Nikon officially confirms they are “developing new mirrorless products”


In connection with the latest interview with Nikon's president I posted here on [NR], a Nikon spokesperson said this to dpreview:

"While details are confidential, we can say that we are currently developing new mirrorless products that build upon Nikon's strengths, and offer the performance prospective customers expect, including the ultimate optics performance, image-processing technologies, strength and durability, and operation."

This entry was posted in Nikon 1 and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Ben

    First camera should be a stellar crop camera comparable to Fuji’s system with a new mount and serious enthusiast lenses. Let the rest fall into place afterwards as far as full frame goes.
    DSLR users still want the F mount and likely won’t buy a mirrorless anyway for a good while. I’m betting Most people want a $1500ish body not a $3500 full frame mirrorless. One can look at the success of the X-mount to support this. It can’t be silly. It has to be serious. It will sell like hot cakes.

    • yeah all sounds good, but why not just buy Fuji. They at least have better video than Nikon plus they have the colours on point. Nikon has to do it BETTER than Fuji, otherwise what’s the point lol, people will just buy Fuji, not to mention Fuji has better APSC lenses than Nikon. Nikon has to do it way better than Fuji. And to be honest I doubt Nikon is capable, the days of the D700 golden era have past them.

      • How much would it cost to buy FUJI?

      • Ben

        Mirrorless is just taking off. My next camera will be a system I plan on using for a very long time. there’s no rush for me to see what all the players have planned for the future.
        Maybe I will buy a Fuji but there are tons of factors involved when considering a system so why not wait and see what Nikon comes up with?
        And honestly, the days of the golden era for anyone in the photography business is over so that’s not really concern.

  • BdV

    Lets hope this leads to something that grandpa SP + 35mm 1.8 would be very proud of.

    • It’s called the x pro 2 + 23mm 1.4 plus better video than Nikon can ever hope to produce.

      • FUJI X is not compatible with Nikon lenses except if FUJI would replace the X mount against F mount.

      • RC Jenkins

        I have an x pro 2 in addition to my Nikon DSLRs. It is excellent overall, but it’s not perfect.

        If Nikon ever produced a full-frame Nikon version, with a Nikon autofocus adapter, Nikon menus, no XTrans sensor, and some good native lenses, I’d probably ditch the Fuji.

        Video is worse on the Fuji.

        • All the reviews I see is Fuji has good video equivalent to Sony.

          X Trans is no problem, I use Cap One and LR.

          Nikon has the worst video quality. Their D500 skips lines on video. So I’m not sure how you’re saying video is worse on Fuji. Be specific.

          • RC Jenkins

            Are you going off of reviews or first hand experience? I am going from first hand experience, as I own both. Currently.

            My Full-Frame Nikon D750 offers me much more control over style, tone, and color rendering and has responsive Auto-ISO that adjusts constantly during video, even during consistent exposure. In other words, it lets me take advantage of the superior full-frame dynamic range (better DR than my Fuji) of the raw sensor data by allowing me to render this better into video. My tilting screen also helps for video.

            I can edit the Fuji raw files fine, but my options are more limited than with my Nikon. I’m also not a big fan of the Fuji wax in jpegs & previews if I’m using a reference for my raw editing.

            Why don’t you take your own advice, and be specific in how video is better on Fuji than the latest full-frame Nikons?

            “From what I read online, Fuji is similar video to Sony” isn’t good enough. Be specific.

            • I use it next to my GH3 and the Fuji is sharper and better colours. I don’t have the latest Nikons, but I watch reviews, the Nikon colours are still weird. The WB gets tricked (too warm) and skin tones need A LOT of work to make it look good.

              Nikon colurs look good for vibrant landscape work, but all you have to do to imitate Nikon colours is turn up vibrancy. Working with Nikon files to get good skin tones is a lot more work.

            • RC Jenkins

              LOL. Bashing something you have no first-hand experience with. And then comparing it to a sensor that 1/4th the size, from a completely different system. Nice. Classy. Smart. BTW, I have micro four thirds cameras too. They are the worst between the 3 of these in terms of IQ, but have great supplementary features (like IBIS and size).

              I suppose you don’t know how to use white balance…it is adjustable on the D750–even relative to the auto value it picks.

              My Nikon renders skin tones closer to real life than my Fuji.

              The Fuji certainly looks closer to film and artsier, but it is less accurate and harsher.

              I had to adjust both my Nikon & Fuji rendering to get skin tones to look ok. This is especially true for diverse skin tones other than ‘slightly tan white/caucasian’ (like darker or paler skin tones)–the Fuji is very poor here.

              Also, you didn’t answer my question. Be specific about how video on the Fujis is better than the full frame Nikons that you have no first-hand experience or reference point with?

            • I said it before, line skipping on 4k, and no log profile.

              I watch reviews from multiple sources, why would I buy a camera if it doesn’t even meet basic requirements. Do you buy cameras so that you have personal experience with the camera before deciding if you should keep the camera or resell at a loss? lol

              Do you shoot professionally? Can I see your work so I can have an idea of how you’re editing the videos and photos.

            • RC Jenkins

              You didn’t say that before; and I was unaware that the Fuji x pro 2 has 4k & log profile…

              Oh wait. It doesn’t.

              So that has nothing to do with your statement that your Fuji x pro 2 has “better video than Nikon can ever hope to produce.”

              I do shoot professionally. I keep my professional portfolio and online commentary separate specifically because there are people like you out there. But I can always take & post some side-by-sides between the x pro 2 & full frame Nikon if you do as well.

              Oh wait. That’s right. You don’t have them, but you parrot what you read online and make false statements you cannot back up.

              Can you at least post a still from a 4k, log-encoded video from your x pro 2?

            • so… I know it might be challenging for you to think with some initiative, but if you look at the original post, the commentator said “Lets hope this leads to something that grandpa SP + 35mm 1.8 would be very proud of.”

              Which I replied the X Pro 2 is the equivalent.

              And then you came in talking about Nikon video. So when I replied talking about Fuji video, I was referring to the XT 2 in regards to line skipping and log profiles. Since we were talking about video in general since Nikon has NOT released a SP.

              And it’s so funny, every time I ask someone in the forum for proof of how good their editing is because Nikon files are superior, I get the reply of “oh yes I have big clients, but I don’t post work up because I don’t have rights to it” or some other BS like the one you just wrote.

              SO. Because it’s so hard for you to understand I’m talking about the XT 2, since we were talking about video in general.

              So again give me some examples of Nikon video is better. You can google yourself and see everyone saying Fuji has better video – I’m not the only one saying it, multiple review websites say the same thing. Add to that AF during video. Nikon has sh*t.

