pure speculation.

[Steve Axford]

I think that the days are gone where any one 35mm camera will be best for all things (probably never true anyway). At present I think the Sony is best for macro and landscape and the Nikon best for wildlife and sports (just my opinion), but it is hard to see that any one camera will dominate in the immediate future. Canon continues to lead the market in spite of not having the best in any thing, which just goes to show that being the best (whatever that means) isn't the only important thing.

[arthurking83]

I can't imagine that changing lens backfocus designs will be an option for either Nikon or Canon(possibly Pentax).

I'm sure that a major reason behind CaNikon currently do what they do is because of their legacy support for older products(mainly lenses)

I'll use Nikon as an example but it could easily translate to Canon or Pentax here too.
Nikon's best foot forward with any wholesale change to their current big selling camera ranges would be to maintain compatibility with their current lens range.
These are lenses that sell in the millions and surely must represent a large percentage of their income/profit. Canon's figures would be even higher/more than Nikon's!

So to create a mirrorless camera with a shorter backfocus distance would almost certainly create issues with current lenses, as they wouldn't be optimised for the shorter register distance ..
So an adapter system would have to be factored into any new camera design.
The older, longer register distance lenses would obviously still work, but if the Nikon version were to be the same Nikon F-mount, those lenses wouldn't be as well suited to the shorter register distance due to being optimised for the longer register distance. Darkening of the corners would be the main issue but other issues would surely come into play.
Using an adapter system for backward compatibility would (or could) be a flawed system.

For these reasons, for Nikon and Canon now to create a new camera system to replace their current high volume designs would almost certainly be a major headache and investment for what sort of return in a market that is declining?

For Sony .. the move was much more simple, compared to CaNikon's situation. Sony had very low sales compared to the big selling brands.

The major reason for the increase in 'mirrorless' sales numbers is surely due to the new model syndrome rather than consumers going for a wholesale change to their system.

I agree with Lance's comment that a hybrid system is the best way forward in the immediate future for CaNikon's current situation. It makes the most sense from a business point of view, which is how Canon/Nikon/Pentax would view the challenge.
If they didn't, and only saw the inevitable switch to electronic vf as a necessity just to keep up with the Jones'es . surely they would have done it by now and not introduced models such as the EOSM(Canon) and 1 series(Nikon) ..
Again, why make these models that compete with their current sales successes? I don't think it'd be too far off explaining those models as 'feeler' models testing the waters from both an engineering and marketing point of view.
They could have easily made the lowest end cameras(ie. D3xxx and 1xxxD models) mirrorless but with the current backfocus designs to maintain system compatibility.
The only probable explanation as to why they haven't done this is that the EVF system still isn't as cost effective overall as the simple reflex system that they employ!
If it were, surely any price advantage those models would benefit from(and EVF) would give them an 'upper hand' at the retail end. Those models are above anything else, price sensitive.

of course all this is (again) pure speculation on my part, but 1+1 = 2 .. some speculation is easy to make, even if it's not entirely accurate.

There is a glitch in the EVF ecosystem, there must be.
Why else would Canon's cheapest camera(ILC only here too!) .. be close to $300 cheaper than Canon's cheapest SLR camera?
Same with Nikon, who use a much smaller sensor in their 1 series .. about $200+ cheaper for the cheapest SLR design vs the cheapest MILC camera.

Either the cost of development if the new system is extraordinarily high so ROI has pushed the resultant prices of their EVF cameras high, or the simplicity/cost of an EVF only system is not as low as 'theory' dictates it is.

The major hurdle for EVF only pro cameras is the need for power. I can't imagine 'NatGeo types' .. waiting for that decisive moment for weeks at a time with their EVF cameras always on just wasting batteries needlessly. That short half second or so for the EVF camera to awake from hibernation could easily be the difference between getting a shot or having wasted weeks for naught.

(speculation mode): I see at least another 10 years of reflex camera design at the pinnacle end of the camera market for sure.
The latest D5 from Nikon will be current for at least 4 years, and Nikon's history is that the replacement camera for it will be an evolution of that .. ie. DSLR at Nikon's top end model for at least 8 years or so.
If Nikon were to replace that model range with an EVF only type .. it would have to be a D6 model .. beyond 8 years from now.
I agree that the inevitable future for SLR type cameras will be EVF at some point, but beyond 10 years time .. not within 10 years.
I reckon hybrids will come first .. anyone's guess which model range .. could even be a totally new model product that doesn't currently fit any. I'd prefer a hybrid D8xx type model soon with a more usable EVF that I've currently experienced .. although as long as it allows Lv mode through the vf, I guess it'd be handy to have. I'd only use it sporadically tho. Still prefer OVF over Lv for 90% of the sort of photography I do .. macro included. For me tho, it's sometimes Lv is better than OVF for some situations ... eg. very limited lenses I like to 'play with' and so on .. I still prefer to use the vf at every opportunity.

