Nikon Announce the NQR

[Steve Axford]

It does seem that partially reflecting mirrors are used, by Sony and many others. So I was wrong there.
As far as sensors go, the current ff Nikon sensor is made by Sony, who happens to be the largest sensor manufacturer in the world. Nikon can buy from others, but there is a clear advantage if you actually make your own. Canon have lagged a little with sensors as they have not used the Sony sensors. It will be interesting to see which sensor Nikon choose next, and when what will happen. It will be fascinating to see what the major brands do over the next few years, as the market is hard to define accurately.

My guess is that Canon will continue at the top, but Nikon will find it tough. Why? (and this is purely my speculation as I'm sure you will all disagree)

Because Canon are dominant in lenses and seem to be focusing on that area. Just look at the new 11-24mm or the 100-400mm lenses. The last lens we bought (just arrived today) was a Canon 24mm TS-E, to be used with a Sony A7R2. Even if the Sony adaptors would take Nikon lenses (which I think they will, very soon), I doubt that I would buy one.
Nikon had a lead in cameras, but are under threat. Their lenses are good, but by many reports, going downhill. And they are small in size compared to Canon, and certainly to Sony.. They may be very creative and survive in the top echelon, but it will be tough. They do have many loyal supporters, but that may not be enough.
Sony are new kids on the block, but have an big opportunity because of new technology (mirrorless) and their size and dominance with sensors and gaming make them a powerful challenge to Nikon. If Nikon couldn't take the lead when they had what was clearly the best camera, what will happen when they don't?

[Lance B]

I don't think there is necessarily an advantage if you make your own sensors. Canon do and they are lagging behind, IMO.

As for Nikon lenses going down hill, I very much disagree. Nikon have some great lenses and Canon has some great lenses, neither has a monopoly on that score.

The problem with Nikon trying to "take the lead" as you put it is that Canon are too firmly entrenched from years of being on the top in the film days and early digital days and people with Canon lenses would not want to switch systems as it costs too much for a possible small advantage. Not only that, but Nikon may be on top for a few years and then Canon regains the lead and then Nikon regains it again and so on. It is difficult to get a person to switch systems when those people have much invested in their lenses, wait a few years and the perceived advantage swings back to your system. The other point is, even though the Nikon D800 series was possibly the best camera, we are only talking about degrees, 99% of the time no-one could pick the difference between a 5D MKIII image and a D810 image and the same can be said for Sony's supposedly superior A7 RII, the difference in IQ is so small that even at pixel level people would be hard pressed telling the difference. The real differences come down to useability and the complete camera system. The fact is, at this point in time Nikon and Canon aren't really losing sales to Sony's mirrorless especially to very many that are actually switching systems. I also believe that this "smaller size" thing is being over-hyped. I really don't want a camera that is smaller.

[arthurking83]

......

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.

a hybrid system using both OVF and an EVF as an overlay is easily possible(or in theory should be) .. as pellicle mirror cameras have been around for a long time.
Sony themselves used the system for a while on some SLT type cameras ... fixed mirror cameras but using evf.

The purpose of the hybrid is to allow an OVF for those times when one is needed(eg. low battery power) or EVF when that's the better option .. not really the more difficult option of both at the same time, although that would be a great option too and possible via a secondary (eg. focus) sensor or something.

The reason I mentions a nearly 10 year or beyond time frame is simply for the uppermost end of the DSLR spectrum. Nikon's historical camera model frequency has repeated yet again and has consistently been consistent from D1 to D2 .. to D5 now. There's no reason to expect any change in that process, and their choices are probably business related more so than any need to advancing technology.
I don't know about Canon, but it's easy to speculate on the top end Nikon being DSLR for at least about 10 years or so. In the impending period of 8-10 years time from now, when the next gen model is due .. it's anyone's guess tho.

*** Actually scratch all that .. my bad. The updating of D(single digit) series cameras is about 4 years or so .. every Olympics .. again my bad .. so 5 years time is reasonable to expect a seachange in DSLR viewfinder tech .. not 8-10 years as I mistakenly first counted(sorry 'bout that).

And I keep reading that mirrorless cameras have a weight saving advantage in that the heavy mirror can be done away with .. and I doubt that the mirror of the D70s weighs in any more than about 50g or so .. and at a guess(until I can pull the old one apart .. which I will) .. the entire unit of stainless steel mount, screw drive AF motor, dioptre, shutter unit many electronic paraphernalia all weigh in at a measly 110g all told. I can feel that most of that weight is at the front of the camera being the lens mount and AF drive motor.
Anyhow, the mirror itself is always best having as low weight as possible and hence made from the lightest(strongest) material available .. as it's weight impacts the camera's operation too.