              I’ll wait for your smart ass reply with anecdotal evidence.

            • RC Jenkins

              lol, you’re not too bright are you. You may need some compensation.

              Let’s set the record straight:
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8e58b65315718f16e5bea87ba777d6008ee5532ff5cc70ba9a6b57c0386835f.png

              You brought up video before I even responded. And you specifically said that the x pro 2 has better video than Nikon could ever produce. That’s the scope here.

              Your hypocrisy here is astounding, as is all of the BS you write. You try to offer challenges without the ability to do the same. You’re a waste of time.

              So listen: before you can edit your posts, here are all of your posts on this topic here:
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5641e9f516b8cc112070d709b7323b91f573467f2472f2f8f37cd5c67991baff.png
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4dd794ea281b8691bfc7505d7bf86fdc4108baf9d5f5309c99ab48084d5fe449.png
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4834217760620b1792bb4413c0acb7f318218236ee1b6deb62bc2b6432e373ba.png

              Can you point out a single mention of the XT2? Just one? No?

              Multiple review websites say the opposite of what you read as well. That’s how the internet works. I don’t have to prove anything to you; nor do I have to Google. Because I actually shoot with both. I don’t need thirdhand experience when I have firsthand experience.

              Come back when you have any firsthand experience instead of hearsay; or when can logically connect any dots instead of referencing imaginary parts of this conversation you’ve had with yourself.

              Until then, you’re just a waste of time–another rando on the internet who thinks the ability to read things other people wrote on the internet makes him an expert on the subject (though obviously not an expert in reading–you’ve made that abundantly clear….LOL!)

            • wow. So when I thought you uploaded screen shots I thought it would be your folio, or maybe even a screen shot of Nikon’s “superior” video quality, but instead you failed to understand that we were talking about video quality of Fuji vs Nikon in general.

              OK SO TO BE CLEAR X PRO 2 DOES NOT HAVE 4K

              – BUT IT DOES HAVE BETTER COLOURS WHITE BALANCE, VIDEO AUTOFOCUS, AND BETTER HD QUALITY THAN NIKON.

              And to make it EXTRA CLEAR XT 2 has BETTER VIDEO THAN ANYTHING NIKON HAS.

              Is that better? You don’t want to google reviews of Nikon video vs Fuji because you’re scared of the truth. lol. There is NO way a line SKIPPING, over vibrant, off WB, weird skin tones Nikons Dxxx is better than a XT2. And Fuji is about to drop a newer camera dedicated to video. If you think Nikon is struggling now, just wait and see what Fuji is about to drop.

              Those hints about Fuji helping Nikon was real.

            • RC Jenkins

              All caps, and no substance, with no response to what I wrote. Good job.

              A quick Google brought me to this comparison of several cameras for color rendition. Here are the results of a blind test:

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/103f0121625ec953044ddf922c7330b1df095429fb9ca622fffed8d0eb9bb651.png

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa5720239db3fd96cc6855a903f7b05e4e372ff56e81cb62e854a98dc20703ef.png

              Fuji ended up at #4 for color rendition, behind Canon, Panasonic, and Nikon! Nikon ended up at #1. LOL! And that’s not even full frame–it’s APS-C!

              That’s not even some obscure source:
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/488206ccf80dd671a5f71b64781bb71afb74adedc38a6f2a2e7f626046bd1363.png

              CameraStoreTV, with well over 300,000 views, overwhelmingly positive feedback.

              You might want to put your fanboy playbook and that cup of Kool Aid down. You just look lost at this point LOL!

              You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

              You’re just some parroting follower who uses the internet instead of hands-on experience to form opinions. I own both Fuji & Nikon. You don’t. You’re an amateur, internet armchair expert at best. You’re not a doctor because you read WebMD. You’re not a photographer because you read some online reviews–which you’re admittedly basing your entire opinions on.

              So don’t try to talk to me about something you literally don’t know anything about firsthand.

  • Bijan Choudhury

    I still think(and hope) that the mount will be F. Adopter however good will never give you 100% performance. Looking at the recent release of quality F mount lenses( say for example Nikon 28 mm 1.4 among others) I tend to believe that the upcoming mirrorless will still be F mount.

    I hear that the issue of the large flange distance of the F mount will make the camera bigger realtively but I had the Nikon FM2n before and it is quite small. Even if after accomodating the viewfinder the camera becomes slightly bigger, that may not be a bad thing after all … because too small a camera is uncomfortable to handle when using long lenses.
    Personally if the camera is FF and slightly slimmer and smaller than Df with F mount and has better manual focus facility, then I will be content.

    But to make an impact, the camera should have also ground breaking AF, excellent DR, built in GPS, improved snap-bridge II etc. etc.

    Nikon should also look at their VIDEO performances as it is lagging behind in that department and mirrorless is the best route to address that …

    • Fly Moon

      Exactly my thoughts.

    • BdV

      F-mount would be a very big compromise. I hope they come up with an optimal design.

    • RC Jenkins

      Why would an adapter “never give you 100% performance?” Can you explain the reasons?

      Does your tv also work better when it is plugged directly into the wall rather than through a surge protector?

      Thinner bodies is only one of many benefits to a new mount. There are many other benefits, including more flexibility in lens design, which means some better (cheaper, sharper, faster, wider, etc.) lenses.

      • Bijan Choudhury

        Only adopter that I know comes close is the Canon EF-EOS M Adapter but I am not sure it will give perfect performance with the long Tele lenses from CANON EF mount. So for NIKON either you keep the F mount or you develop a new set of lenses while also allowing an adopter for F mount lenses.
        The second option could be equally right … what I stated is my own humble opinion … that I do not want to buy another set of lenses … I would be ready to live with a slightly larger camera with F mount and to me actually that will be a positive attribute.Hopefully the control buttons( AF-ON and AE-LOCK for example) would be as large as current Nikon DSLRs and not smallish like Fuji X.

        Incidentally Our TV has a built-in surge protector … so no external one is required … just like Nikon mirrorless with F mount … no external lens adopter required.

        🙂 Have a nice day, RC

        • RC Jenkins

          The flaw in your position is that the Canon EF-EOS M adapter gives identical performance:

          “adapted EF and EF-S lenses – they behave almost exactly as they would on the 80D in Live View”.
          –https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m5-review/4

          For the ‘second option,’ you don’t need to buy new lenses if you’re happy with their performance–lenses won’t perform ‘better’ on a mirrorless camera than the lens does already. In other words, if you (for example) have a screw-driven AF-D lens, it’s already slow, clunky, inaccurate, and inconsistent on your DSLR. It will continue to be like this on your mirrorless camera–adapter or not.

