gwilliams6

The truth has come out from the day of hands-on testing in NY.

Already reactions online like this "The fact is that Nikon cheated on the press release. They didn't mention the one card slot. They didn't mention the 12 bit compressed raw. They didn't mention the limits of the buffer. They didn't mention that the 12 fps become 5.5 fps if you want to have continuous exposure metering (which you always want if you are a pro), and so on and so forth. That is SO sad for such an historical company has Nikon, which wrote important pages in the history of photography."

IMHO the cameras will still be huge sellers. Nikon folks have waited so long, they will overlook any shortcomings. The extensive ad campaigns by Nikon and the stores like B&H and Adorama (which are salivating at the prospect of all those sales) will drive all those sales. Jared Polin (A Nikon shooter), at the risk of being not invited in the future, pretty much spilled the beans after his day with Nikon in NY. What is your take on what Jared says here ?

"All Things NIKON MIRRORLESS VS SONY (Is Nikon CRAZY?) RAWtalk 248"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2C9Z0foXOw

Shutterbug57

That are SD cards, but, yes, 2.

gwilliams6

TONY AND CHELSEA NORTHRUP ARE BACK FROM NIKON NYC EVENT. THEY GOT ONE HOUR WITH A PRE-PRODUCTION Z CAMERA AND ARE NOT HAPPY ON MANY LEVELS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUii9dTwPkw

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Total. Unmitigated. Bull$#!t.

gwilliams6

I agree with you burkphoto.

gwilliams6

Jason Lanier ( a longtime, award-winning former Nikon shooter, and who does give props to Nikon at the beginning of this video) has a thought provoking take on all of this here. Keep an open mind, it is worth watching.

Mirrorless REINVENTED? Is this a new beginning for Nikon or the Beginning of the End?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJhUT8g_qyw

Cheers

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Excellent linked video!

Interestingly enough, it is Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, and Fujifilm who have been asking photographers what they want and need. They have responded well, too!

Like Jason, I grew up with Nikons and Canons. 1968 to 2012, I was using one or the other. Now I use Panasonic. I still would be using Nikon or Canon today, if they had the features I need. They don’t. Nikon won’t. Canon? We shall see.

gwilliams6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8cajlPczk0&feature=youtu.be
Dear Sony - Thank you for the mirrorless camera revolution (with all due respect to contributions by Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus)

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

If the Z7 were a CLONE of the 850 ( 2 cards etc...) ONLY the die hard " look in the mirror folks " would be buying the 850... Nikon was NOT trying to produce the latest and the greatest in the first iteration of the Z7. The 850 is a cash cow and they are going to milk sales as long as they can. They are hedging all bets in the transition; from a marketing standpoint I think it is a brilliant strategy. If one actually believes that a junior engineer made the decision on the # of card slots, they should change what they are smoking. Neither Nikon or Canon are going to fold up their bags and get on the outbound train because their FF mirrorless effort is not everything to everybody. You can bet that EVERY decision on the feature set came from the very top.

gwilliams6

Many Pros shooting Sony mirrorless at 2018 US Open Tennis Championships. Here is just one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_Tlej_oatY&feature=share
Shooting the Sony A9 & the FE400mm f/2.8GM at the US Open - 2018

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

LoL, I like the big white lens with the RED ring, very original!!!
He also happens to be sponsored by Sony!!!
SS

gwilliams6

SS, He is a Sony shooter, but does NOT get his money from Sony, he is a longtime award-winning veteran pro sports shooter who is paid by the publications and other clients he shoots for.

SS I really wish you would know some facts for a change, rather than just spouting myths, wild claims and pure fanboyisms without any basis in truth. To you anyone who shoots with a Sony and says good things about them MUST be paid by Sony. What a big laugh !!!! And what about all the other pros shooting Sony here at the US Open and around the world, are we all also paid by Sony to use their cameras and say good things about our experiences too ? LOL

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

My apologies, I just assumed because it said on the screen, “Patrick Murphy, Sony Artisan of Imagery”, that he was sponsored by a Sony!
SS

Bill_de Loc: US

Nah.

But with the amount of posting you do bringing Sony into just about every post you make, it sure looks like you are auditioning for the part.

PICK ME! PICK ME!!!

Seriously though, Canon has Explorers of Light, while Nikon has Nikon Ambassadors. Does Sony have a similar program?

--

Bipod

The image created by the mechanical shutter is always as good or superior to the shutterless sensor image, all else being equal.
Image quality used to be a high priority.

Congratulations: you found the cases where the two designs are equivalent--or your monitor is not high enough resolution to see the problems.
I'd guess you took photos of an unmoving subject in good light with a "global shutter mode" (probably CCD) sensor. Yup: no difference.

Try make exposures (1) in low light; and (2) with a moving subject. If you still can't see the difference, print an 8 x 10. If it still
looks the same, I can recommend a good opthamologist. :-)

Shutterless and in low light, "global shutter" sensors will have blurred motion, while "rolling shutter" sensors may have a dark bar
on the image. If you don't believe me, ask B&H:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/tips-and-solutions/rolling-shutter-versus-global-shutter

Also,while a "global shutter" sensor will excel at your test, it may not look as good as a non-global shutter! It will have higher noise and
lower dyanmic range. It will also generate more heat (and drain your batteries faster). So one has to compare *six* types of sensors:
CCD "global shutter", CCD "rolling shutter" (uncommon), CCD neither, CMOS "global shutter" (uncommon), CMOS "rolling shutter",
CMOS neither.

Like you say all have "advantages and disadvantages". But if you want to equal film camera shutter performance, then you will
have a mechanical shutter (and a focal plane shutter will fall short of leaf shutter performance).

Dynamic range you absolutely cannot see on an LCD or OLCD screen. It's like looking for darkness with a flashlight.
The dynamic range of your image file could be much greater than your monitor can display--and you may need that
dyanmic range to decide which end to throw away for display or printing: highlights or shadows (or some of both).

In photography, what you see is never what you get--unless your final "print" is the preview LCD on your camera.
That will look different on the monitor and different still if printed on paper.

Looking out my window, I can see no evidence that the earth is spherical. But believe me, it is. "Seeing is believing"
only if one is an idiot.

Don't you ever make prints? Saying that an image is sharp on a computer monitor ain't sayin' much.

The standard of "sharp" used to be a 12 x 18 print by Ansel Adams or Minor White. Now it's burkphoto's monitor.
How far we have fallen!

You could also take a photo of a white card, then use softtware to check the image file for noise.
(It used to be common for serious photographers to own test equipment.)

Indeed, very true. Focal plane shutter noise is a problem in quiet rooms. But the traditional solution
is a leaf shutter---and there are digital cameras with leaf shutters.

These are the main disadvantages when shooting in *normal light* that can be seen in *low resolution*.
If you only shoot in normal light and view in low resolution, then read no futher.

But noise, loss of sensitivity and loss of resolution (compared to sensors not having shutter features) can
also be big problems. Remember, the sensor is kinda small in the first place (compared to traditional
photography). It's difficult to design and manufactuer a good sensor, and when the sensor also has to be
the shutter, it's even more difficult.

An analogy could be made with instant film: don't expect the highest image quality from a Polaroid.
Convenience and complexity always come at a price--and not just in monitary terms.