Nikon Announce the NQR

[ricktas]

Nikon Pte. Ltd. is pleased to announce the release of the N-QR, a full frame format mirrorless camera that packs the incredible performance of the D5, Nikon’s flagship FX-format model, into a mirrorless body, using Nikon's patented full frame mirrorless system : http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-12-02

The N-QR incorporates the same powerful 153-point AF system as the D5, ensuring precise subject acquisition even during high-speed continuous shooting at approx. 10 fps. It supports 4K UHD movies, meeting the demands of multimedia professionals, while the new EXPEED 5 image-processing engine enables it to deliver high-quality images and movies and realizes a wide sensitivity range from ISO 100 to 51200, expandable to Hi 5 (ISO 1640000 equivalent).

The N-QR combines the agility of the DX system with superior usability. It employs a touch-screen, tilting monitor, and features SnapBridge support, which enhances the value of your images via constant wireless connection with a smart device.

The NQ-R also incorporates the worlds first 'Pano-Drive' tripod mounting system. Using a servo motor in the base of the NQ-R, the camera can be set to rotate automatically after each frame, panning through a set number of degrees between each frame capture. The Pano-Drive menu allows the photographer to select how many frames are to be taken, and how much the Pano-Drive rotates the camera after each frame, in degrees. Once set, a press of the shutter button will see the N-QR automatically take the set number of frames, whilst rotating the camera around the nodal point, fully automatically. For video, the panning motion will be smooth, as the camera can track the subject using the AF system, ensuring panning captures exactly what the photographer wants.

A release date has not been set, but based on recent releases, expect to see the Nikon N-QR full frame mirrorless camera on the shelves soon.

[Glenda]

Certainly not before time - it seems Nikon and Canon were being left behind in the mirrorless race. Hopefully it will get great reviews, have few teething problems and be affordable. Getting older I am definitely considering the switch to mirrorless, the biggest drawback being the cost of getting a whole new system.

[Lance B]

April fools joke, Rick? :D

[Filter]

Went into NQR & they know nothing about these...:D

[Granville]

Nice trick Rick

[arthurking83]

Went into NQR & they know nothing about these...:D

Damned! .. I ended up in the wrong store .. somehow I took a wrong turn and ended up in a Reject Shop instead! :Doh:
(although they did have a lot of mirrorless stuff in there :p)

[ricktas]

NQR = Not Quite Real!

:lol:

[feathers]

Well you got me:o:th3:

[Steve Axford]

I wonder about the joke. It raises some interesting questions - like why don't they? 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.

[Lance B]

Well, the results shouldn't be any different. The rest of it is about human interaction with the camera.

[arthurking83]

I wonder about the joke. It raises some interesting questions - like why don't they? .....

The main reason they don't is (probably) ROI .. return on investment.

Why spend all this money on a device that may not ever fully return as much profit for the model line up, as the current models do?

If you have a peek at the low end of the market D3300/1300D type cameras, they are still approximately $100 cheaper than the cheapest 'current' model mirrorless cameras.
When the prices are in the 400-500 range, that $100 represents at fair percentage of the price .. and allows $100 worth of accessories.
So even tho the more complicated to build SLR type cameras are cheaper and in theory more expensive to build, the simpler (and in theory less expensive) to build mirrorless cameras still retail at higher points.
The assumption can only be that the SLR manufacturer's ability to manufacture those complicated mirror contraptions is so well advanced and matured that there seems to be no need to invest money in newer tech .. keep chugging along until a breakthrough tech in mirrorless comes along that changes the equation.

The reality is that for the major majority of camera purchasers, whether the camera is mirrorless or SLR has no bearing on their choice.
These are the millions of consumers that most companies target .. not us enthusiast types that nitpick over every last detail and feature!

I can't understand why it's taking so long for proper hybrid type EVF/OVF cameras such as Canon's recent Patent release (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1155069571/canon-files-patent-for-design-of-hybrid-viewfinder-aimed-at-dslr-cameras).
That's what I want. Pure EVF probably isn't as a long term prospect.

I like the idea of an EVF, but still have personal preferences that lean more towards OVF quality viewfinders. Have yet to meet an EVF that looks nice.
I like the idea of having all those uber cool features such as instant magnified focus points and so on in an EVF, but would still prefer the every day use of a no power draining OVF.