          If you have an AI lens, AF-S (“G”), “E”, AF-P, etc., then you will see no changes to performance.

          The reason for the new mount is that there are some lenses you will never be able to buy on F-mount.

          Here are some examples: and these can be traced to the mount itself:

          Canon 50mm F/1.0 (with autofocus). Canon also has a 50mm F/0.95. Both are impossible on Nikon F-mount:
          https://petapixel.com/2016/10/07/glorious-bokeh-legendary-canon-50mm-f1-0l/

          Sigma released rear filters for their ultra-wide Art series lenses. Only for Canon:
          https://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=685

          Speaking of those ultra-wide Art series lenses, the Canon versions outperform the Nikon version:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5454f1cc3f28a775ac3d67ac78c0c82b510c00fbe308eb1de5d23107fac4906f.png
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/337ca7e1bd916b00b7a9eb692e428c5811220402f3bf82502d88f6bb158c97c8.png

          (this also translates to things like in-body-image-stabilization).

          If Nikon keeps the F-mount, you’ll be stuck with a camera that performs worse than its competitors. With a new mount, you can get the same performance for your existing lenses by using an adapter, while allowing all future lenses & cameras to improve instead of being held back.

          • Bijan Choudhury

            Hi RC
            Thank you for your efforts and time in trying to explain your point of view … I think some of us love Nikon ( sometimes difficult to explain why) and want to Nikon to succeed …
            I really appreciate your line of arguments that a new mount will open the door for more future optical enhancements … and there is very high possiblity that that is exactly what Nikon Engineers are doing right now …
            But innovation can also work to make the best of the existing F mount …
            Let us wait till the 25th …

            • RC Jenkins

              You should remember that I am a Nikon shooter, with thousands worth of full-frame Nikon F-mount lenses, ranging from early AI F/1.4’s to the latest “E” type lenses. For perspective, I have about 5 roughly 50mm primes faster than F/2. These 50mm primes alone cost more than most current full frame Nikon DSLR bodies.

              I want Nikon to succeed too.

              They will not with the F-mount on mirrorless; because unfortunately for them, the F-mount abides by the same laws of Physics that all mounts do.

              Remember that:
              ::Canon was successful in beating Nikon from behind when they introduced a new mount: their current EF mount.
              ::Olympus & Panasonic were successful by introducing a new mount (micro 4/3) to replace the DSLR mount (4/3).
              ::Sony has been successful by introducing a new mount (“E”) to replace their DSLR mount (“A”).
              ::Canon has been also been successful in mirrorless by releasing a new mount (EF-M) to replace their DSLR mount (EF).
              ::Leica M has always been a mirrorless mount.

              The only companies who tried to enter the mirrorless market from behind by re-using their DSLR mounts have been: Sigma (“SA” mount) & Pentax (“K” mount). They were not successful.

              Today, Canon could release a mirrorless EF camera–but they are in a completely different position than Nikon is in:
              ::Canon is dominant and #1. Nikon is a distant #2.
              ::Canon is growing market share. Nikon is shrinking market share. The gap is widening.
              ::Canon’s mount is less physically constrained than Nikon’s mount.
              ::Canon’s existing lenses since 1987 are 100% electronic with 100% compatibility. Nikon’s really started fully electronic lenses in 2013. In-lens AF motors since 1998. Mountable manual focus lenses since 1977.

              I hope Nikon’s engineers are working on the new mount. Innovation cannot surpass Physics. 🙂

            • Bijan Choudhury

              But please remember also that CANON had to take a newer mount again for the M series …
              I think the older Canon FD mount had to be changed for the larger EF mount as it was necessary for AF and also at that time CANON was not huge and did not have as many lenses as NIKON … at that time there had been also FD to EF mount adopters but who is using FD lenses now ?
              And do we really need 1.0 aperture lenses ? Nikon wides in F mount had always been superior Canon wides.

              If Nikon adopts a newer mount sooner or later all F mount lenses will start losing values … eventually to disappear …

              Because similar to the transition from Film to Digital, there will be eventually a transition from SLR to Mirrorless …it will take time but it is bound to happen.

            • RC Jenkins

              That’s my point: Yes, Canon used a newer mount for the M series (which is APS-C). That’s a good thing for them, because it allowed them to build small camera systems: one of the benefits of the new mount.

              So here is how Canon’s DSLR vs its mirrorless (same sized sensors, similar lenses) stack up:
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cd6bc40dc8ea6b8fe982c6bc7d55114584abd5008af9142a14433756a191ca05.png

              There is at least one big difference between Nikon’s transition here and Canon’s EF mount: Canon completely abandoned the FD mount. No adapters. This is right around when autofocus started to take off.
              And today, Nikon actually has (today) a much smaller history of well-suited autofocus lenses than Canon does.

              Old lenses that aren’t well suited lose value anyway. Old film lenses, for example, aren’t well suited for today’s digital sensors. Nor are Nikon’s old AF-D lenses for autofocus speed–they are slow! They are the reason Canon rose so quickly in the 90s and beat Nikon.

              But Nikon can build adapters and maintain both systems until the one system no longer sells well. At that point, only some lenses ‘lose value’–those that aren’t competitive or those that don’t work well for certain applications.

              A long, fast electronic telephoto (like what sports pros use) will always (always) adapt seamlessly, with no benefits to a new mount. But an ultra-wide may be a better lens on a new mirrorless mount, or a normal lens may be a smaller lens than its DSLR counter-part. So over time, these lenses may slowly lose favor–but that’s fine. Especially when this happens over several years or even decades. Their replacements are better. That’s what happens. If their replacements offer no benefits, then people won’t replace them, and they’ll retain value. Simple.

            • Andrew

              Looking at Canon over the past two decades, their success has in large part been due to their marketing. Showing those big fancy white lenses while trying to market their cameras to the general consumers.

              They were aggressively marketing in major publications while Nikon would have none of it. Marketing can make an inferior product more successful. Canon has for the past few years lagged Nikon in the quality of their image sensors, dynamic range, and high ISO performance. So there is much more to success than what you are indicating here.

              Microsoft used the same practice, support a weaker product until it gained market dominance. They bundled Office at $50 with practically every PC that sold, then when they became a monopoly, they started selling Office for hundreds of dollars. Canon is a larger company than Nikon and can divert funds from their other divisions to support their camera business. Nikon cannot do the same. They have to make a profit in their camera division.

