The Transition to Mirrorless (2 Viewers)

[Sam Posten]

Unspoken in this thread:
There is no optical light path in mirrorless. They -require- a digital screen to operate. Either on the back or as a viewfinder

The difference in quality between the best 2023 displays and a half decent dslr’s viewfinder remain striking. Some people will never accept that. Personally I can live with it but I’d rather see improvements there over anything else on camera bodies other than the image sensor.

 

[JohnRice]

Unspoken in this thread:
There is no optical light path in mirrorless. They -require- a digital screen to operate. Either on the back or as a viewfinder

The difference in quality between the best 2023 displays and a half decent dslr’s viewfinder remain striking. Some people will never accept that. Personally I can live with it but I’d rather see improvements there over anything else on camera bodies other than the image sensor.

You have a valid point. There's been so much emphasis on resolution that some other factors have been ignored, such as overcoming the need for a mechanical shutter, rolling shutter issues, and the viewfinder quality. It's not a big issue for me most of the time, but if I shot a lot of action or wildlife, it probably would be more important. I understand that only the Sony A1 and one of the A7 models (their numbering scheme is a complete mystery to me) have really addressed improving the viewfinder image. I was just watching a video by Tony Northrup on the upcoming Nikon Z8, and that was a criticism he had over it and the Z9. Honestly, a $5K+ camera should have a top notch viewfinder.

The important thing is to understand how equipment works, which seems to be something most users don't want to bother with. All in all,I have come to love the electronic viewfinder, and I've discovered all it can do. For instance, when I'm in a difficult lighting situation, I like to see the exposure, and even use a histogram at times to clearly see the exposure. It's really nice to be able to overlay some of those things in the viewfinder. I have also found focus peaking to be quite useful at times.

The fact is, the SLR design never made sense for digital. It was just a necessary step in the progression.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Unspoken in this thread:
There is no optical light path in mirrorless. They -require- a digital screen to operate. Either on the back or as a viewfinder

The difference in quality between the best 2023 displays and a half decent dslr’s viewfinder remain striking. Some people will never accept that. Personally I can live with it but I’d rather see improvements there over anything else on camera bodies other than the image sensor.

It's definitely a trade-off between an optical viewfinder (dSLR) and LCD viewfinder (mirrorless). The LCD's do provide features like being able to actually see your exposure, superimposing shooting information, etc. They do not provide the performance of an optical viewfinder, though... although they are getting better. Like @JohnRice , I have come to really like the electronic viewfinders after being apprehensive about them after so many years using an optical viewfinder.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I am loving the auto focus performance of my new Canon R10. This was about 60 feet away, using the animal eye detect AF feature. It just locks in.

 

[JohnRice]

I am loving the auto focus performance of my new Canon R10. This was about 60 feet away, using the animal eye detect AF feature. It just locks in.

Using your new 800mm?

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Using your new 800mm?

Yes.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

We were on Mackinac Island earlier this week. This was my first trip using the Canon R10 as my small, light weight travel camera (along with the RF-S 18-150mm and RF 16mm f/2.8 lenses). There were a couple of times where I missed the EF-M 11-22mm lens from my old Canon M50 small mirrorless, so hopefully Canon offers an ultra wide solution in the RF-S mount soon.

I couldn't get all of Arch Rock in the frame (see below). Also, couldn't get the towers from the bridge in frame when the ferry went under the Mackinac Bridge on the way to the island (those shots went in the trash).

.

 

[JohnRice]

I'm a little annoyed that Nikon isn't embracing third party lens manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma are coming up with some awesome lenses, which seem to be only in Sony and Leica mounts. Meanwhile Nikon insists on releasing "Stupid" lenses, like really fast, short focal length ones, and seriously, who the hell needs an 85mm f/1.2? They could release something more reasonable, like a 70-210 f/4 for real people.

 

[JohnRice]

Just to add... at the moment the only option is the Tamron 70-300, and the Nikkor Z 28-75 f/2.8 is clearly (actually) a Tamron lens badged as Nikon. C'Mon Nikon...

 

[Jason Goodmanson]

I've always been a Nikon guy because that was my first DSLR (I bought it because my dive buddy had been shooting Nikon since the stone ages (those cameras were pretty heavy underwater . . .) and the lack of 3rd party options was something I picked up on pretty quickly when first looking at upgrading.

