camerapapi wrote:
In my humble opinion one of the most important steps in photographic sharpness is the close proximity of the rear of the lens to the focal plane. Modern dSLR camera bodies have a larger distance between the rear of the lens and the focal plane plus the mirror that flips up and down with the exposure. Theoretically speaking the mirror should be a contributor to slight blur but in real life that is not the case and the images made with a dSLR camera and good optics are usually superb. I do not know the secret but since the original Exakta SLR of the early 50's the images have been of excellent quality with those cameras.
After the Second World War Nikon reorganized from being an optical company designing optics for the war to a camera company. In 1957 when Leica was king Nikon introduced the Nikon SP rangefinder camera which was not very different to what we now call mirrorless. The quality was superb to the point that Life magazine, after the experience of David Douglas Duncan in Korea using Nikon optics switched to use only Nikon cameras and lenses. This is all obviously of historic interest.
The fact is that photographers have been wanting smaller and lighter cameras and lenses and the main reason why modern poly-carbonated components of excellent quality are so often used with photographic gear. Olympus and Panasonic have been very successful with their mirrorless cameras and Sony and Fuji have also introduced excellent cameras and lenses. Mirrorless seems to be here to stay although I have said in several occasions that there are still problems with the tracking function of these cameras for action and wildlife photography.
I do not have any experience with the Z7 but I have already read several reviews stating that the AF system is not at a par with that of a dSLR yet.
The images I have seen from that camera using the new lenses designed for it are indeed superb. Nikon has always been an optical company and they have lots of experience in the designing and manufacture of lenses. I have not seen any real life prints from their mirrorless cameras but I have to assume that the images have to be of excellent quality based on what I now know.
Vignetting has never been an issue with rangefinder cameras, it has never been with my Olympus mirrorless bodies but there must be something I am not aware of based on your statement about vignette being an issue with the short distance from the lens to the focal plane.
I said a few years back that the future looked brilliant for mirrorless cameras and time has proven me right.
In my humble opinion one of the most important ste... (
show quote)
SLR mirrors do add some vibration during exposure. That's why there is a mirror lock-up switch on better SLRs and some dSLRs, and why "Live View" mode is handy. Mirror shake is most likely to be noticeable at speeds between the full-open curtain speed (varies with shutter design; usually between 1/60 and 1/250) and around 1 second. It's less noticeable at longer and shorter exposures. It's worst (in my experience) from about 1/2 to 1/60 second. When I used a Nikon F3 on a copy stand, my typical exposure was 1/8 at f/6.3 at ISO 64. So I locked up the mirror. Now, when I use my Lumix, I use electronic shutter mode, silent mode, and trip the camera from my iPhone. That eliminates mirror shock (no mirror) and shutter shock (no mechanical shutter), leaving only the swish of the diaphragm blades if I pre-focus manually. Then the problem becomes vibration of the table due to passing cars, etc.
One of the reasons LIFE switched to Nikon was cost. The Japanese bodies and lenses were significantly less costly than their German counterparts. Since the performance was virtually indistinguishable in the magazine, the switch was an easy decision. It pleased the bean counters! That choice by LIFE led to a choice of Nikon by the US military (along Beseler Topcon, for some arcane reason). It also cemented the Nikon brand into the minds of many youth, eventually clinched by the song,
Kodachrome, by Paul Simon.
Despite the fact that I started with a Canon FX in 1968, I bought a Nikkormat FTn in 1969, mostly due to the reputation Nikon had among the press. Our high school contract yearbook candid photographer had six Nikon F bodies. So I went that direction, eventually picking up a Nikon FTn. Funny... I had tested Nikkormat FTn, Canon FT QL, Pentax Spotmatic F, and Minolta SRT-101. The Spotmatic felt best in my hands, and their lenses were the easiest to focus. But all because Time-Life and the local press used Nikon, that's the way I went.
The more I used the FTn, the more I appreciated its performance and rugged reliability, but the less I liked its ergonomics. the shutter button strained my index finger. Changing film was a pain... What do you do with the back while it's off? I had to wear shirts with clean pockets. They fixed all that stuff with the F3. It's a classic. It reminded me of the Pentax Spotmatic from the late 1960s. I wore one out!
I never have liked the reflex mirror and pentaprism/pentamirror designs, though. Finder blackout is what kept some old-timer photojournalists using rangefinder cameras until they died. At least you could see the moment of exposure and know you got the expression you wanted from a person. That's one of the reasons I got interested in mirrorless cameras. They're still evolving, but by 2014, they were good enough to use for all but sports and wildlife work. The Sony A9 appears to have broken that barrier. Its existence is why so many reviewers didn't like the Canon and Nikon full frame announcements. I suspect Canon and Nikon are already working on their "A9 killers" along with Panasonic.
Welcome back, friends, to the show that never ends...
Remember, if your old cameras still work, you can still use them. Or someone else can. When a G.A.S. attack occurs, remember that your knowledge, experience, training, passion, mental vision, purpose, and curiosity USUALLY are more important than your gear. Have a good reason to upgrade or switch!