              You are apparently setting the stage that Nikon needs to abandon the F-mount. That would suit Canon well. Such a strategy would come directly from Canon’s playbook. You may have a point but I would not buy any of this argument until Nikon releases their mirrorless camera. That stellar review you are giving on Canon’s mirrorless camera is quite debatable.

              The press release by Nikon’s president should have their competitors quite concerned. I will hold judgment until Nikon releases their new mirrorless cameras. They came out with a new mount for their Nikon 1 mirrorless camera, let us see what decisions Nikon has made or whether their strategy is for their new AF-P lenses. These lenses were first released for their Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras.

              Ref -Nikon’s AF-P Lenses, DPREVIEW: https://www.dpreview.com/news/4559095654/nikon-brings-stepping-motors-to-its-dslrs-with-two-new-18-55mm-lenses

              Whatever decision Nikon makes, the promise is that it will be a leading mirrorless camera. I would not attempt to get into a what if scenario at this stage and everything I have heard so far in your argument is not based upon information that Nikon has provided.

              Whatever you say will not change the fact that apparently, Nikon has developed their new Mirrorless camera line and so the technical specifications have been finalized. Nikon knows more about the technical challenges they need to meet with their new mirrorless cameras than any of us. They are the experts, they do not need our counsel, input, or sympathy. In fact, Nikon seldom listens to their users as they are confident they know best. They once ran an ad which I thought was inappropriate. I called them and apparently they agreed and pulled it, but I received no call of appreciation even thought I was told their manager would call me 😉 But then again we are talking about Nikon U.S.

            • RC Jenkins

              I know that you believe that I am part of some Canon marketing conspiracy designed to make Nikon fail. This is a crazy, irrational belief.

              I have no idea where you got that impression. I have no ties whatsoever to any camera company or anything else other than purely as a consumer. I’m primarily a Nikon photographer. I have no Canon products at all. Nor did I give the Canon mirrorless camera a “stellar review”–I didn’t give it any review whatsoever. I think you’re making things up in your head.

              Just because I (and many others) don’t think that Nikon should continue to use a technically inferior mount just to maintain backwards compatibility with non-competitive lenses from decades ago does not make me part of some conspiracy to make Nikon fail. I want Nikon to succeed.

              From your posts where you say things like: “as an engineer, I give attention to detail” and “I am able to see the type of things the average person may not notice” and “I received no call of appreciation,” etc. tells me that your ego is clouding your judgement and that you probably know less about business than you think you do.

              You should look up something called ‘confirmation bias.’ You are also in seemingly in denial about some basic physical realities–literally the same optics that hasn’t changed since the dawn of time–and the same principles that have driven lens design for well over a century. “As an engineer,” you should know some of these.

              And it’s funny you say “they don’t need our counsel, input, or sympathy”–when the opposite was literally the entire basis for your argument in your post here: http://disq.us/p/1khm6nh

              Input from consumers is exactly what Nikon needs, because they’re making a product for consumers, where their success is based on consumer reception. Nikon’s failed product lines were a result of not listening to consumers. So, using your line of logic, you must be part of some global Canon conspiracy designed to make Nikon fail. Maybe that’s why they never called you back.

      • Aren’t adapters having problems with the mechanical tolerances not being exactly flat between mount, adapter and lens itself (e.g. not having the exact needed size in flange distance)?

        I mean if speaking about a deviation of some millimeters won’t this reduce optical quality especially in the corners? Or can this be perfectly manufactured?

        Why do we see PDAF front- or back focus on DSLRs if there are no tolerance issues in the manufacturing process?

        • RC Jenkins

          The only real “problem” you can get with an adapter without the ‘exact tolerance’ would be autofocus precision…

          …but this isn’t a problem on mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras use the sensor itself to focus, so any tolerance will automatically be corrected for when focusing.

          DSLRs have this issue, because they use a separate autofocus module to autofocus. This is what “AF Fine tune” does–it corrects for the tiny differences between the lens-mount >> AF-module and lens-mount >> sensor.

          This inherent problem does not exist on mirrorless cameras.

          • DaveR43

            In principle your observation about focusing is correct. However, there is another issue.

            To ensure infinity focus is always available, adaptors are designed so that the tolerances never result in the adaptor being too thick. So the average adaptor will be deliberately manufactured to be thinner than ideal, and a poor example will be a lot thinner than ideal. Typical examples can be 0.5 mm thinner than ideal.

            If the lens has internal floating elements to correct for close focusing, then the corrections will be applied incorrectly if the adaptor is too thin. This can be a problem for wide angle, wide aperture lenses.

            Some owners of Four/Thirds lenses who have used low-cost adaptors to mount their lenses onto MFT bodies have seen quite horrific blur at the frame edges.

            However, using the standard (more expensive) adaptor from Olympus resolved the issues.

            These points were discussed in the dpreview Photographic Science and Technology forum, December 2014/January 2015, and also in the dpreview Micro Four Thirds Talk forum around the same time.

            • RC Jenkins

              That’s true–you can’t get away from using a poorly constructed 3rd party adapter and expect everything to work well. Just like how lenses themselves have variances as well:
              https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/measuring-lens-variance/

              But obviously, this is true on the camera bodies themselves too. Like the classic D800 left-vs-right focusing issue. 🙂

              That’s why it’s incredibly important for Nikon to do this well. They don’t have to reverse engineer parts to determine measurements or attempt to undercut competitors on pricing, etc.

              Nikon’s goal for adapters should be “will this work well, for minimal cost to the consumer, so that they buy my new mirrorless system?” While 3rd-party goals will be “will I maximize profit through the combo of margin & volume?”

              I hope Nikon can understand this point, which they have traditionally struggled with…

      • johnnykangaroo

        Your comparison is not the best. A surge protector adds an extra element (on the end of thousands of miles of wire) between your power source and TV. It adds another component that likely adds noise and ever so slight transmission loss to the signal. This usually isn’t a problem because your TV converts power to DC in a system that has noise filtering built in. Or maybe your surge protector filters noise producing a cleaner signal. As long as that extra component is functioning and can withstand the current demand you likely aren’t effecting the system.

        For a start, the additional mechanical coupling introduced by adding an adapter would have to be addressed somewhere. Whether that would be a shifting sensor or something else, it would introduce extra complexity in engineering and manufacturing.

        The signals from the adapted F lens would also have additional noise and attenuation because of additional two connectors. Its deleterious effects might be minimal, but autofocusing works on slim temporal margins.

        • RC Jenkins

          That’s ok if you don’t want to understand parallels in an analogy (and get some of your facts wrong, since we use digital and not analog TVs); but OK… change it to a microSD card in an adapter. Does the adapter make the microSD card go slower? Nope.

