Mirrorless In My Future? (Page 3): Nothing is for sure except that your F mount lens won't work on the new Nikon ML without an adapter. That much is for sure.

BebuLamar

Jeffcs wrote:

im not to sure that Nikon, and i only talk about n... (show quote)

Nothing is for sure except that your F mount lens won't work on the new Nikon ML without an adapter. That much is for sure.

BHamp00 Loc: Las Vegas

joer wrote:

This is not about which is the better system at th... (show quote)

I started with a NEX6 over three years ago and progressed to an A6000 and then an A6300 as they were released; and kept them all. I wasn't too interested in the A7 series originally but picked up an A7II about six months ago and then an A7RIII a couple of months later. I had a Nikon 850 on preorder which I cancelled shortly before ordering the A7RIII. I have nine or so FE lenses but haven't invested in the larger 2.8 zooms as it was my desire to keep the size and weight down. Although I'm heavily invested in Nikon gear, I find myself using the Sony cameras much more often. I've more or less decided to sell most, if not all, of my Nikon gear and expand my Sony inventory of cameras and lenses. Most of my FE lenses I've acquired are Zeiss or Sony/Zeiss and I look forward to my first Sony G Master lenses which I will acquire as I sell my Nikon gear. For a time I felt that it would be worthwhile to wait for the Nikon ML camera, however, I feel that Sony's technology may be hard to match or surpass. I'm also sure that a new lens mount will come with the Nikon ML with an adapter for their DSLR lenses which for a while seemed a way to go. I know I'll take a bit of a beating on selling the Nikon gear but then again I look at it as the cost of progress. I see many posts pro and con between the DSLR and Mirrorless cameras, however, I don't see many DSLR users that have moved to an A7RIII, A7III or A9 saying they are moving back to DSLR's.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

joer wrote:

This is not about which is the better system at th... (show quote)

Welcome to the mirrorless world. I suspect you will come to using the A6300 most of the time once you get use to it.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

PixelStan77 wrote:

For me the issue will be if Nikon will allow me to use all my lenses from my FX and DX collection, or do I need different lenses.

Nikonrumors thinks that the mirrorless will ship with an adapter to allow existing lenses to work.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

a6500 has built in IS. Just sayin....

jgunkler

Until you commit to the micro 4/3 system completely (body and lenses, no adapters), I don't see much advantage to the switch. I did commit completely, selling my Canon gear (it did hurt some) to get the Olympus EM-1 Mk II and two lenses. I'm very happy with the change. I now take my camera with me everywhere and the system is as capable as my Canon and weighs less than half what it did. Smaller too. Taking it to Portugal in one week. Packing and carrying it are no problem, no worries.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

cjc2 wrote:

The issue with any ML system, at this time, is the limited choice of optics available. No 400/2.8, 500/4 or 600/4 as an example. When these new systems are 'built out' there will be a different story to tell. Personally, I'm expecting Nikon to announce a new lens mount concurrently with their new ML body which I will also embrace. Best of luck.

The Panasonic and Olympus lens lines are pretty extensive. http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html (This list is from last summer.)

Panasonic Leica has a brand new 50-200 mm f/2.8-f/4, which is the field of view equivalent of a 100-400mm f/2.8-f/4. They also have a Panasonic Leica 100-400mm f/4-f/6.3, which is the field of view equivalent of a 200-800mm f/4-f/6.3.

Olympus has an excellent 40-150mm f/2.8, which is the field of view equivalent of a 80-300mm f/2.8. They make a 300mm f/4, which is the field of view equivalent of a 600mm f/4.

Many Canon EOS EF and EF-S lenses can be adapted to Oly and Panny bodies with MetaBones SpeedBoosters, which increase the maximum aperture by 1.0 to 1.33 stops, improve MTF performance, and reduce focal length slightly. OR, you can use a Smart Adapter and in either case (SpeedBooster or Smart Adapter), you retain all automation features.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

jgunkler wrote:

Until you commit to the micro 4/3 system completely (body and lenses, no adapters), I don't see much advantage to the switch. I did commit completely, selling my Canon gear (it did hurt some) to get the Olympus EM-1 Mk II and two lenses. I'm very happy with the change. I now take my camera with me everywhere and the system is as capable as my Canon and weighs less than half what it did. Smaller too. Taking it to Portugal in one week. Packing and carrying it are no problem, no worries.

This is effectively what I did, too. I was using Nikons and Canons for years. I gave it all up to switch to a Panasonic Lumix GH4 system with Panasonic Pro zooms and a macro. The bonus is that I don't need a separate video camera (I create training content as PDF files, videos, and other electronic, company Intranet-based uses). I can record both stills and video in one take, with one camera.

