Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the bell tolls for..."

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Oct 17, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Oct 17, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Nick Fotis Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    Well, Sony does not have to take into account the millions of lenses and
    paraphernalia sold by Canon and Nikon for SLR cameras...
    Backwards compatibility is not easy to overcome.

    Being the new kid on the block makes easier to experiment.

    N.F.
    Nick Fotis, Oct 17, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On Thursday, October 17, 2013 10:16:18 AM UTC-4, Nick Fotis wrote:
    > Well, Sony does not have to take into account the millions of lenses and
    >
    > paraphernalia sold by Canon and Nikon for SLR cameras...
    >
    > Backwards compatibility is not easy to overcome.
    >
    >
    >
    > Being the new kid on the block makes easier to experiment.
    >
    >
    >
    > N.F.


    They should offer adapters for the old lenses, they aren't that hard to make.
    RichA, Oct 17, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:46:47 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:24:55 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >FF mirrorless. Ugly, but probably serviceable. Nikon and Canon cannot continue to keep dragging their feet in this area.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/1...ource=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_9

    >
    >
    >
    > Dragging their heels?
    >
    >
    >
    > Both Nikon and Canon made mirrorless cameras (based on Contax and
    >
    > Leica respectively) way back in the distant past. Presumably they are
    >
    > wondering why they should now reverse direction..
    >


    And they had mirrored telescopes in the 1800's, the mirrors were made of speculum metal with a reflectivity of about50% which also tarnished very quickly, necessitating frequent refiguring and polishing. An idea before its time, just like Canon's Pelix and whatever Nikon built in the camera stone age.
    RichA, Oct 18, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 17/10/2013 18:11, Alfred Molon wrote:
    []
    > This could be the beginning of the end of the dominance of Nikon and Canon, as
    > the market shifts to mirrorless cameras. Nikon and Canon are a bit what Kodak
    > was in the 1990s.


    I looked at mirrorless cameras a year or so back and they offered very
    little - yes, slightly smaller, but poorer battery life, limited lens
    choice, and cost significantly more than my present system.

    Were Nikon to offer a mirrorless camera which took my existing lenses,
    what would that offer me? Same size (more or less, for the same lens
    range), perhaps a little lighter, likely reduced battery life (or a
    heavier battery). Perhaps I might consider it, but only if it takes my
    existing lenses directly with the same FoV (i.e. sensor size).

    So for me it would be just the next body upgrade, and the existing very
    wide range of first-quality lenses will keep Nikon and Canon dominant.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 18, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <l3qno5$5c6$>, david-
    d says...
    >
    > On 17/10/2013 18:11, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > []
    > > This could be the beginning of the end of the dominance of Nikon and Canon, as
    > > the market shifts to mirrorless cameras. Nikon and Canon are a bit what Kodak
    > > was in the 1990s.

    >
    > I looked at mirrorless cameras a year or so back and they offered very
    > little - yes, slightly smaller, but poorer battery life, limited lens
    > choice, and cost significantly more than my present system.
    >
    > Were Nikon to offer a mirrorless camera which took my existing lenses,
    > what would that offer me? Same size (more or less, for the same lens
    > range), perhaps a little lighter, likely reduced battery life (or a
    > heavier battery). Perhaps I might consider it, but only if it takes my
    > existing lenses directly with the same FoV (i.e. sensor size).
    >
    > So for me it would be just the next body upgrade, and the existing very
    > wide range of first-quality lenses will keep Nikon and Canon dominant.


    And meanwhile Canon has a DSLR that is not a great deal larger than a
    mirrorless and takes their full range of lenses.
    J. Clarke, Oct 18, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 18/10/2013 12:41, J. Clarke wrote:
    []
    > And meanwhile Canon has a DSLR that is not a great deal larger than a
    > mirrorless and takes their full range of lenses.


    ... and the same with the Nikon DSLR I have.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 18, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, cral.elllwood2
    @btopenworld.com says...
    >
    > On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:36:56 -0700, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > On Thursday, October 17, 2013 10:16:18 AM UTC-4, Nick Fotis wrote:
    > >> Well, Sony does not have to take into account the millions of lenses
    > >> and
    > >>
    > >> paraphernalia sold by Canon and Nikon for SLR cameras...
    > >>
    > >> Backwards compatibility is not easy to overcome.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Being the new kid on the block makes easier to experiment.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> N.F.

    > >
    > > They should offer adapters for the old lenses, they aren't that hard to
    > > make.

    >
    > Your reading is not very comprehensive - Canon already makes an adaptor
    > and I would think that Nikon do as well.


    However adapters may not be the whole story. I'm reading that some
    mirrorless cameras have autofocus problems with lenses that were not
    designed to work specifically with mirrorless cameras--something to do
    with phase-detect vs contrast-detect autofocus.
    J. Clarke, Oct 18, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 10/18/2013 3:24 AM, David Taylor wrote:
    > On 17/10/2013 18:11, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > []
    >> This could be the beginning of the end of the dominance of Nikon and
    >> Canon, as
    >> the market shifts to mirrorless cameras. Nikon and Canon are a bit
    >> what Kodak
    >> was in the 1990s.

    >
    > I looked at mirrorless cameras a year or so back and they offered very
    > little - yes, slightly smaller, but poorer battery life, limited lens
    > choice, and cost significantly more than my present system.
    >
    > Were Nikon to offer a mirrorless camera which took my existing lenses,
    > what would that offer me? Same size (more or less, for the same lens
    > range), perhaps a little lighter, likely reduced battery life (or a
    > heavier battery). Perhaps I might consider it, but only if it takes my
    > existing lenses directly with the same FoV (i.e. sensor size).
    >
    > So for me it would be just the next body upgrade, and the existing very
    > wide range of first-quality lenses will keep Nikon and Canon dominant.


    I wish they would put an articulated viewfinder on the higher end cameras.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 18, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    AS Guest

    "David Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:l3rji0$ohj$...
    > .. and the same with the Nikon DSLR I have.


    Besides, FF sensor needs FF lenses. As long as you have 1 camera and 1 lens,
    you can save somewhat weight. When the system expands to perhaps 3 lenses
    and a reasoanble flash, the size and weight of the camera becomes a
    negligable saving.
    AS, Oct 18, 2013
    #10
  11. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 18/10/2013 17:46, PeterN wrote:
    []
    > I wish they would put an articulated viewfinder on the higher end cameras.


    Yes, while it's not something I use all the time, or even on every
    shoot, I would miss it were it not there. It's a "must-have" for most
    cameras I buy.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 18, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 10/18/2013 3:44 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <l3qno5$5c6$>, David Taylor says...
    >> Were Nikon to offer a mirrorless camera which took my existing lenses,
    >> what would that offer me? Same size (more or less, for the same lens
    >> range), perhaps a little lighter, likely reduced battery life (or a
    >> heavier battery). Perhaps I might consider it, but only if it takes my
    >> existing lenses directly with the same FoV (i.e. sensor size).

    >
    > You'd have to get rid of your existing lenses, which are designed for a camera
    > using a mirror box and start from scratch with a new system. Your investment in
    > lenses is a liability.


    I don't know how ell it works, but....

    <http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Nikkor-Fujifilm-Mirrorless/dp/B008BBI6RY>


    >
    > The advantages would be (not listed in any particular order):
    >
    > 1. no back- or front-focus issues anymore, since the main sensor is used for
    > focussing.
    > 2. smaller body
    > 3. no mirror noise
    > 4. no camera shake caused by mirror slap
    > 5. accurate metering since the main sensor is used for metering
    > 6. superior optics, since now the lenses can be very close to the sensor
    >


    I haven't seen any proof of that.

    There is little doubt in my mind that within a few years, the DSLR will
    be replaced by a mirrorless. The optics may well be improved, and much
    lighter. The sensors will be highly superior to even the best out now.
    However, until that day arrives I will continue to use what I have. I
    feel no compulsion to be the first to try the new technology.
    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 18, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > In article <l3qno5$5c6$>, David Taylor says...
    > > Were Nikon to offer a mirrorless camera which took my existing lenses,
    > > what would that offer me? Same size (more or less, for the same lens
    > > range), perhaps a little lighter, likely reduced battery life (or a
    > > heavier battery). Perhaps I might consider it, but only if it takes my
    > > existing lenses directly with the same FoV (i.e. sensor size).

    >
    > You'd have to get rid of your existing lenses, which are designed for a camera
    > using a mirror box and start from scratch with a new system. Your investment in
    > lenses is a liability.


