New Nikon digital FM2 (small bodied FX) on the way

 
Rojin said:
Yeah that's why Canikon are so keen to deliver entry full frame models, obviously no market there at all. It's almost like photography forums aren't full of people making the change from crop to full frame.
Click to expand...

Canikon want you to buy FF because the profit margin is higher.

Far more D3200s are sold than D800s.
 
An Exception said:
Actually I think even most APSC buyers at least want a 35mm upgrade path even if it takes them along time to upgrade or they don't upgrade at all. Mirrorless has the potential to mitigate the size weight disadvantage when compared to traditional DSLR's as the A7r has shown. Combined with the 35 2.8 it seems it offers incredible IQ. 2.8 is too slow for my taste though, still if the 55 1.8 has the same kind of IQ then it's a winner compared to Canikon equivalents (although way more expensive).
Click to expand...

I don't think most want to go FF, some certainly do but crop dslrs work so well formost people.

Your avg dDSLR owner wants a can that has better IQ and featurs than a p&s. Many other togs shoot wildlife or sports and the crop factor is a benefit (rather FF is problematic wrt to lenses). As i have said before, i would love a D800 and i could buy one with my monthly paycheck after all expenses, but to really benefit i would need to buy a 500mm f/4. Even assuming i can afford that (i could if i didnt just buy a house and have a baby on the way) there is the weight and size issue
 
for me, nikon blew it. I have a collection of nikon lens and have always tried to find an excuse to get back into the nikon world. but my fund now went to a new SAL70400G. which I will use on my NEX for the time being (and XE1 with adaptor). this should give me a good foundation if A7r indeed is that good, then i will pick it up when i visit far east early next year.
 
D.P. said:
Canikon want you to buy FF because the profit margin is higher.

Far more D3200s are sold than D800s.
Click to expand...

That's isn't a conscious consumer choice though. It's another case of limits creating compromise. The consumers budget isn't limitless. If D800's were selling for D3200 prices, Nikon would sell more D800's than D3200's.

At this 'entry' level the public buy the greater publics perception of what are good brands. They will happily buy a crap camera for a perceived good brand.
 
I cant see FF mirrorless taking off. The glass is too big for the body, which defeats the purpose. Unless the purpose is to have a quality EVF instead of an OVF. Also that Sony glass is so expensive. Almost £1k for a 50mm? What??

m43 is getting stronger though. The auotofocus in the OMD EM1 is purportedly as fast or faster than a pro DSLR. Only thing missing is the super shallow DOF.
 
AF servo is poor on the OMD E1 apparently, the single shot acquisition is lightening quick though.
 
An Exception said:
That's isn't a conscious consumer choice though. It's another case of limits creating compromise. The consumers budget isn't limitless. If D800's were selling for D3200 prices, Nikon would sell more D800's than D3200's.

At this 'entry' level the public buy the greater publics perception of what are good brands. They will happily buy a crap camera for a perceived good brand.
Click to expand...

But it is physically impossible to make a D800 at D3200 prices and if that was possible then the D3200 would be selling at under $100. Most people simply don't know or care about the differences between FF and APS-C.

For sure if FF reduces in price then more people will by them but not everyone wants or needs FF, especially if the draw of mirrorless is a smaller camera then smaller lenses is an even bigger factor. Who cares if a camera is 250g lighter if the lens weighs 3000g?
 
Inazuma said:
I cant see FF mirrorless taking off. The glass is too big for the body, which defeats the purpose. Unless the purpose is to have a quality EVF instead of an OVF. Also that Sony glass is so expensive. Almost £1k for a 50mm? What??

m43 is getting stronger though. The auotofocus in the OMD EM1 is purportedly as fast or faster than a pro DSLR. Only thing missing is the super shallow DOF.
Click to expand...



Mirrorless will at some point be the de facto standard, and smaller lighter bodies will thus be created, but that isn't why CaNikon will remove the Mirror.

The mirror is an expensive mechanical device, it is complex to manufacture and install, it has a greater risk of malfunction compared to an elctro-optical system, prices cannot be reduced any further, it posses limits the speed of the camera (FPS), it creates vibration that induces blur and also audio noise.

The mirrors will disappear, but don't expect tiny bodies and tiny lenses to be the upshot. Battery sizes, electronics and processors, cooling needs, waterproofing, ergonomics and handling will all ensure that at the pro end fairly large bodies will still be the norm, albeit a little smaller and lighter than current (although the likes of the D4/1dX will stay largely the same and loose 150g.)

The lenses wont change sizes at all. If the flange length is reduced (highly unlikely, for Nikon at least), then the lenses will get longer to compensate (an 85mm lens need the front element to be 85mm form the sensor, if the body is thinner the lens will need to be longer). Lens design is not simplified at all for most focal length (except perhaps a 35mm prime), rather lenses will have to get more complex to handle the non-perpendicular light rays due to a shallow flange distance.