Like Lance said, size is, or should be a non issue .. mainly for lens compatibility.

Shorter backfocus designs do allow for smaller short focal length lenses tho .. this is proven, but then the issue of corner darkening comes into play too. As the lens gets closer to the sensor plane it gets increasingly harder to evenly light the sensor .. ie. vignetting.
I'm not a fan of all this in camera processing to remove such aberrations, and would prefer to see that done at the source too. I'm not a fan of Sony's(and Olympus') methods on that front.
KISS!

I think a lot has been lost in this thread and some heated replies came about from that loss in translation too.
Steve asked the question .. "Why don't they"
I simply replied with what I thought seemed an appropriate, and hopefully sensible answer, or explanation as to why they don't.

the way I'm seeing it is that the mirrorless systems still have a bit to do to become true replacements for OVFs irrespective of whether some users proclaim them as the bee's knees.
Obviously not according all tho(well, there's at least two of us here and I know of a few more) .. and there's the important point.
As a manufacturer that is very heavily reliant on customer loyalty and repeated business, they can't afford to alienate any of these customers.
(and it totally has me stumped why their customer service levels are non existent too in these hard times for them!)
Change the good(OVF) for good(EVF) and introduce some deficiencies while not really adding to the system significantly .. sounds like a recipe for disaster on a business level.
The EVF needs to be exceptional .. not just good!

So the reason of why not is simple, yet a complex mix of:
no real benefit to the average punter, who doesn't really care or know any different.
no real ROI on the necessary re-engineering effort, bring the cost of some (unknown)sticky point in the EVF chain down and for sure well see them in at the low end DSLR market.
biggest issue is obviously the power requirements. This needs to be addressed urgently for the systems to make it into the high end pro market.
Funny thing is, if they could implement that system of the AF sensor acting as a pseudo EVF system, power needs could be reduced a fair amount.
I'm sure the power needs of the main sensor are mainly to blame for the power hungry nature of EVF cameras.
The smaller, lower res, EVF sensor for an OVF-EVF overlay system ... would use less power than a current EVF system and is optionally turned off and OVF is simply used.

I reckon the question should be more along the lines of .. why would you jump in now? .. when so many more options are available 'in the future'.

[I @ M]

I don't think there is necessarily an advantage if you make your own sensors. Canon do and they are lagging behind, IMO.

As for Nikon lenses going down hill, I very much disagree. Nikon have some great lenses and Canon has some great lenses, neither has a monopoly on that score.

The problem with Nikon trying to "take the lead" as you put it is that Canon are too firmly entrenched from years of being on the top in the film days and early digital days and people with Canon lenses would not want to switch systems as it costs too much for a possible small advantage. Not only that, but Nikon may be on top for a few years and then Canon regains the lead and then Nikon regains it again and so on. It is difficult to get a person to switch systems when those people have much invested in their lenses, wait a few years and the perceived advantage swings back to your system. The other point is, even though the Nikon D800 series was possibly the best camera, we are only talking about degrees, 99% of the time no-one could pick the difference between a 5D MKIII image and a D810 image and the same can be said for Sony's supposedly superior A7 RII, the difference in IQ is so small that even at pixel level people would be hard pressed telling the difference. The real differences come down to useability and the complete camera system. The fact is, at this point in time Nikon and Canon aren't really losing sales to Sony's mirrorless especially to very many that are actually switching systems. I also believe that this "smaller size" thing is being over-hyped. I really don't want a camera that is smaller.

A lot of common sense there Lance, not the type of of thing that most evangelical fanboys want to hear.

As for who manufactures what in the way of sensors, once again that is an unknown quantity from Nikon. Until someone tears a D5 etc etc apart there will always be a question over where the sensor came from just as in the past with various bodies from Nikon where they tried a few different makers.

[Lance B]

Thank you, Andrew.

A mate of mine shoots a Canon 5D MKIII and has a few top pro spec lenses and he looks at my images and says, "wow, they look so good, I wish Canon had that sensor". Funnily enough, I look at his images and think, "what the hell is he talking about, his images are spectacularly good". The point is, it's the way we use the equipment (skills), when and where we use it (light and subject matter) and post process that has the most impact on the resultant image.

As for sensors, Nikon would possibly get Sony to make their sensors, but with Nikon specifications and those specs may be secret or have a caveat on Nikon using them first off. The thing with all this is, none of the manufacturers manufacture every bit of their camera anyway. Same as car companies, most do not make all the bits that go to make up a car, it's how you implement those bits that makes the difference.

