Industry News: Nikon Teases Their Full Frame Mirrorless Camera & New Mount

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
RGF said:
I was talking to a Nikon pro and based upon his comments (I believe he has a good grip on Nikon's future products, but could not tell me any details), his current lenses will work on their new Mirrorless body.

With an adaptor, sure. But that sure looks like a thinner-than-FX mount body.

- A
 

Adelino

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
377
248
transpo1 said:
criscokkat said:
...So a new mount, Sony sensor with Nikon firmware, Sony video features combined with new controls and potentially a normal human sized ergonomic layout.

Could be a winner, if you are ok with buying new lenses.

Wonder if this will push any Canon announcements forward?

Oh, it will push them to do something- whether to hold with current announcement timing or push up. Nikon just rattled a few cages. Guaranteed there were a bunch of meetings on this at Canon today :)

Guaranteed that there are a bunch of meetings EVERY DAY at Canon. Businesses do that. I doubt Canon are shocked by anything Nikon has done or announced so far. In the past six years Canon have shown little concern with being top end specs or first to market. Why would that change with a tease about a product that is widely expected to be announced soon?
 
Jul 12, 2013
329
500
amorse said:
ken said:
Looks like Nikon went for really small body. I hope Canon doesn't do that.
I'd actually prefer a small body. Considering that there appears to be more than one mirrorless camera coming, I'm really hoping at least one of them is size/weight conscious - different systems for different needs. I definitely agree though that there needs to be a replacement with proper ergonomics for many (probably most) users.

For me though, I'd happily take slower lenses (as long as other performance measures are kept in check - i.e. sharpness and chromatic aberration) to bring the size/weight down and would be willing to lose some ergonomics to achieve that.

This.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,499
3,885
Irving, Texas
Adelino said:
transpo1 said:
criscokkat said:
...So a new mount, Sony sensor with Nikon firmware, Sony video features combined with new controls and potentially a normal human sized ergonomic layout.

Could be a winner, if you are ok with buying new lenses.

Wonder if this will push any Canon announcements forward?

Oh, it will push them to do something- whether to hold with current announcement timing or push up. Nikon just rattled a few cages. Guaranteed there were a bunch of meetings on this at Canon today :)

Guaranteed that there are a bunch of meetings EVERY DAY at Canon. Businesses do that. I doubt Canon are shocked by anything Nikon has done or announced so far. In the past six years Canon have shown little concern with being top end specs or first to market. Why would that change with a tease about a product that is widely expected to be announced soon?

Canon has been first to market with many new technologies. I believe Canon is concerned with providing relevant and dependable tech. So far, I've not been disappointed. Releasing new features without concern for dependability or relevance or what the market wants (features for feature's sake.) would be poor business.

Canon's business model works. It doesn't show lack of concern (negative). It shows concern for what they provide to the market that makes sense for them as a business, for shareholders, and customers (positive).
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,499
3,885
Irving, Texas
RGF said:
I was talking to a Nikon pro and based upon his comments (I believe he has a good grip on Nikon's future products, but could not tell me any details), his current lenses will work on their new Mirrorless body.

hehehe. Nikon pro? What's that?
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,499
3,885
Irving, Texas
From Nikon rumors: "I am just questioning my own rumors - could this be a medium format camera?"

Probably not, but if one of Canon's new MILC cameras turns out to be medium format I'm going to laugh my a$$ off... and maybe buy a camera (Medium format, huge new mount).

If Canon's new mount (provided there is a new mount at all) is for a MF camera, how many here would be giggling along with me after all the small mount panic going on around here? ;)
 

Attachments

  • download (2).jpg
    download (2).jpg
    6.9 KB · Views: 956

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,499
3,885
Irving, Texas
transpo1 said:
Tugela said:
transpo1 said:
criscokkat said:
...So a new mount, Sony sensor with Nikon firmware, Sony video features combined with new controls and potentially a normal human sized ergonomic layout.

Could be a winner, if you are ok with buying new lenses.

Wonder if this will push any Canon announcements forward?

Oh, it will push them to do something- whether to hold with current announcement timing or push up. Nikon just rattled a few cages. Guaranteed there were a bunch of meetings on this at Canon today :)


Canon likely knew all about it months ago.

Definitely possible! But I wonder if Nikon moved up the timing of this tease for some reason...

Good Lord, man! There's always a reason. ::) Cages rattled? Nawwww.
 

Hesbehindyou

EOS 90D
Jun 6, 2011
145
2
The glowing ring appears to be the outermost edge of the metal flange that sits flush with the body and not the inner edge - you can see the bayonet of the lens has a much smaller diameter i.e. the glowing ring is much larger than the hole for the lens.

mount%20cropped_zpsi2wwiv23.png
 

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
881
251
josephandrews222 said:
amorse said:
ken said:
Looks like Nikon went for really small body. I hope Canon doesn't do that.
I'd actually prefer a small body. Considering that there appears to be more than one mirrorless camera coming, I'm really hoping at least one of them is size/weight conscious - different systems for different needs. I definitely agree though that there needs to be a replacement with proper ergonomics for many (probably most) users.

For me though, I'd happily take slower lenses (as long as other performance measures are kept in check - i.e. sharpness and chromatic aberration) to bring the size/weight down and would be willing to lose some ergonomics to achieve that.

This.

Genuine question - if happy with slower aperture lenses, what is the attraction to FF rather than going with a smaller and lighter (and potentially cheaper) APS-C or even micro-4/3 system? If you are happy with slower lenses I am assuming you aren't too worried about shooting in low light and you aren't interested in shallow depth of field, so the benefits of FF for those things are presumably not relevant (are my assumptions wrong?). If my assumptions are correct, what other attraction does FF have? Maybe it provides better results for large prints (because there is that much less enlargement required)?

I am not saying that someone interested in FF shouldn't own any slower aperture lenses, of course, but I'm wondering about the value of a FF system if it is focused on slower aperture lenses.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
jd7 said:
josephandrews222 said:
amorse said:
ken said:
Looks like Nikon went for really small body. I hope Canon doesn't do that.
I'd actually prefer a small body. Considering that there appears to be more than one mirrorless camera coming, I'm really hoping at least one of them is size/weight conscious - different systems for different needs. I definitely agree though that there needs to be a replacement with proper ergonomics for many (probably most) users.

For me though, I'd happily take slower lenses (as long as other performance measures are kept in check - i.e. sharpness and chromatic aberration) to bring the size/weight down and would be willing to lose some ergonomics to achieve that.

This.

Genuine question - if happy with slower aperture lenses, what is the attraction to FF rather than going with a smaller and lighter (and potentially cheaper) APS-C or even micro-4/3 system? If you are happy with slower lenses I am assuming you aren't too worried about shooting in low light and you aren't interested in shallow depth of field, so the benefits of FF for those things are presumably not relevant (are my assumptions wrong?). If my assumptions are correct, what other attraction does FF have? Maybe it provides better results for large prints (because there is that much less enlargement required)?

I am not saying that someone interested in FF shouldn't own any slower aperture lenses, of course, but I'm wondering about the value of a FF system if it is focused on slower aperture lenses.

Full Frame is better for high ISO (less enlargement of the noise).
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
284
201
BillB said:
Full Frame is better for high ISO (less enlargement of the noise).

So is a faster lens :) which was I think the point of the question.

Of course, unless you want to shoot at a smaller aperture for wider depth of field. It’s a fair question though.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,211
874
Biggest benefit of FF by far is the availability of (adaptable) FF lenses.
Either new or old, same manufacturer or different, it's all there, even better than medium format in that regard.
With APS-C you are much more locked in that system (which of course is perfectly fine, if you are 100% sure that it is that you want).
In this case, Canon mirrorless probably surpasses Nikon and Sony, since the EF mount has the biggest selection and in theory it should have the best support with the newest cameras. But other things like built-in image stabilization of FF 4k video will have lesser priority at first.
 

Keith_Reeder

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
957
469
60
Blyth, NE England
padam said:
Biggest benefit of FF by far is the availability of (adaptable) FF lenses.

No it isn't - it's wider angles, for any given lens, than a crop body; and better high ISO performance in comparison with a contemporary crop body.

(I say "contemporary", because many current crop cameras are far better at high ISO than older FF cameras).
 

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
784
1,046
www.instagram.com
jd7 said:
josephandrews222 said:
amorse said:
ken said:
Looks like Nikon went for really small body. I hope Canon doesn't do that.
I'd actually prefer a small body. Considering that there appears to be more than one mirrorless camera coming, I'm really hoping at least one of them is size/weight conscious - different systems for different needs. I definitely agree though that there needs to be a replacement with proper ergonomics for many (probably most) users.

For me though, I'd happily take slower lenses (as long as other performance measures are kept in check - i.e. sharpness and chromatic aberration) to bring the size/weight down and would be willing to lose some ergonomics to achieve that.

This.

Genuine question - if happy with slower aperture lenses, what is the attraction to FF rather than going with a smaller and lighter (and potentially cheaper) APS-C or even micro-4/3 system? If you are happy with slower lenses I am assuming you aren't too worried about shooting in low light and you aren't interested in shallow depth of field, so the benefits of FF for those things are presumably not relevant (are my assumptions wrong?). If my assumptions are correct, what other attraction does FF have? Maybe it provides better results for large prints (because there is that much less enlargement required)?

I am not saying that someone interested in FF shouldn't own any slower aperture lenses, of course, but I'm wondering about the value of a FF system if it is focused on slower aperture lenses.

Fair question, but there are a two answers which jump out for me - high ISO performance and lens options.

To explain my interest a bit: 95% of my photography takes place while camping/hiking. Many of the locations i'm trying to shoot will be a full day of hiking away from a road, if not several days. As a result, I'm carrying camera gear, camping gear, food, and other equipment. From the photography aspect of it, I'm often doing long exposures, landscapes and some night photography. This means I can usually get away with slower lenses, but will need at least one fast lens. I usually want a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, and a fast 14mm (really only the 14 needs to be fast, and there are relatively small/fast EF lenses available now). An APS C or m4/3 systems won't let me go equivalently wide and fast as a 14mm f/2.8. Also, I am shooting on tripod maybe 95% of the time, so hand holding ergonomics are not my top priority.

Right now, my kit weighs in at just over 15 lbs before filters or any other peripherals, and I use a camera insert to hold everything (minus the tripod) which measures in at 7" by 11" by 11.5", and it is completely full. That's a fair bit of weight and a lot of size for me to carry on long hikes. I think I can shave that down to maybe 12 lbs with some lens changes, but making this smaller or lighter would be better.

For me, the ideal situation would be an m6 sized full frame mirrorless with slow lenses, then adapt one fast lens from EF. I'm not against adapters because otherwise any fast lens will have to build in the lost flange distance to each lens - the over all kit size will get bigger than it currently is. Adapting would let me save that flange distance from every fast lens I'm carrying (if for some reason I need more than the 14). If the camera body and lenses all shrink in size, I can probably get away with a lighter tripod too, further reducing the weight/size.

Alternatively, an m6 size full-frame camera (even with an adapter) would make a great backup camera for hiking (in case one body dies). I could carry two of those and still have less weight than my 5D IV.

Again, this is my use case and it does not likely fit the vast majority of buyers. I'm not saying Canon needs to do this or they're *******, I'm saying that a kit that lets me do this with less weight/size would be very attractive, and there are compromises that can be made to achieve it.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
amorse said:
jd7 said:
josephandrews222 said:
amorse said:
ken said:
Looks like Nikon went for really small body. I hope Canon doesn't do that.
I'd actually prefer a small body. Considering that there appears to be more than one mirrorless camera coming, I'm really hoping at least one of them is size/weight conscious - different systems for different needs. I definitely agree though that there needs to be a replacement with proper ergonomics for many (probably most) users.