          I know you want desperately to believe that a connection will alter the *digital* signal significantly, but it won’t. Can you quantify your claims?

          Adapting really depends on the level of adapting and availability of components–and if you’re so concerned on the latest & greatest performance, why are you using these older lenses? I’m not talking about shifting sensors. I’m talking about getting lenses to work on a body. And that ‘extra complexity’ also applies to building in the mechanical components into the camera bodies.

          So let’s go through these and what components are required:

          1: CPU. No mechanical parts whatsoever, and no performance degradation for the digital communication. This is just like putting a microSD card into an SD adapter. This is how “E” and “AF-P” lenses communicate–purely through the electrical contacts. Canon went this route–and their M5 camera using adapted EF lenses perform identically to how these lenses work on their DSLRs in live view–there is no performance degradation.

          2: Aperture link: This is an actuated arm that moves a small spring-loaded lever on the lens that controls the aperture. Nikon has already built this automated actuator into the FT-1 adapter (for example); and it had no impact on performance relative to a DSLR in live view. Think about how your Nikon DSLR performs when changing aperture in live view on a non-E lens…it’s the lens that’s the problem, not if the actuator is built into the body (or not).

          3: AI ring: This is a simple, spring-loaded ring where the position moves one only (when you mount the lens). Its position gets converted to a signal. No problem for an adapter–identical performance. But also, not functionally necessary to include; since the sensor itself will usually be metering, with the lens already stopped down to where you want to shoot. Big difference between how we shoot DSLRs vs. mirrorless cameras.

          4: Autofocus (screw-drive): An electric screwdriver. A motor, with a small exposed screwdriver head turns a screw in the lens. This method is poor for autofocus speed & precision anyway, and is largely why Canon beat Nikon in the 90s and why Nikon replaced this system with AF-S. This one could be impacted if the motor isn’t strong enough; but when Sony tried this in their adapter, it worked fine. If you need autofocus speed and accuracy, you should have replaced these lenses years ago. Again, the issue here is the lens & method of autofocusing, not whether the AF motor is in the body or outside of it.

          Let’s break down the lenses into those categories:
          -“E” & AF-P need only #1.
          -“G” need only #1 & #2.
          -“AI” need only #2; but technically could use #3 in the rare case that people don’t want live preview on their mirrorless
          -“AF” need #1, #2, & #3 (for autofocus).

          Now, can you quantify how much worse the performance will be through using additional electrical contacts (which communicate digital signals)?

          • johnnykangaroo

            I cannot quantify performance because I am not privy to Nikon engineering documents. I was pointing out that a simple adapter introduces problems that have to be addressed and that is not the same thing as changing power delivery to a device. I’m not desperately trying to believe anything. I even pointed out that the effects might be minimal.

            Electronics and electricity are not magic. You were confusing communication signals and power. Whether or not your TV is made from analog electronics (unlikely unless its ~50 yrs old) or digital doesn’t change the power delivery system. Theres a power supply that turns a nominal 120/220VAC 50/60Hz input into several different DC voltages. Look at an power brick and you are going to see something like 100-240VAC 50-60Hz: that means it will take a range of inputs to provide a specific output. It rectifies and regulates power the the electronics, irrespective of whether it demodulates an analog or digital signal it receives.

            The SD analogy is much better, but I still think it isn’t perfect. Adding a microSD adapter doesn’t slow down your signal, but it adds extra transmission distance, increasing transmission time. Amplifying a signal will not change transmission time. Anytime you introduce a contact interface you are adding noise and reducing signal power. Whether or not that is critical varies on a case by case basis. Not perceiving these issues as an end user doesn’t negate the challenges in an electronic system.

            RE: #1 So the Canon fix didn’t degrade AF speeds. The signal is still going to have to be patched through an adapter, whether its digital or not is probably irrelevant. #2 and #3 are minimal issues as you have pointed out. #4 Adding a longer screw shaft will require more torque to turn it. That will have an effect on the motor and its speed. I’d be surprised if this type of autofocus made it to a mirrorless.

            I personally am not so worried about the performance of legacy MF and AF lenses with the addition of an adapter. I’m not trying to squeeze state of the art performance out of a $150 lens. I would imagine Nikon would care more about someone with an exotic telephoto or a new E lens losing performance. Large apertures already have fairly thin depth of focus already, an adapter could lead the focus plane to not be projected properly. Heck, even play a native mount lens could cause this problem.

            None of the challenges I mentioned are insurmountable, but require engineering fixes. Such an environment would add an element that might not be acceptable to Nikon and its users.

            • RC Jenkins

              I didn’t confuse anything–you’re just ‘filling in the gaps’ in an analogy–and filling in different ones than I implied. This is natural with different perspectives and limited descriptions.

              My point doesn’t change. Any (physical, analog) signal degradation from use of an adapter is negligible and has 0 effects on the performance. These analog signals are translated to/from digital signals, which is where any logic occurs.

              The distance via adapter is the same as a built-in mount (and is negligible when it comes to performance in this application). Let’s say the new mount has a 25mm shorter flange than Nikon F. The difference in time it takes to transmit the signal due to this longer distance is (approx.): 0.0000001 seconds (or 1 ten-millionth of a second). I am claiming this difference is negligible. You claim it’s significant. Let’s just agree to disagree there…

              And so by your same reasoning, Nikon F-mount is already at a disadvantage compared to every successful mirrorless system out there unless they go new mount + new lenses.

              For #4, I’m sorry to say that you’re wrong or making assumptions that may not hold true. It doesn’t require a longer screw shaft–the screw shaft is the same (or maybe even smaller) length. The only difference is it’s location–it will either be inside the body or in the adapter–and if anything the adapter has less room for a longer screw shaft. And as I pointed out, Nikon will not be the first to add this autofocus motor to an adapter. It’s been done before, and it’s been done well.

              The only objection you had was to AF motors in an adapter (which I just responded to)–you claimed that all others are effectively non-issues. So I’m not sure what you’re arguing? At the end of the day, the adapter does not alter the performance–the lenses already have inherent performance limits.

            • johnnykangaroo

              I never claimed to know the significance, for the third time, the effect would be minimal. You really can’t read can you?

            • RC Jenkins

              I never claimed that you did know the significance, but you did argue that it is significant because you brought it and many irrelevant factors up so many times. For example, you argued that somehow using an adapter requires a further distance for the signal to travel…? Even though the lens sits at the exact same distance when using an adapter…?

              So what are you arguing? You don’t know the significance but do (somehow) know that the effect is minimal? That you like to add pedantic notes that are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and have 0 real effects on the output?