I'm not the most tech savvy person, nor am I up to date with the latest developments in tech either .. but I can't understand why they cant' (or don't) add a clear EVF screen overlay onto the focus screen in an OVF camera.
I remember a few years ago Samsung announced the development of a clear OLED screen .. that is, like a sheet of glass(or whatever plastic) that displays an electronic image just like your phone.
In every day viewing conditions out in the open it'd be impossible to see anything clearly, but overlaid onto a focus screen and within the dark confines of a viewfinder .. surely this type of device is a perfect candidate for a hybrid OVF/EVF system?

THIS and THIS is what I'm sort of referring too. They aren't the exact devices I remember from a few years ago .. but obviously more development has come along since the one I remember back then anyhow.
That sort of stuff surely must be a prime candidate for a hybrid system .. rather than Canon's very complex patent?

[Lance B]

I agree with much of what you say, Arthur.

I really don't think that register distance is much of an issue for lens design, ie: I do not think that reducing register distance actually makes for better (wide angle) lenses, or for that matter much of a difference in size or weight - not to the point of alienating their customer base and having to redesign those lenses. The fact is, Nikon has introduced many new wide angles so, I am sure they aren't dropping their register distance any time soon. So, the question then becomes, why reduce register distance? The only real answer is that it makes the camera slimmer, but only to the tune of around 20mm and for me that is of no consequence as far as camera size, or slimness, is concerned - the grip sticks out much more than that. I just can't see it happening.

I really do not think that Nikon or Canon or even Pentax can afford to go the route of reducing register distance and thus alienating their customer base and an adaptor is just not feasible. I mean, Pentax and Nikon have made great noise about the fact that their transition from film to digital and keeping their current mount meant that anyone with film lenses could easily transition to digital, it would be even more important now as there are many more DSLR users than film users that would like to stick with their current lenses.

My point about a hybrid is that you actually do have the best of both worlds:

1) OVF with the associated fast and accurate AF and real time viewing, a tried and true system.

2) EVF in the form of the rear live-view with mirror lock up with all the associated benefits of that system such as focus peaking, histogram, off sensor accurate AF etc. A retractable hood could be employed over the rear view screen which would make it better for viewing in bright light. I see quite a number of people using their DSLR in this fashion anyway.

Interesting thoughts about the overlay screen on the OVF, but how good that system is in practice for the more professional or critical user is anyone's guess.

[Steve Axford]

You could well be right, Arthur. The lenses are what makes the Canon and the Nikon range of cameras. Sony's strategy here is interesting as they can make adaptors to fit the Canon and Nikon lenses, but that doesn't work the other way around (probably no need as yet). Sony have also teamed up with Zeiss, who make superb, though expensive lenses. In the end, it will depend on how well they can fill the lens range with native lenses plus adaptors for Canon or Nikon lenses. Sony do seem to be well placed to overhaul either Canon or Nikon as they have the chip manufacture and video and gaming experience which should provide many synergies. Of course they have to get the human interface right, which may be their biggest problem. I have to disagree with your 10 year estimate, as 10 years is a long time in a technology market, particularly when they seem to have already caught up (at least according to DPReview).

A comment on hybrid systems. Currently with SLR's you have either the mirror up or the mirror down, so you can't combine the two functions at the same time. I haven't heard of anyone using partially reflecting mirrors as they would add errors and probably require very exact components. So, you can't really have a complete hybrid system, or have I missed something? To duplicate all the focusing hardware and software must be expensive, particularly in development.

[Lance B]

A hybrid system would entail using live-view and the mirror locked up - no big deal, it is how many users use their DSLR now in a variety of circumstances. Current mirrors are already partially reflective at the moment as the focus sensor mirror is attached to the back of the main mirror which directs part of the light to the focus sensors through the main mirror.



As far as Sony having the jump on Nikon (and Canon) as far as sensor technology and EVF, I do not think this will actually be a problem for them in practice. Nikon is not tied to any one manufacturer of sensors or EVF technology and can use whomever they see fit that has the best technology at the time, not only that, Nikon can, and have done in the past, designed their own sensors which have proven to be the best at the time. The idea of in-house design and development being of benefit is not always the best way to do things as Nikon can put out to a number of manufacturers a particular requirement they want and thus source the best that there is to offer at that time.