Flick a switch and EVF would be great for those times when an EVF's additional features would be handy to have access too .... etc.

I'd love to see/experience the quality of the EVF in the new Leica SL tho.


ps. I hope that 19mm/4 PC-E patent in Rick's link turns into a real product too.

[Steve Axford]

The main reason they don't is (probably) ROI .. return on investment.

Why spend all this money on a device that may not ever fully return as much profit for the model line up, as the current models do?


Do you really think that SLR's will be the dominant cameras in 20 years, or even 10 years time. The mirror assembly must be very expensive and it has certain other real disadvantages (eg accurate focussing and extra space required in the light path. Perhaps the resistance to EVFs is mainly from us oldies and when the youngsters move in SLRs will be a bit like film cameras, interesting but historical.

[arthurking83]

Do you really think that SLR's will be the dominant cameras in .....

Really makes no difference what my thoughts are .. but to answer the question, No!

But what's hard to argue against is what the reality is. And that is, at the lowest end of the ILC camera spectrum the SLR design is still cheaper to buy.
And the theory of it, and expectation is that it should be reversed but it's clearly not the case.

The other notable anomaly about the situation is that the m4/3rds cameras at the cheaper end of the market use a significantly smaller sensor than the APS-C models at the cheaper end too.
You would expect that the smaller sensor would add to the theoretical price advantage of the mirrorless cameras too .. but again we don't see it.

Us oldies don't generally buy D3300/1300D type cameras, so our resistance to EVFs wouldn't really have any bearing on what the manufacturer decides is the best design type for that product range(where production costs are vital).

[Steve Axford]

Perhaps the extra cost on the mirrorless cameras at present is paying for development of the new systems required, like new focussing and EVF systems? Theses, like all similar things, will drop in price after the development process reaches maturity. Perhaps Nikon and Canon plan to wait for that crossover point to slowly move away from SLRs. Perhaps they are smart, by making whatever money they can now and planning to make a big jump when the technology becomes impossible to ignore? Perhaps they plan to rely on their marketing power? I don't know their intentions, but it is very hard to imagine that such a complex mechanical device as a moving mirror can survive in what can easily be a purely electronic environment. Electronics is still advancing at a much higher rate than mechanical technology, so the pressures to abandon the SLR will be increasing quite quickly. Already I am finding that the Sony A7R2 is a much better camera for macro than a Canon 5D Mk3 and many of the reasons why would also apply to Nikon. I think this is also true for landscape, though a complete range of lenses is lacking at present, but it isn't true for sport or wildlife (not yet at least).

[arthurking83]

Perhaps the extra cost on the mirrorless cameras at present is paying for development of the new systems required, like new focussing and EVF systems? Theses, like all similar things, will drop in price after the development process reaches maturity. Perhaps Nikon and Canon plan to wait for that crossover point to slowly move away from SLRs.

I'm sure I already said that .. and it makes sense.
Remember the millions of potential customers don't care if it's SLR or mirrorless .. as long as it's .. cheap/the right size(which SLR designs can also be up to a point) .. and so on.





.... but it is very hard to imagine that such a complex mechanical device as a moving mirror can survive in what can easily be a purely electronic environment. ......

I have to be honest, I can't see that the basic version of the mirror system is really all that 'complex'.
Reason I say this is that I have one sitting on my desk, waiting to be installed one day soon
(I plan on doing the sensor filter replacement at the same time, hence the 'one day soon' caveat)

From what I've briefly observed on the very simple D70s mirror assembly it's really not all that much more complex than a door!
The entire mirror and shutter assembly is a single (plastic) unit, very light weight just with many complicated electrical ribbon strips hanging off it, looking very rustafarian!
The D70s uses a pentamirror viewfinder mechanism which keeps it much cheaper than a more expensive pentaprism design.
So, in just quickly looking at what the D70s assembly comprises of .. it looks quite cheaply made .. and to make.

The question is, what is the cost of a electronic display unit(of half decent pixel quality with an allowance for decent refresh rates) ... relative to the cost of the mirror assembly.

I can't imagine that a very high quality EVF display unit would be cheap to manufacture .. and then of course ensure that it's going to be durable as well(that is, production allowances for duds).