              You really can’t read critically or understand a passage’s point, can you?

  • James Michael

    I am curious as to how Nikon will handle this transition to mirrorless. They have 3 basic types of customer.
    1) Entry level ($500-$750 range package)
    2) Experienced ($1000-$1500 range package)
    3) Semi-pro/pro ($2000 and up)

    The entry level buyer is looking to step up from taking snapshots with their phones and point and shoots. They make a tidy profit for Nikon, based on volume. If Nikon does not capture this market they lose future upgrade buyers. With a new system it is important to have many users invested in the success.

    For the experienced buyer, it is not their first rodeo. They probably already have an investment that the entry level does not have. At this level gear costs more than just chump change. If Nikon devalues their current investment (abandons F-mount), these customers could jump ship to another brand. Nikon could also lose loyalty by making the complete solution cost prohibitive (nickel and diming the loyal customers to death).

    The top level buyers ultimately make a business decision. They will do the math and see what works for them. Capturing these customers is an absolute must for Nikon. If the first and second level buyers see that pros have cut bait on Nikon, then that is a wrap.

    It seems like Nikon must first satisfy the pros and work their way down, but they have to do so quickly. The $500 buyer is not going to drop $2500 on a body, and then build a collection of lenses. The entry level also will not wait forever, and don’t want to be stuck with a J1 stepchild.

    If I were Nikon, I would release the DX and FX mirrorless at the same time. A birder or sports shooter is probably not looking to go full frame. Also, I would probably use the exact same body for DX and FX, and only change the guts. This would save money, and make accessories interchangeable. The other thing I would do is use the old battery format. En-el14 or En-el15 would go a long way toward pleasing existing customers. Plus, a big battery would work well in more power hungry systems.

    Regardless of how Nikon handles this, some will love it and others will hate it. The only thing most people agree on is that if Nikon screws it up then they are done.

    • RC Jenkins

      You said above: “If Nikon devalues their current investment (abandons F-mount), these customers could jump ship to another brand.”

      I don’t think anyone is advocating for abandoning F-mount. I think every comment about “changing the mount” refers to using adapters, not abandoning the mount. This doesn’t devalue anything; quite the contrary. Any successful system (adapters or not) mean the lenses are valuable. But Nikon continuing on its current public trajectory or a failed mirrorless could devalue the lenses significantly as Canon and others continue to eat into its market share.

      Also, regarding “jumping ship…”
      I think that if Nikon does NOT ‘change away from F-mount,’ then these customers could jump ship to another brand. The lenses that these customers already own (and the lenses Nikon has out) will perform poorly in mirrorless applications anyway–adapter or not. These customers will have a bad experience that is not much different than today’s ‘live view’ experience–except perhaps quicker initial stills autofocus when AF-P lenses are used. Everything else will be equally dreadful and lag far behind the competition, including common things like changing aperture.

      Here’s an exercise for these customers (in the $1000-$1500 range). Take your DSLR. Put it in live view. Change the aperture. Can’t? (As in you cannot change it in live view at all…?)

      That’s because Nikon needs to add expensive parts just to be able to change aperture in ‘mirrorless mode.’ The only cameras that support changing aperture in live view today (“power aperture”) are the D750, D810, D5, and D500…and Nikon also added this feature to the FT-1 adapter for the Nikon 1 system. That adapter cost $250, and a majority of the cost was probably this powered aperture feature.

      So there goes competitive or inexpensive pricing. That $500 mirrorless camera will also need this to use most lenses. Nikon can certainly leave it out, but then nobody can use any lenses from before 2013 on these bodies. As in, that 35mm F/1.8G DX will be permanently stopped down to F/22.

      Now take a semi-pro or above DSLR and do the same thing. How does it work? (Loud, slow, & clunky). Do you want this to be your mirrorless experience with Nikon? Because this has been embedded into the lens design for this mount up until about 2013, when Nikon started releasing “E” lenses (beyond tilt-shift).

      Nikon will say “buy all new lenses for a better experience.” And that defeats the purpose of re-using the F-mount.

      I think that this poor experience will cause a lot of people to jump ship–especially when they see that Canon mirrorless doesn’t have this problem! Just like how Canon live view doesn’t have this same problem that Nikon live view does…

      …because Canon changed their mount and went all electronic aperture communication in 1987. Nikon essentially started electronic aperture communication in 2013. So now, we have a more expensive Nikon that also performs worse.

      An adapter has very little to do with the performance hit people will see on mirrorless cameras. The root cause is actually the existing lens designs and decisions Nikon has made over the past few decades. These are the same problems that have plagued Nikon live view, and people need all new lenses regardless to solve this.

      For existing lenses, using an adapter or Nikon building an F-mount mirrorless should have identical performance. The difference is that a new mount allows Nikon to additionally offer lenses that take advantage of things like a shorter flange distance and wider throat diameter. It will allow Nikon to produce faster lenses, smaller lenses, wider lenses, better in-body-image-stabilization, etc. These are all important for a mirrorless system’s success in a competitive market–especially longer term. And that’s what matters with a mount.

      • Nick Hall

        Very interesting reading, but this is my experience:

        Live view on my D800 sucks, regardless of the lens I use.

        But if I put my 50 1.8 on my V1 with the FT1, it’s much better than the same lens on the D800. From this I deduce that the poor live view performance of the DSLR isn’t just about the communication with the lens.

        Perhaps this is the more pertinent experiment for the debate about the F mount ?

        • RC Jenkins

          Yes this is more about the “should Nikon re-use the mount or not?”.

          Note: the V1 has OSPDAF, while the D800 doesn’t.

          The D800 also doesn’t have “power aperture,” so you actually cannot change aperture while in live view–you have to exit, change aperture, and come back into live view. Meanwhile, the FT-1 adapter has power-aperture built-into it. 🙂

          (While the 50mm F/1.8G (I assume) has fully electronic communication for autofocus, its aperture communication is still mechanical, requiring power aperture to work).

          These are the ‘performance’ differences you are seeing–and as you can see, the adapter doesn’t degrade the performance! In this case, the adapted lens outperforms the native mount! 🙂

          That’s only one aspect of performance (autofocus)–for only one example (AF-S). But it is good anecdotal evidence that people shouldn’t be afraid of Nikon-Nikon adapters built by Nikon.

          And that’s the point. Using an adapter won’t cause the lens to suffer performance degradation vs using a built-in mount. People shouldn’t fear adapters–they’ll work fine.