Anyway, Nikon will definitely keep the f-mount. The reason why Nikon is one of the big 2 is due to a lens line up that takes decades to build. Nikon can release about 5-7 lenses a year and has a catalog of several hundred lenses that can be purchased new, and a number of users that enjoy legacy glass. Nikon can't afford to throw out their entire system just to make a camera body 1cm shallower at the mount (the body can b made much smaller and shallow but the mount can be made to protude to the right length.

This will all only occur when the high end users accept EVF as acceptable.
Thom Hogan is hinting that the D5 generation (2016 time frame) will be mirror-less.
 
Rojin said:
AF servo is poor on the OMD E1 apparently, the single shot acquisition is lightening quick though.
Click to expand...

This is basically always the case for a contrast based system.

with Contrast based AF the sensing basically gives a value of blurriness/sharpness/contrast and the lens will change focus, initially randomly to measure the change on contrast. With that measure it can then predict a direction to change the focus to increase the contrast (i.e. contrast along doesn't indicate if the lens is back or front focused). The amount of blurriness (lack of contrast) is a weak indicator of focus distance error so the algorithm can only make a poor guess at the amount of change requested.
Lots of iteration is required moving in smaller and smaller steps.
Because off this lenses for contrast detect system have focus pulls that are tighter and faster.

With Phase detection the phase sensors indicate both a direction and a distance to change the lens so in a single movement the lens will be close to the correct distance. The phase measurement is taken again and if there is no distance error then no more movement is required, otherwise the processes is iterated again, but in general far less iterations are required. At anytime during the iteration the lens will be close to correct focus following the initial jump, and since the phase detections measure distance to the subject and thus change is distance, clever predictions can be made to track focus in 3D. E.g., the sensors can detect the subject (simply the area captured by the phase sensor) is approaching at a certain speed and can then adjust focus accordingly in real time.

Hence contrast detection will never offer the same capabilities outside a highly tuned system with a static scene (or at least it should always be possible to develop a phase detect system that is faster than the best contrast system).

Luckily phase detect sensor can be added onto the image sensor. The Nikon 1 cameras have exceptionally fast servo focus because of this.
 
Rojin said:
AF servo is poor on the OMD E1 apparently, the single shot acquisition is lightening quick though.
Click to expand...


D.P. said:
This is basically always the case for a contrast based system.

-cut-
Click to expand...


Thanks for the explanation D.P. :cool:
Fortunately the OMD EM1 does indeed have phase detection (and a very effective one from samples I've seen across different review sites). Only downside is it can't be used in Video mode (where I would have thought it'd matter the most).
 
D.P. said:
Luckily phase detect sensor can be added onto the image sensor. The Nikon 1 cameras have exceptionally fast servo focus because of this.
Click to expand...

Nikon 1 phase detection apparently takes a big hit in low light though.

Also scenes don't have to be static for contrast detect to work well. Sure fast moving subjects are a bit much to ask, but for super fast focusers like the em1, walking pace shouldn't be an issue.

Also with contrast detect, there is no more worry about camera bodies and camera lenses needing calibration etc.

Ideally i would like to see a real merger of the two. On sensor phase tell lens which direction to go. lens keeps going until the lens is one click softer than it's previous position, then backs up. This should result in more accurate focus for non-continuous af. For continuos you can stick with full time phase.
 
Inazuma said:
Thanks for the explanation D.P. :cool:
Fortunately the OMD EM1 does indeed have phase detection (and a very effective one from samples I've seen across different review sites). Only downside is it can't be used in Video mode (where I would have thought it'd matter the most).
Click to expand...

My understanding is the EM1 does weird things. With old 4/3 lenses the phase detection are used, with new mft lenses that are optimized for contrast AF contrast is used predominantly. And then there are some scenarios where both are used but I can't remember which.
 
An Exception said:
Nikon 1 phase detection apparently takes a big hit in low light though.

Also scenes don't have to be static for contrast detect to work well. Sure fast moving subjects are a bit much to ask, but for super fast focusers like the em1, walking pace shouldn't be an issue.

Also with contrast detect, there is no more worry about camera bodies and camera lenses needing calibration etc.

Ideally i would like to see a real merger of the two. On sensor phase tell lens which direction to go. lens keeps going until the lens is one click softer than it's previous position, then backs up. This should result in more accurate focus for non-continuous af. For continuos you can stick with full time phase.
Click to expand...


The issue for on-sensor phase detection is that the sensor have to be far smaller than a dedicated phase detect system, therefore being smaller they work less well in low light. Contrast detection is more robust because it can use a larger surface area for measurement but noise will cause an issue.

The contrast detect AF on my Olympus EPM2 certainly also slows down in the dark.




The hyrbrid phase and contrast makes the most sense and is in general what systems with on-sensor phase detectors do. the Nikon 1 can use contrast detection along with phase detection at the same time, contrast for miroadjustments. The Canon bodies do the same thing but seem to be quite a bit behind in performance, at last the canon EOS-M is really slow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom