1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Nikon Mirrorless

Discussion in 'Nikon Chat' started by SXH, May 2, 2018.

  1. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

  2. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    The Nikon 1 shows discontinued on the Nikon Store UK we site too. As are all the lenses except the 70-300.
  3. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    That will mean there is still some stock left of them.
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    As it happens, saw a 1J5 in Costco today. Very overpriced.
  5. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    You seem to be assuming that Mirrorless equals Compact. Why does a mirrorless camera have to be small?

    I have used CSCs with and without viewfinders, whilst the latter is preferable both suffer from being too small to hold comfortably for an extended period though either will fit in a pocket more easily than will a D3. The point is that a camera is a tool and as such needs to be designed to be used and that means being big enough to be held comfortably for hours on end. Losing some mass would be appreciated but much of the mass is in the lens, glass is heavy.

    I find that the most comfortable way to hold a CSC is with my left hand around the lens, far from a convenient way to have the camera ready for instant action. A D2 or D3 on the other hand can dangle by the grip from two fingers, depending on the lens, and be ready to use in seconds.
  6. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    In the post you quote I was actually referring to the EOS M5 which is pretty small and I have seen an EF 17-55mm f2.8 used with a similarly sized EOS M camera and the lens dwarfed the camera...

    Mirrorless doesn't have to be small small - Fuji's medium format CSC may be small by medium format standards but it's stll quite big and even the Sony FF CSCs aren't that small - but they ought at least be smaller than an SLR else why bother... That said Panasonic's G9 may be m4/3rds but it's anything but small. Having handled one at the Panasonic tent at Bodiam Castle the other week I can confirm that it's the size and weight of a decent DSLR and much larger than my teeny weeny G3...
  7. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I can see the downside of that

    Thinner may be but all that you are doing away with is the mirror box and pentaprism so for a 24 x 36 sensor the rest has to be a reasonable size, if only to balance the handling. If mirrorless cameras aren't thinner I don't see the point of deleting the mirror.*

    Given that the G9 has a 4/3 sensor that really is pointless. I can understand something about the size of an SLR with a full frame sensor but if the body is going to be big I want a sensor of commensurate size.

    Of course the D2 series is no smaller than the D3 but has a smaller sensor...

    *That'll rattle a few cages.
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  8. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Having used one for a few weeks now I can assure anyone that there is nothing at all pointless about the G9.
  9. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I didn't say that the G9 was pointless. I was quoting a comment on the size of the G9 and saying that the size was pointless. What is the point of a Compact System Camera that isn't compact. If the camera is as big as an SLR I want a big sensor to go with it, and a mirror.
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  10. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    As you clearly (and as usual) have no idea what you're talking about I'll just put you back on ignore.
  11. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    Or a few mirrors....:p

    One of the main reason I can see for Mirrorless (and I still prefer eyeball MK1) is the ability for virtual silence. Wildlife, sports, weddings....there are plenty of situations where it could help.

    If I had my way though, I would still have a split prism for focusing, with some auto focus points around it.
    ChrisNewman likes this.
  12. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I quite agree, removing mirror noise has its advantages but the downside, for me, is that the finder image suffers (that too will shake up a few members).


    I am reminded that in some situations a video inspection is permitted but when it is critical a MK1 eyeball is required, jet engine internal inspections for instance. Gross damage is obvious using a video system but if the video inspection reveals the possibility of a crack the final go/no go must be optical.
  13. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Ever since I bought my EOS 100 25 years ago I've always had at least one camera quiet enough for weddings. Or conferences...

    It took me quite some years to realise I much prefer microprisms to a split image in an SLR.
  14. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    The only microprism I got on with was the one in the Pentax SV. None of the others seemed to fit my eyes. On the other hand I found I could always focus quickly with any split image circle I tried. Which brings us to coincident rangefinders. Only the Leica M3 worked well for me though I could use the one in the Kiev 4 cameras without too much discomfort. In the interests of politeness I will reserve my opinion of the "focussing aid" fitted to the Yashica GSN series. It just goes to show we're all different which is one reason why so many different types have been sold successfully.
  15. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    My favourite focusing screen was the, optional, Olympus 1-14 diagonal split image screen for the OM series.
  16. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    Since I switched from my manual focus Pentax Super A, with split prism and microprisms, to autofocus-enabled DSLRs, I’ve had little confidence in manual focusing, except when using magnified live view on a tripod, with the monitor well shaded and my specs on.

    I’d love to have focussing aids in my DSLR viewfinder. I assume that because the light for autofocusing is filtered out by partial silvering of the mirror, before the focusing screen, this wouldn’t compromise the central autofocus point.

  17. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    My feeling is that manual focus aids like split prisms and microprisms would be of limited use for two reasons. First is the partial silvering of the mirror which loses a bit of light to the AF mechanism. Split prisms etc. are rather prone to darkening and becoming difficult to use when light levels are reduced - I remember that my 70-210 f4 lens was harder to focus in less than perfect light compared to an f2.8 lens leat a lon an f2 or better. How much light is actually lost with partial mirrors I'm not sure but I suspect it could be enough to adversely affect a split prism.

    The other reason is the actual focus mechanisms. With the old MF lenses the turn from minimum to infinity was quite large, often 3/4 of a turn or so and well damped making them easy to finely adjust. AF lenses on the other hand, especially the more modern ones, tend to have very short throw, 1/4 tun or less, and with little or no resistance and are pretty near impossible to adjust manually with any degree of finesse.

    I would say if one has a lot of manual focus lenses an old style focus aId could help, if the partial mirror isn't too big an issue, but I don't think it would make much real difference with modern AF lenses...
  18. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    The sub mirror, which directs light to the AF module is bang in the middle of the main mirror.
  19. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    You prompted me to get out my Super A and have a brief play. (It seems tiny after my D800, and I miss the full-sized hand grip around the housing for a DSLR battery, but despite 8 years of Nikon, it still seemed easier to attach the Pentax lens, with its right-hand thread action.) As I thought I remembered, one or both of the split prism views tend to black out at small aperture previews, and the microprisms show black in parts. (I assume this is due to the restricted aperture, in the same way that phase detection autofocus fails to work with small aperture lenses.) I struggled to focus manually in lowish light levels which I don’t think would trouble my D800’s AF. But in poor light, the split prisms seemed to give me much more positive focusing than the microprisms or trying to judge the overall view. In contrast to AF’s excellent performance in low light, there have been occasions in hazy or misty conditions where I’ve struggled to get phase detection to find focus, but have suspected I could have focussed manually OK with the aid of split prisms.

    I think the biggest limitation with re-introducing split prisms and microprisms would be their fixed central position, now that we’re used to choosing between multiple focal points. I doubt whether there are many situations when I’d use manual focusing, even if those aids were restored.

  20. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    My understanding is that the sub mirror is behind the main mirror in the light path. Although I realize the main mirror of my D800 is only partially silvered in front of the sub-mirror, I can’t detect that darkening in my viewfinder. I can’t see how the feed to the sub-mirror would be affected by focusing aids in the focusing screen, and I don’t think the minor loss of light due to partial silvering would make much difference to the effectiveness of split prisms and microprisms. But I think the black rectangle that appears when appropriate to denote the central focal point would need to be replaced by a circle somewhat larger than the microprisms. Anyway, I’m not convinced the current black rectangles correspond accurately to the area being assessed by the autofocus system.


Share This Page