I'm quite happy with the results. I haven't had a client disappointed yet, either, because frankly, they could care less about any perceivable difference in image quality. It's about the message, not the medium.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Jeffcs wrote:

In case you havenât noticed the Olympus OMDem1mk2 body is a masterpiece, oh you said no 600f4 Mu-43 system is focal length X2 so Olympus 300f4 is in terms of FF a 600f4 lens and is si so sharp I have sold my long Nikkor glass! I can hand hold this set up as in body and lens stabilization oh also have sold my heavy tripod with its gimbal head

Respectfully, there's a BIG difference in the two configurations you mention. The 'angle-of-view' changes, the 'optical magnification' does not. Show me an OLY 400/2.8 or one of the Nikon (equivalent) long glass. Answer: "they don't exist". Show me an OLY camera as capable for sports as the Nikon D5 -- again, there isn't one. I plan to jump into the Nikon ML system, but it will NOT replace what I use everyday! Best of luck.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

burkphoto wrote:

The Panasonic and Olympus lens lines are pretty ex... (show quote)

Always respect your opinion. You and I both know none of this is equivalent to a Nikon 400/2.8 on a D5. ML is the future for sure, and I will, most likely, be purchasing the new Nikon ML release with a lens or two, but it will not REPLACE anything I have or am doing now. My best.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

cjc2 wrote:

Respectfully, there's a BIG difference in the two configurations you mention. The 'angle-of-view' changes, the 'optical magnification' does not. Show me an OLY 400/2.8 or one of the Nikon (equivalent) long glass. Answer: "they don't exist". Show me an OLY camera as capable for sports as the Nikon D5 -- again, there isn't one. I plan to jump into the Nikon ML system, but it will NOT replace what I use everyday! Best of luck.

You have it backwards... A 300mm on Micro 4/3 has about the same angle of view as a 600mm on full frame, or a 450mm on APS-C Nikon, Fujifilm, or Sony. But at any given distance, it has roughly twice as much depth of field at the same aperture. That can be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the results you want.

With knowledgeable, creative use, a Micro 4/3 high end body (OM-D E-M1 Mark II, or Lumix GH5, or G9) can handle sports and wildlife quite nicely. You can't work the same way you work with your Nikons, but there are different paths to the same end... if you do your research.

That said, I'm eager to see what Canon and Nikon come up with.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

SharpShooter wrote:

If I could do what I do 100% of the time and use a system that was half the size and half the weight I would start to move in that direction.
TOO MANY talk about all the camera systems they have? One for sports, one for travel, one for when they’re just fooling around?! When are people just fooling around? SS

I'm kinda one of "those" fool arounders . I have a Nikon A900 because it's a great camera to stick in my pocket for when I don't want to bring my camera. I have a D7100 because it's magic for when I do. I still have a few 35mm cameras for when I'm in the mood. And when I'm moodier, I really like what I can do with the big heavy cranky clunky medium format cameras I can't make myself get rid of.
And now I'm seriously looking at the newest Oly mirrorless. When it's as convenient as my A900 and as good/better than the D7100- I'm sold. I never really understood why digital didn't go mirrorless right from the beginning. Unless there was a vast WW2 warehouse of mechanical mirror flippers everything could be done waay easier electronically. In my not very distant future I'll be getting rid of a couple hundred pounds of Nikonista stuff in exchange for that 3rd or 5th gen Oly. I don't like being the first- pioneers and front runners collect all the arrows. Want my Pronea? But I like the idea of it *not* having to appear like all the others emulating a 100 year old design out of legacy. Or deliberately emasculating mid range products so as to not compete with the bigger $$ models. Yes the Sony A7s are killers, too- and with a Metabones FR your lenses will work on them.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

cjc2 wrote:

Always respect your opinion. You and I both know none of this is equivalent to a Nikon 400/2.8 on a D5. ML is the future for sure, and I will, most likely, be purchasing the new Nikon ML release with a lens or two, but it will not REPLACE anything I have or am doing now. My best.

There are many pros who have said as much... then switched. Check out what wildlife photographer, Daniel J. Cox is doing.

http://naturalexposures.com/corkboard/

Or check out what some other photographers are doing with Lumix gear. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxSt5kmZG3dNXsBJqtzIKmQ

The new Panasonic Leica 200mm f/2.8 has the same field of view as a 400/2.8 Nikon, but with two stops more DOF...

I'm not suggesting the D5 isn't an absolute beast... it is. But the gap is getting less important with each new mirrorless release. We're already WAY beyond 35mm film with all three popular sensor sizes. Well over 90% of images made today are for the Internet. I can see both Canon and Nikon moving (slowly) to mirrorless pro camera systems and ditching all but a few dSLR bodies and lenses.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

burkphoto wrote:

You have it backwards... A 300mm on Micro 4/3 has ... (show quote)

Again, I always appreciate your comments. When studio work and portraits are concerned you are always spot on. I am one who truly understands the difference between sensor sizes, but a 400 is a 400 is a 400, period. Some attributes change but it is still a 400. There is no currently available ML system I would consider for professional sports action work. I acknowledge the gap is closing on a daily basis. I am also eager to see what Nikon produces. (Not that I am dissing Canon, but I have no intention to buy an additional set of lenses!). I guess we'll both know much more in a year's time! At this time, most of my images are for publication, however the portion used on the internet is always growing.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

Bill_de wrote:

Nikon already stated that the F mount will not be usable without an adapter. They also registered a patent on an adapter. So, why would your lenses be useless? The sky is not falling. You should not live in fear.

--

Having multiple systems I’ve tried adapters with my Sony Nikon prime lenses. I several lenses 85f1.4,105f1.4,50f1.4,24-120f4 focus was poor slow and only about 30% keeper focused. So if I’m shouting Nikon I’ll use nikkors, Sony I’ll shoot g-master.