Read somewhere that Nikon would support 3rd party lenses, but they couldn't complete with the Nikkor offerings. I really liked being able to consider a 3rd party F mount - competition is a good thing.

Really hoping this stance changes in the future, or at least the 3rd party manufacturers are more in the game since while not NEW NEW, the Z mount isn't as established as Sony or Canon's. Nikon didn't do themselves any favors waiting until last to go mirrorless.

 

[JohnRice]

Nikon didn't do themselves any favors waiting until last to go mirrorless.

Actually, in the long run, it served them well from a design perspective. It's just that it's still early in the game. By being last, Nikon avoided the double change Canon did, and benefited from seeing how they could improve on other mounts. In the end, theirs is the largest diameter mount with the shortest flange distance. That will be beneficial for decades.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I'm a little annoyed that Nikon isn't embracing third party lens manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma are coming up with some awesome lenses, which seem to be only in Sony and Leica mounts. Meanwhile Nikon insists on releasing "Stupid" lenses, like really fast, short focal length ones, and seriously, who the hell needs an 85mm f/1.2? They could release something more reasonable, like a 70-210 f/4 for real people.

I suppose they probably feel enough people would've owned F mount versions of all those lenses, and of the ones quickest, most likely to replace them w/ new Z mount versions will be the ones not on a tight budget and probably want those more expensive, fast glass more (outside of a couple relatively basic, kit-ish level (though still high quality), essential zooms like the 24-70 f/4).

But yeah, one would think a 70-210 or 80-200 f/4 would sell well, but maybe the most recent F mount versions of those didn't sell quite as well as we thought.

Still, personally, not quite sure if I'd really fall over to snap up such a lens to replace my 80-200 f/4. I already have so many variations for that range, LOL, and I'm a bit of a cheap bastard w/ my spending on lenses (despite owning so many of these) and had been mostly fine w/ just using my adapter. Previously, when I was still often shooting videos of my kids' recitals/concerts, I probably woulda liked a replacement that works better for shooting videos (on top of other benefits), but now, not so much -- I was just deferring to my heftier, old Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for video shoots, which was the only reason I still use that lens, especially after acquiring the new, heftier Sigma Sport version, LOL.

Thing is at least some of us still haven't completely left our DSLRs behind (just yet), so that may be part of the issue for something like a new 70-210 or 80-200 f/4 release. I haven't actually shot my D800 in ages, but I do lug it w/ me (on rare occasions) when I think I could use the extra MPs, especially for ultra-wide shots possibly wider than 24mm (w/ my 16-35 f/4 VR).

Part of it is also Nikon might feel the market for such more affordable lenses has dwindled a lot because of mainstream adoption of camera phones... even though none of them can actually shoot above 80mm equiv AFAIK (w/out some ridiculous 3rd party attachment anyway, LOL). I'm certainly often tempted to just walk around w/ my iPhone for widezoom and maybe add my Z6 w/ 80-200 f/4, if needed -- heck, maybe I'll even be tempted to try one of those ridiculous tele adapters for my iPhone, LOL.

What I'd really like first are some good, small, affordable, moderately wide-to-short-tele primes for street(-style) photography, but Nikon hasn't given those much of any priority so far. They've produced a few primes in that range, but almost all of them do not fit at least one of my key criteria (whether it's affordability or size), so I don't feel compelled to get any of them, except perhaps the 28mm f/2.8, which is probably a tad too wide for most my street(-ish) shooting.

Still, I do also wonder if the much larger lens mount opening (and lack of mirror and shorter flange distance) might make swapping primes quickly for street shooting meaningfully more of a risk (for dirt intrustion, damage, etc). I know, I know. That may just be all in my mind, and I probably just need to get back in the practice of frequently swapping lenses (and be that extra bit careful w/ this "new" mount), haha...

_Man_

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I'm a little annoyed that Nikon isn't embracing third party lens manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma are coming up with some awesome lenses, which seem to be only in Sony and Leica mounts. Meanwhile Nikon insists on releasing "Stupid" lenses, like really fast, short focal length ones, and seriously, who the hell needs an 85mm f/1.2? They could release something more reasonable, like a 70-210 f/4 for real people.

Until recently, Canon wasn't allowing 3rd party auto focusing lenses for their mirrorless RF mount system,, either. However, it's been widely reported that Sigma will soon be coming out with 2-3 lenses for the format. I would expect Nikon to follow suit eventually, as well.

What I'd really like first are some good, small, affordable, moderately wide-to-short-tele primes for street(-style) photography, but Nikon hasn't given those much of any priority so far. They've produced a few primes in that range, but almost all of them do not fit at least one of my key criteria (whether it's affordability or size), so I don't feel compelled to get any of them, except perhaps the 28mm f/2.8, which is probably a tad too wide for most my street(-ish) shooting.

That's one of the things I've liked about the Canon RF mount. There are 16mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and 50mm prime lenses available that are all on the less expensive side (relatively speaking). The RF 16mm f/2.8 works great for me as an ultra wide solution for my full frame body when paired with my RF 24-105L f/4 IS, since I don't shoot a lot of UWA. It also works as a low profile "walk around" lens on my mirrorless crop body. I also have the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS and RF 50mm f/1.8, which I use mostly for indoor family events.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Actually, in the long run, it served them well from a design perspective. It's just that it's still early in the game. By being last, Nikon avoided the double change Canon did, and benefited from seeing how they could improve on other mounts. In the end, theirs is the largest diameter mount with the shortest flange distance. That will be beneficial for decades.

Yes, that Canon EF-M mount system was a a stop-gap for Canon. I got about 5 years use out of my M50 body and EF-M lenses, though (actually had the original EOS M for about 9 years). So, at least I got some good use out of it as a small, light weight travel kit. I just sold the entire kit a month or two ago to pay for the R10 body + RF-S 18-150mm lens.

 

[JohnRice]

I suppose they probably feel enough people would've owned F mount versions of all those lenses, and of the ones quickest, most likely to replace them w/ new Z mount versions will be the ones not on a tight budget and probably want those more expensive, fast glass more (outside of a couple relatively basic, kit-ish level (though still high quality), essential zooms like the 24-70 f/4).

But yeah, one would think a 70-210 or 80-200 f/4 would sell well, but maybe the most recent F mount versions of those didn't sell quite as well as we thought.

Still, personally, not quite sure if I'd really fall over to snap up such a lens to replace my 80-200 f/4. I already have so many variations for that range, LOL, and I'm a bit of a cheap bastard w/ my spending on lenses (despite owning so many of these) and had been mostly fine w/ just using my adapter. Previously, when I was still often shooting videos of my kids' recitals/concerts, I probably woulda liked a replacement that works better for shooting videos (on top of other benefits), but now, not so much -- I was just deferring to my heftier, old Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for video shoots, which was the only reason I still use that lens, especially after acquiring the new, heftier Sigma Sport version, LOL.

Thing is at least some of us still haven't completely left our DSLRs behind (just yet), so that may be part of the issue for something like a new 70-210 or 80-200 f/4 release. I haven't actually shot my D800 in ages, but I do lug it w/ me (on rare occasions) when I think I could use the extra MPs, especially for ultra-wide shots possibly wider than 24mm (w/ my 16-35 f/4 VR).

Part of it is also Nikon might feel the market for such more affordable lenses has dwindled a lot because of mainstream adoption of camera phones... even though none of them can actually shoot above 80mm equiv AFAIK (w/out some ridiculous 3rd party attachment anyway, LOL). I'm certainly often tempted to just walk around w/ my iPhone for widezoom and maybe add my Z6 w/ 80-200 f/4, if needed -- heck, maybe I'll even be tempted to try one of those ridiculous tele adapters for my iPhone, LOL.

What I'd really like first are some good, small, affordable, moderately wide-to-short-tele primes for street(-style) photography, but Nikon hasn't given those much of any priority so far. They've produced a few primes in that range, but almost all of them do not fit at least one of my key criteria (whether it's affordability or size), so I don't feel compelled to get any of them, except perhaps the 28mm f/2.8, which is probably a tad too wide for most my street(-ish) shooting.

Still, I do also wonder if the much larger lens mount opening (and lack of mirror and shorter flange distance) might make swapping primes quickly for street shooting meaningfully more of a risk (for dirt intrustion, damage, etc). I know, I know. That may just be all in my mind, and I probably just need to get back in the practice of frequently swapping lenses (and be that extra bit careful w/ this "new" mount), haha...

_Man_

I just do NOT understand the obsession with fast, short lenses. A 14-24mm f/2.8 is kind of a stupid lens, especially when they already have a premium (S designation) 14-30mm f/4 at half the price. So, they released a bunch of short, f/1.8 prime lenses, but only have ONE reasonably priced one. And why hell the jump in with a 58mm f/0.95 when there are still so many holes in the line?