      • James Michael

        While I do not disagree with you, my main point still stands. While there are many advantages of switching to a new mount, how will Nikon address the needs of 3 types of users? (I am assuming that Nikon wants to keep its existing user base.) The main problem with a new mount is that there will be a dearth of lenses. An adapter is fine as a stopgap measure, assuming it is affordable and works well with at least F-mount lenses with a built in motor. Entry level users don’t care about the mount, but need a reason to choose Nikon over Sony, Fuji, or Panasonic, etc. Experienced customers would likely hang on to their old tech until it became totally obsolete and then start fresh. Again, there is no definitive reason to go with Nikon.

        I also own a D810, and many of my older lenses are not up to the task. Thankfully, all of my primes work well. There are 3 lenses that I cannot live without, and would not even think about changing if I couldn’t use them or get quality equivalents. If I have to buy everything new anyway, then there is no reason for me to stick with Nikon. What are people supposed to do while waiting for a new version of an old lens? If the IQ of F-mount on mirrorless is as bad as you say, then there is no point of even bothering with an adapter.

        The new system also has to be popular enough to attract third party manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron. That means that they have to capture some volume to make the system viable. It has to be good enough for pros and affordable for entry level users. That is a pretty tall task. It will take a long time for Nikon to build an inventory of lenses for a new mount. I seriously doubt that Nikon will announce a new mount with 10 lenses available right off the bat. If the J1 is any indication of Nikon’s efforts, then I will not be holding my breath.

        • RC Jenkins

          I respect your opinion, and I agree that Nikon needs more than just legacy lenses to get people onto the new system. In fact, that’s my point. If Nikon goes F-mount, the only customers you’ll see are a subset of legacy Nikon DSLR owners. Let’s face the reality: the Canon will perform better, just like all Canons do in live view.

          Nikon will have to do something different and better. And here’s what I think that means:
          -Nikon can do photography / interface / rendering / better than Sony. Sony is too technical, too gadget-y. Also, it’s mount has inherent issues: it’s too small! This makes wides & IBIS not as performant.

          -Canon may reuse the EF mount. if they do, Nikon can offer thinner bodies and other Nikon benefits, like and superior DR, AF tracking, etc.

          -Leica is pricey.

          -The rest are crop sensors.

          Nikon doesn’t need an inventory of all lenses…in fact, I don’t think it makes any sense to buy a fast mirrorless, electronic telephoto at all…just use the F mount version and adapt it.

          But wides, normals, fast–buy these specifically for your mirrorless.

          Nikon’s killer camera would be one that’s:
          ::Light & thin. Rangefinder thin. Let people do their own grips…Make this thing portable. Better than Sony & Canon.
          ::very good IBIS & pixel shift. Better than Sony & Canon
          :: allows legacy lenses via adapter (sure, let’s even say the basic adapter does just AF-S and forward). Focus peaking for MF lenses. Makes it better than a DSLR for MF lenses. Sony already does this. Canon doesn’t.
          ::Nikon system: DR, picture controls, menus, etc. Better than Canon.
          ::Excellent at video, inc. IBIS. Better than both. Better than Panasonic because this is FF.
          ::with a handful of amazing prime optics to begin with, including pancakes. Stun us with an amazing 35, and incredibly thin pancake, or a super ultra wide rectilinear. Better than everything!

          Now, they’ve got a full frame, pro-level camera people take everywhere that Canon & Sony can’t match. Canons would be too large, and Sonys wouldnt have the optics. With the pixel shift and stunning wide lenses, it could also outperform cameras like the D810 for landscapes, including in real resolution.

          …oh yeah, did I mention the price? Without all of the moving parts (eg. mirror) and the parts needed to make the mount work (eg. power aperture), this camera is cheap! Like $2000? at launch, but promotion discount at $1750? Just to get people onto the system.

          Everyone who bought a D750 will want one. People on other systems will want one. Landscape, astro, casual, wedding, videographers–this camera and first lens(es) beats anything else out there–especially in the price range.

          In any event, it puts Nikon in a much stronger and more competitive position than they are in today. Because it does something better. Not just the same. In all fairness, ask the same question about Nikon maintaining the F-mount. Who buys it? (A subset of Nikon shooters. Nobody else).

          Nikon’s demise will come from continuing to keep their shrinking base happy with built-in backwards compatibility at the expense of innovating and becoming better than its competitors. Just like what has been happening! Nikon, please change course!

  • jonebize

    If nothing else, the amount of elbowing in these comments shows that people truly do care and are curious.

    • PhilK

      I’m getting pretty tired of the ‘elbowing’, personally.

  • Sigma82

    They are going to release the v4 😀

    • DLynch

      The N1 series died along time ago, the resurrection would be the death of Nikon.

    • Nick Hall

      I would buy it. A V1 style body with a V3 control interface and flip screen and the sensor from the J5. Shame they never did that.

  • Rod P

    Ha! Isn’t this strange, only a few days ago we had lots of posters here telling us with great confidence, that it would take Nikon 2-3 years to sort out all the tech.

    • This is called astroturfing. Sponsored content of competitors like all the stories starting with “i have switched from brand x to brand x”.

      Wikipedia:
      ” Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source’s financial connection. “

      • PhilK

        Yeah, but most of the loudest arguing here is coming from people that claim to want to continue buying Nikon, but just have strong ideas about how they should implement mirrorless.

        Then there are the Nikon astroturfers. 😀

  • DLynch

    Anything but a N1 or DL line PLEASE. Enough toy cameras.

    • CHYC

      The N1 was a toy line through Nikon’s choice; it really didn’t have to be. I’d personally really like to see a serious V4 with the controls of a DSLR, and the advantages of a smaller sensor (lighter, better IBIS). An official speed booster to use F mount lenses would also be nice.

      • tmay

        I picked up a V1 at discount, as did a lot of other people, purchased a few lenses and the adaptor, fawned over the V2 but did not purchase due to price; and passed on the V3 due to price and add on viewfinder.

        I’m seeing a pattern in myself that Nikon probably sees as well; price positioning a 1 inch mirrorless is treacherous.

        Ironically, I always expected the follow up to the P7800 to get a 1 inch sensor, just because I liked the form factor.

  • DLynch

    I think the D820 needs to be a very special camera and the new mirrorless has to hit the target ( not another 1″ toy camera ) also or Nikon will sink. My opinion.

  • Again i find it astounding that DP Review moderators are approving comments by Sony trolls on this news article which are obviously want to discredit Nikon but they are not approving comments by Nikon users which are defensive against those Sony trolls.

    • tomskyphoto

      DP Review has definitely degenerated into Sony Fanboy Central, which unfortunately includes at least some of the staff.