    That is hardly a given. The mirrorless, unless somebody is an idiot,
    will have a shorter flange distance than the SLRs from the same
    manufacturer, so all that is needes is a simple adapter that adjusts the
    flange distance and carrieds the electrical and possibly mechanical
    connections to the extended flange.

    Olympus, Nikon, and Canon have all produced such adapters for their
    mirrorless cameras.

    > The advantages would be (not listed in any particular order):
    >
    > 1. no back- or front-focus issues anymore, since the main sensor is used for
    > focussing.
    > 2. smaller body
    > 3. no mirror noise
    > 4. no camera shake caused by mirror slap
    > 5. accurate metering since the main sensor is used for metering
    > 6. superior optics, since now the lenses can be very close to the sensor


    Leica found this last to be more of a liability than an asset.
    J. Clarke, Oct 18, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On Friday, October 18, 2013 4:38:35 PM UTC-4, PeterN wrote:
    > On 10/18/2013 3:44 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    > > In article <l3qno5$5c6$>, David Taylor says...

    >
    > >> Were Nikon to offer a mirrorless camera which took my existing lenses,

    >
    > >> what would that offer me? Same size (more or less, for the same lens

    >
    > >> range), perhaps a little lighter, likely reduced battery life (or a

    >
    > >> heavier battery). Perhaps I might consider it, but only if it takes my

    >
    > >> existing lenses directly with the same FoV (i.e. sensor size).

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You'd have to get rid of your existing lenses, which are designed for a camera

    >
    > > using a mirror box and start from scratch with a new system. Your investment in

    >
    > > lenses is a liability.

    >
    >
    >
    > I don't know how ell it works, but....
    >
    >
    >
    > <http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Nikkor-Fujifilm-Mirrorless/dp/B008BBI6RY>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >

    >
    > > The advantages would be (not listed in any particular order):

    >
    > >

    >
    > > 1. no back- or front-focus issues anymore, since the main sensor is used for

    >
    > > focussing.

    >
    > > 2. smaller body

    >
    > > 3. no mirror noise

    >
    > > 4. no camera shake caused by mirror slap

    >
    > > 5. accurate metering since the main sensor is used for metering

    >
    > > 6. superior optics, since now the lenses can be very close to the sensor

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > I haven't seen any proof of that.
    >
    >
    >
    > There is little doubt in my mind that within a few years, the DSLR will
    >
    > be replaced by a mirrorless. The optics may well be improved, and much
    >
    > lighter. The sensors will be highly superior to even the best out now.
    >
    > However, until that day arrives I will continue to use what I have. I
    >
    > feel no compulsion to be the first to try the new technology.
    >
    > --
    >
    > PeterN


    Neither did Nikon or Canon.
    RichA, Oct 19, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 18/10/2013 20:44, Alfred Molon wrote:
    []
    > You'd have to get rid of your existing lenses, which are designed for a camera
    > using a mirror box and start from scratch with a new system. Your investment in
    > lenses is a liability.


    A very strong disincentive to change!

    > The advantages would be (not listed in any particular order):
    >
    > 1. no back- or front-focus issues anymore, since the main sensor is used for
    > focussing.
    > 2. smaller body
    > 3. no mirror noise
    > 4. no camera shake caused by mirror slap
    > 5. accurate metering since the main sensor is used for metering
    > 6. superior optics, since now the lenses can be very close to the sensor


    1 - A Canon DSLR already has on focal plane focus sensors, doesn't it?
    I've not seen this problem with my present equipment.

    2 - which produces an imbalance when used with longer lenses. Nice for
    wide-angle snaps, perhaps.

    3 - Nice, but not critical for me.

    4 - I've not seen camera-shake due to mirror-slap for many years.

    5 - Maybe, but any automatic metering is, at best, an estimate. Also
    means more battery drain.

    6 - Making the optics more difficult to design and hence more expensive.

    Of course mirrorless has some advantages, but equally so do conventional
    DSLRs. At the moment, the advantages don't justify throwing away an
    investment in existing lenses, at least for me.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Oct 19, 2013
    #15
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 10/18/2013 10:20 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Friday, October 18, 2013 4:38:35 PM UTC-4, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 10/18/2013 3:44 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <l3qno5$5c6$>, David Taylor says...