They did release a second Nikon badged Tamron lens, a 17-28mm f/2.8. Still not very logical in my book when they already have the 14-30mm f/4 I mentioned, for only $150 more.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I just do NOT understand the obsession with fast, short lenses. A 14-24mm f/2.8 is kind of a stupid lens, especially when they already have a premium (S designation) 14-30mm f/4 at half the price. So, they released a bunch of short, f/1.8 prime lenses, but only have ONE reasonably priced one. And why hell the jump in with a 58mm f/0.95 when there are still so many holes in the line?

They did release a second Nikon badged Tamron lens, a 17-28mm f/2.8. Still not very logical in my book when they already have the 14-30mm f/4 I mentioned, for only $150 more.

I think ultra wide fast lenses are popular for use with astro photography, but that's about the only application I know of (maybe indoor architecture, but usually you want to stop down for larger DoF). My RF 16mm prime is f/2.8, but that wasn't very important to me, as I bought it mostly for occasional landscape use. The f/2.8 may be useful when used as a low profile walk around lens on my crop sensor R10, though.

 

[JohnRice]

Well, Nikon is addressing my complaint, at least a little bit. They announced a lens I didn't expect. A 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 at a (for Nikon) reasonable $1,700 MSRP. The killer detail for me is, it (amazingly) has an internal zoom. I've never heard of that in a lens of that range. When it's available and once it goes on sale, I am in like Flint. I might even jump in and sell my Sigma 150-600mm before then. I wonder if any of my old camera store contacts would be willing to strike me a deal on the Nikon lens. Amazingly, one of them is still in business and doing quite well.

They also announced a (somewhat baffling) 70-180mm F/2.8, which is also quite reasonably priced (again, for Nikon) at an MSRP of $1,250. Still, I'd much rather see a 70-210mm f/4 for <$1,000.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Reasonably affordable internal zoom in such a long tele zoom is certainly intriguing... and it's a mirrorless Nikon, not 3rd party to boot.

IF I don't already have my Tamron 150-600 G2 for F-mount sitting around not getting nearly enough use as it is, I'd definitely consider going for that. Unfortunately, I probably just won't have nearly as much opps to use such in the foreseeable future as I previously thought (before buying my Tamron several years ago).

Yeah, that 70-180 f/2.8 is also somewhat interesting, but that one is (of course?) not internal zoom, so I don't know... probably not for me either... especially since I'm not crazy about trying to sell off what I already own (and I do already own too many in that range)... Still, I suppose their marketing research must be telling them they have a better market for this than a mirrorless version of 70-210 or 80-200 f/4 (at least in the near term)... and we're just not representative of that market I guess...

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

Reasonably affordable internal zoom in such a long tele zoom is certainly intriguing... and it's a mirrorless Nikon, not 3rd party to boot.

IF I don't already have my Tamron 150-600 G2 for F-mount sitting around not getting nearly enough use as it is, I'd definitely consider going for that. Unfortunately, I probably just won't have nearly as much opps to use such in the foreseeable future as I previously thought (before buying my Tamron several years ago).

Yeah, that 70-180 f/2.8 is also somewhat interesting, but that one is (of course?) not internal zoom, so I don't know... probably not for me either... especially since I'm not crazy about trying to sell off what I already own (and I do already own too many in that range)... Still, I suppose their marketing research must be telling them they have a better market for this than a mirrorless version of 70-210 or 80-200 f/4 (at least in the near term)... and we're just not representative of that market I guess...

_Man_

I suspect they are both made by Tamron. They look like Tamron lenses.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I suspect they are both made by Tamron. They look like Tamron lenses.

I was actually thinking and gonna suggest that as well at first, but they do seem just diff enough. Tamron's 150-600 isn't an internal zoom (and grows much longer than that Nikon housing looks). Does Tamron actually make a 70-180 f/2.8 like that one?

Also, Tamrons (like Sigmas) seem to have a slightly different color bias than Nikon glass AFAIK, which may be noticeable enough if Nikon's just rebadging/recycling Tamron glass. I'm not sure Nikon wants (to have) anyone to think they're just rebadging 3rd party glass -- well, pretty sure they don't want that even if they're actually doing it...

Then again, this is all new territory for Nikon I guess, including seemingly playing catchup (whether real or just perceived) in this increasingly difficult market...

_Man_