For me though, I'd happily take slower lenses (as long as other performance measures are kept in check - i.e. sharpness and chromatic aberration) to bring the size/weight down and would be willing to lose some ergonomics to achieve that.

This.

Genuine question - if happy with slower aperture lenses, what is the attraction to FF rather than going with a smaller and lighter (and potentially cheaper) APS-C or even micro-4/3 system? If you are happy with slower lenses I am assuming you aren't too worried about shooting in low light and you aren't interested in shallow depth of field, so the benefits of FF for those things are presumably not relevant (are my assumptions wrong?). If my assumptions are correct, what other attraction does FF have? Maybe it provides better results for large prints (because there is that much less enlargement required)?

I am not saying that someone interested in FF shouldn't own any slower aperture lenses, of course, but I'm wondering about the value of a FF system if it is focused on slower aperture lenses.

Fair question, but there are a two answers which jump out for me - high ISO performance and lens options.

To explain my interest a bit: 95% of my photography takes place while camping/hiking. Many of the locations i'm trying to shoot will be a full day of hiking away from a road, if not several days. As a result, I'm carrying camera gear, camping gear, food, and other equipment. From the photography aspect of it, I'm often doing long exposures, landscapes and some night photography. This means I can usually get away with slower lenses, but will need at least one fast lens. I usually want a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, and a fast 14mm (really only the 14 needs to be fast, and there are relatively small/fast EF lenses available now). An APS C or m4/3 systems won't let me go equivalently wide and fast as a 14mm f/2.8. Also, I am shooting on tripod maybe 95% of the time, so hand holding ergonomics are not my top priority.

Right now, my kit weighs in at just over 15 lbs before filters or any other peripherals, and I use a camera insert to hold everything (minus the tripod) which measures in at 7" by 11" by 11.5", and it is completely full. That's a fair bit of weight and a lot of size for me to carry on long hikes. I think I can shave that down to maybe 12 lbs with some lens changes, but making this smaller or lighter would be better.

For me, the ideal situation would be an m6 sized full frame mirrorless with slow lenses, then adapt one fast lens from EF. I'm not against adapters because otherwise any fast lens will have to build in the lost flange distance to each lens - the over all kit size will get bigger than it currently is. Adapting would let me save that flange distance from every fast lens I'm carrying (if for some reason I need more than the 14). If the camera body and lenses all shrink in size, I can probably get away with a lighter tripod too, further reducing the weight/size.

Alternatively, an m6 size full-frame camera (even with an adapter) would make a great backup camera for hiking (in case one body dies). I could carry two of those and still have less weight than my 5D IV.

Again, this is my use case and it does not likely fit the vast majority of buyers. I'm not saying Canon needs to do this or they're *******, I'm saying that a kit that lets me do this with less weight/size would be very attractive, and there are compromises that can be made to achieve it.

Everything is a tradeoff. One question is how small and light Canon could build a fullframe mirrorless camera while continuing to use the EF mount. If Canon can use the EF mount for a fullframe mirrorless camera that it thinks is small enough and light enough, then that is what I think Canon will do. If Canon wants a fullframe mirrorless that is smaller and lighter than what can be done using an EF mount, then I think they would want to use the EF-M mount. They would only use a new mount if neither the EF mount or the EF-M mount was a workable solution.

Of course, Canon has already decided what it is going to do, but we can only guess what they decided.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
722
480
There are three markets, really. The first one Canon has covered with their present M series, which is doing very well, thank you.

As far as FF goes, there are two more markets. These who just want a FF sensor for dynamic and noise reasons, and will be happy with a small, light and relatively inexpensive body, and likely won’t be buying more than two or three consumer grade lenses. Say, the 6D people.

The other wants a more top end sensor, and a bigger heavier body with much more sophistication. It’s the 1Ds/5D crowd, vs the Rebel crowd.

There are always those in between, of course. I suppose that if Canon is coming out with two, as Nikon seems to be, they will cover both ends, though not the extremes, as yet. The ELV is still the sticking point for 1Ds users, according to canon’s statements.
 
<-- start Taboola -->