Remember that an EVF is basically an LCD and they are notorious for defective pixels .. mirrors aren't!
So no matter what manufacturing processes they have in place, there will always be LCD displays with defective pixels coming straight off the line .. they have to be accounted for in the manufacturing cost.
On a much lower (effective) resolution PC or TV monitor a dead pixel or two will effectively make no difference.
But on a super high res EVF(2.4m pixels in a 10x10mm square surface area is about as super high res as we consumers get access too!) .. one dead pixel and I dare say the EVF display unit is unusable.
I can't imagine anyone being happy with a bright red dead pixel whilst viewing it through a magnified dioptre too!

ps. had I been smarter, I (and my son) could have easily lived with the small speck of damaged mirror surface on the D70s when he brought it back from his camp trip. He tried quickly to clean it but nothing happened and speck remained.
I thought, as he did, it was a speck of dust/dirt and tried to clean it too .. until in cleaning it it smeared! :eek: .. but the smearing wasn't the dust speck it was the mirrored surface coming off!
Obviously the mirrored surface has a 'lifetime' as well or that (more likely) the D70s has been well abused(by me) over the years.
This is why I have a new replacement mirror box waiting to be fitted to the D70s ... funny thing(and it is an ancient 2004-2006 model camera now) .. but the mirror box is complete with pentaprism, lens mount, shutter, many electronic peripherals and servo motors .... and cost me a whopping AU$32(US$20). The next cheapest(also being the only other one available tho) was AU$80.
At that kind of money for the entire assembly, and most likely a few handlers must have made some profit along the retail chain ... I really can't imagine the cost of one of these low end assemblies to be more than about $10-20 or so. I'd dearly love to find out what the cost of a replacement EVF display unit would be.

[Steve Axford]

You work with computers, don't you? Would you design any computer system which depended on a mechanical device, if you could avoid it.

Your argument that EVF's will have defective pixels and mirrors don't just doesn't make much sense. The sensor in a camera has defective pixels, yet we have chucked film in its favour. My eyes have defective pixels, lots of them, but provided the software is good enough it makes little difference until you start having a really significant portion of defective pixels.

It makes lots of sense to put money into developing new and better EVF's as the same devices are used in many other things (like virtual reality) and economies of scale will bring down the price. Any new developments in camera mirror technology and the associated focusing hardware will have to rely on cameras alone for their funding. That spells their death if nothing else. Remember the CMOS took over from (I've forgotten which chip technology). CMOS was inferior in so many ways, but the mass market ensured that it would win. The same applies to mirrorless. It will win because of the shear number of devices that use it vs the very limited market for SLRs.

[arthurking83]

If I were to argue anything(which, BTW, I'm not arguing at all here) .. I would always argue in favour of an electronic display as ultimately being the best option for the future.
I think you've mistaken my replies as arguments! :confused013

You asked the question .. why? .. (this or that) and I'm simply adding possible answers.

Why don't Nikon or Canon develop a mirrorless camera .. well they both have as far as I know.
Why don't they wholesale replace SLR designs with mirrorless types .. I think the answer is obvious(from what we can ascertain) .. that it'll add to the cost of development relative to what they currently offer.
I gave the lowest end of the market as examples simply because the theory of an EVF system being lower has yet to transpire!
But even at the top end of the market, it's easy to assume that the reason they don't switch design types is most likely due to emerging tech .. I did post a link to Canon's latest patent design.

My personal preference is for a true hybrid design as OVF will still have an advantage over an electronic display(eg. in terms of ultimate dynamic range to the eye).
For landscapes, this is my preference.
Battery life! .. EVF's use up far too much power for all day use .. etc.


...... The sensor in a camera has defective pixels, yet we have chucked film in its favour. .....
You've just listed the major issue with an electronic device outputting to another electronic device.
If too many pixels become defective both on the sensor and the display .. the camera would be horrid to look through when trying to compose your photograph.
If the defective pixel locations coincide on both electronic devices, you additive viewing issues.

Dead pixels on a sensor can be dealt with easily for the final image in PP .. that's been a redundant issue from about day one.
You can't really deal with defective pixels in a live view/real time situation .. and mapping those dead pixels does nothing for the viewing experience in some situations.
Dead pixels on your sensor is not the same thing as dead pixels on your monitor.
Imagine a clump of dead pixels on your PC monitor .. would you just put up with them? Most folks purchase brand name monitors because there is usually a defective pixel assurance.
You can't fix them in any way .. the only solution is to replace the monitor.

Mirror surface technology is pretty mature to the point that you can safely say that (clumsy cleaning practises aside) .. they are pretty durable and I dare say manufacturing processes would produce high yield rates. And while I don't know this, I'm sure I'm safe in claiming that the yield rate would be far higher than for very high res LCD/OLED production.
And I'm sure that yield rates are what is the issue would be for the current reality of price comparisons between the low end of the camera market.
In an ideal world where all production processes yield 100% success rates .. for sure his res displays in camera would make them much cheaper.

It's the same for the sensor market. The larger sensors additional cost is not due just to the larger size of the silicon .. it's the yield rate of that sensor + the reduced number of devices for each silicon wafer that makes larger sensors more costly. The yield rate is a significant component to the equation.

I think that the introduction of Live View is possibly just enough EVF for some DSLR users fro those times when they need the advantage of a digital display.
And I have to stress here, I am a massive fan of the potential of an EVF system over a OVF system!!!
But, as far as I've seen, the disadvantages of the EVF are still too great to completely remove the OVF from the equation of a camera .. DSLR or otherwise.
For those times as you said like macro when absolutely perfect focus is needed, or the lens aperture is just way too small for any light to pass through to the OVF .. Lv mode is plenty as a form of compensation.
So my thoughts are that CaNikon probably see things in a similar way to my thoughts for now .. so they probably have the belief that there is no need to change anything .. YET!

if they simply follow the current manufacturers(of MIL cameras) it makes it harder for them to then take the lead in any significant way.
They can introduce a higher res EVF on any give model, but then so can the other manufacturer in their next model iteration.
If they perfect a better way(eg. this hybrid system Canon has recently released in patent form) it gives them a significant advantage down the track.

So the advantage (from CaNikon's point of view) would be that whatever Sony/Olympus/Panasonic/Fuji can give you, so can they. But what those other MIL only cameras can't give you .. CaNikon can!

I don't think that mirrorless cameras are the answer .. or only answer.

[ricktas]

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

Changes happen in everything. My guess is in 20-30 years we wont be using mirrorless either as the dominant camera. Digital is moving so fast (not just digital photography) that what we will likely be using has not even been invented yet. But there has never been a perfect camera or system, and I do not believe mirrorless is, and no doubt whatever comes next wont be perfect either.

[Steve Axford]

If I were to argue anything(which, BTW, I'm not arguing at all here) .. I would always argue in favour of an electronic display as ultimately being the best option for the future.
I think you've mistaken my replies as arguments! :confused013

You asked the question .. why? .. (this or that) and I'm simply adding possible answers.

Why don't Nikon or Canon develop a mirrorless camera .. well they both have as far as I know.
Why don't they wholesale replace SLR designs with mirrorless types .. I think the answer is obvious(from what we can ascertain) .. that it'll add to the cost of development relative to what they currently offer.
I gave the lowest end of the market as examples simply because the theory of an EVF system being lower has yet to transpire!
But even at the top end of the market, it's easy to assume that the reason they don't switch design types is most likely due to emerging tech .. I did post a link to Canon's latest patent design.

My personal preference is for a true hybrid design as OVF will still have an advantage over an electronic display(eg. in terms of ultimate dynamic range to the eye).
For landscapes, this is my preference.
Battery life! .. EVF's use up far too much power for all day use .. etc.


You've just listed the major issue with an electronic device outputting to another electronic device.
If too many pixels become defective both on the sensor and the display .. the camera would be horrid to look through when trying to compose your photograph.
If the defective pixel locations coincide on both electronic devices, you additive viewing issues.

Dead pixels on a sensor can be dealt with easily for the final image in PP .. that's been a redundant issue from about day one.
You can't really deal with defective pixels in a live view/real time situation .. and mapping those dead pixels does nothing for the viewing experience in some situations.
Dead pixels on your sensor is not the same thing as dead pixels on your monitor.
Imagine a clump of dead pixels on your PC monitor .. would you just put up with them? Most folks purchase brand name monitors because there is usually a defective pixel assurance.
You can't fix them in any way .. the only solution is to replace the monitor.