[Steve Axford]

A lot of common sense there Lance, not the type of of thing that most evangelical fanboys want to hear.

As for who manufactures what in the way of sensors, once again that is an unknown quantity from Nikon. Until someone tears a D5 etc etc apart there will always be a question over where the sensor came from just as in the past with various bodies from Nikon where they tried a few different makers.

I'm curious, wHy would we care about the Nikon D5?

[I @ M]

I'm curious, wHy would we care about the Nikon D5?

Because you were the one that brought up the assertion that ------

As far as sensors go, the current ff Nikon sensor is made by Sony, who happens to be the largest sensor manufacturer in the world.

The D5 is a current ff Nikon body and therefore according to you has a Sony sensor.

I haven't seen any solid proof that the D5 uses a Sony sensor or whether it is made by another manufacturer or in house as they have done in the past.

Quite happy for you to provide the verified info that it is made by Sony Steve ----

[Steve Axford]

a hybrid system using both OVF and an EVF as an overlay is easily possible(or in theory should be) .. as pellicle mirror cameras have been around for a long time.
Sony themselves used the system for a while on some SLT type cameras ... fixed mirror cameras but using evf.

The purpose of the hybrid is to allow an OVF for those times when one is needed(eg. low battery power) or EVF when that's the better option .. not really the more difficult option of both at the same time, although that would be a great option too and possible via a secondary (eg. focus) sensor or something.

The reason I mentions a nearly 10 year or beyond time frame is simply for the uppermost end of the DSLR spectrum. Nikon's historical camera model frequency has repeated yet again and has consistently been consistent from D1 to D2 .. to D5 now. There's no reason to expect any change in that process, and their choices are probably business related more so than any need to advancing technology.
I don't know about Canon, but it's easy to speculate on the top end Nikon being DSLR for at least about 10 years or so. In the impending period of 8-10 years time from now, when the next gen model is due .. it's anyone's guess tho.

*** Actually scratch all that .. my bad. The updating of D(single digit) series cameras is about 4 years or so .. every Olympics .. again my bad .. so 5 years time is reasonable to expect a seachange in DSLR viewfinder tech .. not 8-10 years as I mistakenly first counted(sorry 'bout that).

And I keep reading that mirrorless cameras have a weight saving advantage in that the heavy mirror can be done away with .. and I doubt that the mirror of the D70s weighs in any more than about 50g or so .. and at a guess(until I can pull the old one apart .. which I will) .. the entire unit of stainless steel mount, screw drive AF motor, dioptre, shutter unit many electronic paraphernalia all weigh in at a measly 110g all told. I can feel that most of that weight is at the front of the camera being the lens mount and AF drive motor.
Anyhow, the mirror itself is always best having as low weight as possible and hence made from the lightest(strongest) material available .. as it's weight impacts the camera's operation too.

Like Lance said, size is, or should be a non issue .. mainly for lens compatibility.

Shorter backfocus designs do allow for smaller short focal length lenses tho .. this is proven, but then the issue of corner darkening comes into play too. As the lens gets closer to the sensor plane it gets increasingly harder to evenly light the sensor .. ie. vignetting.
I'm not a fan of all this in camera processing to remove such aberrations, and would prefer to see that done at the source too. I'm not a fan of Sony's(and Olympus') methods on that front.
KISS!

I think a lot has been lost in this thread and some heated replies came about from that loss in translation too.
Steve asked the question .. "Why don't they"
I simply replied with what I thought seemed an appropriate, and hopefully sensible answer, or explanation as to why they don't.

the way I'm seeing it is that the mirrorless systems still have a bit to do to become true replacements for OVFs irrespective of whether some users proclaim them as the bee's knees.
Obviously not according all tho(well, there's at least two of us here and I know of a few more) .. and there's the important point.
As a manufacturer that is very heavily reliant on customer loyalty and repeated business, they can't afford to alienate any of these customers.
(and it totally has me stumped why their customer service levels are non existent too in these hard times for them!)
Change the good(OVF) for good(EVF) and introduce some deficiencies while not really adding to the system significantly .. sounds like a recipe for disaster on a business level.
The EVF needs to be exceptional .. not just good!