    >>
    >>>> Were Nikon to offer a mirrorless camera which took my existing lenses,

    >>
    >>>> what would that offer me? Same size (more or less, for the same lens

    >>
    >>>> range), perhaps a little lighter, likely reduced battery life (or a

    >>
    >>>> heavier battery). Perhaps I might consider it, but only if it takes my

    >>
    >>>> existing lenses directly with the same FoV (i.e. sensor size).

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>> You'd have to get rid of your existing lenses, which are designed for a camera

    >>
    >>> using a mirror box and start from scratch with a new system. Your investment in

    >>
    >>> lenses is a liability.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I don't know how ell it works, but....
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Nikkor-Fujifilm-Mirrorless/dp/B008BBI6RY>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>> The advantages would be (not listed in any particular order):

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>> 1. no back- or front-focus issues anymore, since the main sensor is used for

    >>
    >>> focussing.

    >>
    >>> 2. smaller body

    >>
    >>> 3. no mirror noise

    >>
    >>> 4. no camera shake caused by mirror slap

    >>
    >>> 5. accurate metering since the main sensor is used for metering

    >>
    >>> 6. superior optics, since now the lenses can be very close to the sensor

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I haven't seen any proof of that.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> There is little doubt in my mind that within a few years, the DSLR will
    >>
    >> be replaced by a mirrorless. The optics may well be improved, and much
    >>
    >> lighter. The sensors will be highly superior to even the best out now.
    >>
    >> However, until that day arrives I will continue to use what I have. I
    >>
    >> feel no compulsion to be the first to try the new technology.
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> PeterN

    >
    > Neither did Nikon or Canon.
    >


    Which is a good thing.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 19, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 10/19/2013 2:52 AM, David Taylor wrote:

    <snip>

    >
    > Of course mirrorless has some advantages, but equally so do conventional
    > DSLRs. At the moment, the advantages don't justify throwing away an
    > investment in existing lenses, at least for me.
    >


    One of my friends has the new Fuji. He says that the Canon converter
    works fine.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 19, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 10/19/2013 4:11 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, PeterN says...
    >> I don't know how ell it works, but....
    >>
    >> <http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Nikkor-Fujifilm-Mirrorless/dp/B008BBI6RY>

    >
    > Adapters exist (and will be used), but lenses designed from scratch for
    > mirrorless cameras should produce better results.
    >


    The key word is "should." But that something "should" or may work better
    in the future, doesn't mean that my current lenses wouldn't work.
    Having said that, it would tkae a sensor at least equal to the one on my
    current D800 to induce me to change.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 19, 2013
    #18
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 10/19/2013 11:56 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, PeterN says...
    >> The key word is "should." But that something "should" or may work better
    >> in the future, doesn't mean that my current lenses wouldn't work.

    >
    > Well, think about it this way: with mirrorless cameras you have the option to
    > place the lens very close to the sensor. You don't have to, but you can.
    >
    > Such an option doesn't exist in a DLSR, and it means that lens designers have
    > an option more to exploit when optimising lenses.
    >
    > I'm not a lens expert, but I hear that having the lens very close to the sensor
    > is helpful with wide angle lenses. Perhaps (just guesssing here) the corners
    > are more sharp when the lens is closer to the sensor.
    >


    The important thing is the current lenses will work in a mirrorless,
    now. I cannot predict the future.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 19, 2013
    #19
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the belltolls for..."

    On 10/19/2013 4:19 PM, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
    > Le 19/10/13 17:52, Alfred Molon a écrit :
    >
    >> I don't know about the NEX 5, but I once had a DSLR and it's mirror
    >> woke up the
    >> dead. Highly embarassing to use, especially in quiet places.
    >>

    > I do use a lot my DSLR in a quiet place...So I gave a try to a bridge,
    > indeed silent but I was not able to face the poor quality of the images.
    > And I tried the Nex 5, but the noise of the mecanical curtain is not
    > better than the noise of a mirror.
    > Now I stick with paying attention to the moment not to disturb the
    > public or the artists on stage.
    >
    > Noëlle Adam


    If your camera has live view, it will be much quieter.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Oct 19, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. optimus
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    685
    Phillip Remaker
    Dec 31, 2003
  2. The Maitch
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    532
    The Maitch
    Apr 26, 2005
  3. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    652
  4. Jowan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,727
    bod43
    Jan 27, 2010
  5. RichA

    Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP

    RichA, May 16, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    57
    Views:
    723
    PeterN
    May 23, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page