Mirror surface technology is pretty mature to the point that you can safely say that (clumsy cleaning practises aside) .. they are pretty durable and I dare say manufacturing processes would produce high yield rates. And while I don't know this, I'm sure I'm safe in claiming that the yield rate would be far higher than for very high res LCD/OLED production.
And I'm sure that yield rates are what is the issue would be for the current reality of price comparisons between the low end of the camera market.
In an ideal world where all production processes yield 100% success rates .. for sure his res displays in camera would make them much cheaper.

It's the same for the sensor market. The larger sensors additional cost is not due just to the larger size of the silicon .. it's the yield rate of that sensor + the reduced number of devices for each silicon wafer that makes larger sensors more costly. The yield rate is a significant component to the equation.

I think that the introduction of Live View is possibly just enough EVF for some DSLR users fro those times when they need the advantage of a digital display.
And I have to stress here, I am a massive fan of the potential of an EVF system over a OVF system!!!
But, as far as I've seen, the disadvantages of the EVF are still too great to completely remove the OVF from the equation of a camera .. DSLR or otherwise.
For those times as you said like macro when absolutely perfect focus is needed, or the lens aperture is just way too small for any light to pass through to the OVF .. Lv mode is plenty as a form of compensation.
So my thoughts are that CaNikon probably see things in a similar way to my thoughts for now .. so they probably have the belief that there is no need to change anything .. YET!

if they simply follow the current manufacturers(of MIL cameras) it makes it harder for them to then take the lead in any significant way.
They can introduce a higher res EVF on any give model, but then so can the other manufacturer in their next model iteration.
If they perfect a better way(eg. this hybrid system Canon has recently released in patent form) it gives them a significant advantage down the track.

So the advantage (from CaNikon's point of view) would be that whatever Sony/Olympus/Panasonic/Fuji can give you, so can they. But what those other MIL only cameras can't give you .. CaNikon can!

I don't think that mirrorless cameras are the answer .. or only answer.

For someone who is not arguing, you do seem to be biased strongly in one direction, at least going by your arguments????? Time will tell, and maybe CaNikon will be able to jump across at just the right time. For what I do it is already no contest. I also work a lot with film makers and for them it is also no contest, but for different reasons.

- - - Updated - - -


Changes happen in everything. My guess is in 20-30 years we wont be using mirrorless either as the dominant camera. Digital is moving so fast (not just digital photography) that what we will likely be using has not even been invented yet. But there has never been a perfect camera or system, and I do not believe mirrorless is, and no doubt whatever comes next wont be perfect either.

I'll bet it is mirrorless, since mirrorless means just that - mirror less, ie without a mirror. Mirror less just means anything without a mirror.

[Lance B]

I wonder about the mirrorless advocates, those that have purchased them always seem to be trying to convince us that they are the "answer" and "the best thing since sliced bread", but normal OVF DSLR's are still outselling the mirrorless hand over fist, mirrorless is just not making headway into normal OVF DSLR sales. If the majority of people really liked them better, they would be flocking to them in droves, but they aren't, most still opt for the standard OVF DSLR system. Personally, I would rather have my current form of DSLR as it has the OVF and when I require it, a mirrorless system when I use Live-view, ie the best of both worlds. Live-view could be better implemented, one which emulates a mirrorless system more closely and if I ever feel the need to use a mirrorless sytem, then I can use Live-view giving me a hybrid system, OVF and EVF. However, I have tried a few mirrorless cameras and I'm sorry, they just don't cut it for me. We can argue the toss all day, but with the current state of play, mirrorless is not up to the standard that would make me swap and as far as I can see, it will be a long time before they are. When they are, then I'll swap, but until then, I wish the mirrorless advocates would stop trying to convince me they are, because they aren't. That is all I am going to say on the matter.

[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]

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 - - -

[QUOTE=Lance B;1350684]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=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 - - -



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]

Now Gentlemen, Let Us Keep It Polite In Here Please

[Steve Axford]

[QUOTE=Steve Axford;1350703]

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 (http://www.cnet.com/au/news/samsung-shows-retail-ready-transparent-mirrored-oled/) and THIS (http://www.oled-info.com/transparent-oleds) 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.

http://www.pbase.com/image/162939028.jpg

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.

[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? :lol:

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. :confused013

[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 :(