So the reason of why not is simple, yet a complex mix of:
no real benefit to the average punter, who doesn't really care or know any different.
no real ROI on the necessary re-engineering effort, bring the cost of some (unknown)sticky point in the EVF chain down and for sure well see them in at the low end DSLR market.
biggest issue is obviously the power requirements. This needs to be addressed urgently for the systems to make it into the high end pro market.
Funny thing is, if they could implement that system of the AF sensor acting as a pseudo EVF system, power needs could be reduced a fair amount.
I'm sure the power needs of the main sensor are mainly to blame for the power hungry nature of EVF cameras.
The smaller, lower res, EVF sensor for an OVF-EVF overlay system ... would use less power than a current EVF system and is optionally turned off and OVF is simply used.

I reckon the question should be more along the lines of .. why would you jump in now? .. when so many more options are available 'in the future'.

Because, for some of us there are real advantages, and I speak as someone who really stresses camera

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you, Andrew.

A mate of mine shoots a Canon 5D MKIII and has a few top pro spec lenses and he looks at my images and says, "wow, they look so good, I wish Canon had that sensor". Funnily enough, I look at his images and think, "what the hell is he talking about, his images are spectacularly good". The point is, it's the way we use the equipment (skills), when and where we use it (light and subject matter) and post process that has the most impact on the resultant image.

As for sensors, Nikon would possibly get Sony to make their sensors, but with Nikon specifications and those specs may be secret or have a caveat on Nikon using them first off. The thing with all this is, none of the manufacturers manufacture every bit of their camera anyway. Same as car companies, most do not make all the bits that go to make up a car, it's how you implement those bits that makes the difference.

I agree with most of that, but why so much animosity when anyone questions Nikon. That doesn't make sense

- - - Updated - - -

Because you were the one that brought up the assertion that ------



The D5 is a current ff Nikon body and therefore according to you has a Sony sensor.

I haven't seen any solid proof that the D5 uses a Sony sensor or whether it is made by another manufacturer or in house as they have done in the past.

Quite happy for you to provide the verified info that it is made by Sony Steve ----

But the D5 is a 20mp camera.

[I @ M]

But the D5 is a 20mp camera.

Once again Steve, I am having trouble following your logic ( no, I don't need to read slower ) and suddenly you decided that ff cameras don't count if they only have 20mp sensors.
I guess that leaves a lot of Canon users with a 1dx mark 11 with a 20mp sensor and Sony Alpha 7s 11 users with a 12mp sensor wondering if they actually bought a ff camera.

It seems that the above models are all still current models.

[Steve Axford]

But nit new, top of the line, Andrew. I could write slower if that would help.
But seriously, why join in when you just want an argument? Surely we have better things to do. You could use your Nikon D5 and I could use my A7R2

[arthurking83]

But nit new, top of the line, Andrew. .....

I'm not understanding either here Steve.

D5's sensor is Nikon's newest top of the line sensor.
It may not have the megapixel count of the D8xx series, or doesn't come close to Sony's nor Canon's newest megapixel sensors .. but it's about as new tech as new gets.


Traditionally Nikon's used to use Toshiba to do the fabrication of their lower Mp top line sensors.
I'm not saying that this is the case .. just what's generally happened in the past .. and hence possibly currently.


anyhow! .. discussing the sensors and who manufactures them is getting way off the topic this thread began with.

[ricktas]

6 days and 50 posts. You guys do realise April Fools day is over and the joke has run its course?

bestaprilfoolsdayjokethreadever.

[Steve Axford]

I'm not understanding either here Steve.

D5's sensor is Nikon's newest top of the line sensor.
It may not have the megapixel count of the D8xx series, or doesn't come close to Sony's nor Canon's newest megapixel sensors .. but it's about as new tech as new gets.


Traditionally Nikon's used to use Toshiba to do the fabrication of their lower Mp top line sensors.
I'm not saying that this is the case .. just what's generally happened in the past .. and hence possibly currently.


anyhow! .. discussing the sensors and who manufactures them is getting way off the topic this thread began with.

To be quite honest, Arthur, there has been far to much written here for me to be bothered reading. I'm just not interested in a D5, which seems to be directed at a very small group of sports photographers - but I could be wrong. Anyway, nuf argument. I've got some photos to take.

[Lance B]

I agree with most of that, but why so much animosity when anyone questions Nikon. That doesn't make sense

Animosity? No animosity at all.

[dunnart]

Do you really think that SLR's will be the dominant cameras in 20 years, or even 10 years time. rical.

No I don't. I think the world is looking for small and convenient these days. Lots of folks only look at their photos on a computer screen, so fine resolution isn't that important. As I get older, I feel the weight of my sir gear. I'm prepared to lug it around, but many wouldn't be - and in 15 years, I may not be able to either