      CaNikon bashing seems to be one of their favorite pastimes over there – but don’t you dare saying anything remotely critical about Sony. They gonna eat you alive.

      Not even worth posting there any longer.

      • Yes, that was my impression as well. I’ve tried to post a few comments with a new account and they never have approved my comments (they aren’t visible to others) while they approve anything from Sony trolls bashing against Nikon.

        • PhilK

          See my comment above to tomskyphoto

      • PhilK

        Maybe Sony is passing promotional money around more liberally than its competitors.

  • Sounds good

  • Enzo Godenzo

    they need to enter in the market on ML like Sony A9 A7sII olympus etc, improving video quality, 5 axis , 4k 60p (1080p at 120 fps) and other detail. Day by day the importance of video become a essential part in every person that use a Dslr/ML

    • Sure, a DSLM is more a video device that can capture photos with LiveView enabled the whole time through a viewfinder than the other way round.

      What does this say about the state of traditional photography? It is pretty or slowly much dead.

      • John Albino

        “What does this say about the state of traditional photography? It is pretty or slowly much dead. Earning money with prints is rarely possible or priced extremely low.”

        There are numerous portrait photographers (at least in the U.S.) who strongly disagree with your assumption. Photography as *Art* still has a strong following, and there are many, many such artistic portrait photographers enjoying successful $million-dollar$ practices, in both the family portrait and celebrity portrait fields.

        In many areas of the U.S. high school seniors still spend $thousands of dollars$ for Senior Picture photography, also for example.

        • Allen_Wentz

          And many more HS seniors have their photos captured by friends, often using 12 MP f/1.8 iPhone cameras. And they look pretty good, because those friends take hundreds or thousands of pix per year and get good at it.

          The point is that pro sales continue dwindling.

          • John Albino

            And I say again, that point is not necessarily correct. While it may be true that smartphone photos are far more numerous than artistically-produced Senior Pictures, many successful photographers still enjoy a lucrative business.

            Many *families* still want wall-sized more-“formal” portraits, just as some members of a certain strata of society still want oil paintings of their families.

            It’s mostly crybaby photographers who lament the “demise of pro photography.” ;~(

  • Elbert Jan Achterberg

    Maybe I am missing something here, but what if they did adopt an F mount, but with a short flange distance, this would mean sacrificing close focus which could be solved with an extension ring. There are third party vendors (Kenko) that already have extension rings that give AF and automatic diafragm, granted these are not optimal but I am sure Nikon could optimise these. Would image quality take a big hit if the lens is mounted closer to the sensor?
    Anyway, I am looking forward to a mirrorless in which I could use my Nikkor lenses without speed / quality compromise.

    • Nick Hall

      I suspect it would sacrifice a lot more than just close focus. The focus travel on typical lens is considerably less than the change in flange distance, so you’d be stuck “beyond infinity” for pretty much the whole range of the lens.

      • Elbert Jan Achterberg

        You’re probably right, I hadn’t thought this through, for a 24 mm, you’d in all likelihood allready be stuck at infinity.

    • MB

      If they change the F mount to have a shorter flange distance then it would not be the F mount at all … and why would they do it?
      The only advantage would be that the camera without a lens attached would be a bit smaller, but most people are using cameras with lenses 🙂 and in that case overall size is pretty much the same … at least with longer lenses …
      The problem with lenses from around 50mm and shorter is that they need to be retrofocus design on SLRs and that is what makes them bigger, but the flange distance does not limit the back focus distance, or the distance from the rear lens element to image plane (film or sensor) and without the mirror and pentaprism Nikon can make the mirrorless specific lenses protruding inside the camera so even wider lenses can be made smaller … although I am yet to see any high end wide mirrorless lens smaller than the SLR one …
      The F mount throat is 44mm and that is big enough for maximum rear lens element as large as 35mm and that is really huge, the only problem (appart from the miror) is that mechanical aperture lever should also be removed from the path and that would make all Nikkor lenses except E type unusable, but I presume Nikon can make the entire mechanism movable … although they would probably do it only on more expensive models …
      Adapters are actually extension tubes as you noticed and they must be machined with some tolerances, even the most precisely made and therefore the most expensive ones, and tolerances add up and are causing the geometry errors and image deterioration, and even more so if you add teleconverters to the equation … so even if you spend a lot of money on the adapter it could never be as good as native mount, Sony people do not know that because Sony has far inferior IQ than Nikon so they can not tell the difference 🙂
      You can think of F mount mirorrless camera as a camera with adapter built in, so it would be better and cheaper to use with Nikkor lenses 🙂

      • RC Jenkins

        Agreed it wouldn’t be F-mount at all, but there are more advantages than just thinner camera bodies.

        And an “F-mount mirrorless camera with an adapter built-in” is more expensive than a camera without an adapter built-in.

        There’s a reason that only the higher-end Nikon DSLRs can, for example, change aperture in live view, or autofocus AF-D lenses, or meter with AI lenses, etc. These things have significant costs in a camera. The consumer will pay the cost for using F-mount lenses whether it’s in the body or a separate adapter. I’d rather go the adapter route because then every single body going forward will be cheaper with no ‘partial compatibility’ issues that we commonly see on the Nikon DSLRs today.

        • MB

          Well .. there are couple of ways to do this …
          You can build an an adapter in to the camera by using F mount …
          You could make an entirely new mount and make an expensive adapter to go with, this would certainly would be more expensive than the first option and would deteriorate IQ …
          You could adapt the existing lenses to this new mount, and effectively build an adapter in the lens, but existing users would have to throw away all their current lenses to buy that same lenses adapted to mirrorless …
          For some reason I prefer the first option … and it seems to me that most users would … and mind you Nikon can make cheaper E type mirrorless F mount and than there would be no additional costs …

          • RC Jenkins

            Well, the first option was loaded in how you wrote it out, and you have some facts wrong (eg. IQ).

            Let’s try to be even handed in the assessment:

            1) You can build expensive parts into the camera by using F-mount.

            2) You can build expensive parts into an adapter, and keep these expensive parts out of the camera.

            In both cases, the performance of existing lenses will be the same (IQ, speed, etc. is unaffected).

            Existing users don’t have to throw away any lenses. They can simply use an adapter. That’s what it’s for.

            But a new mount will allow Nikon to do everything it could with F-mount lenses + produce additional improved lenses that are impossible or impractical with the F-mount.

            For example, a 50mm F/1.0. Impossible on the F-mount but easy on other mounts. Ultra-wide angle rectilinear lenses with minimal vignetting–impractical on the F-mount. Or rear filters on these ultra-wide angle fast lenses. There’s a reason that Canon and mirrorless systems can do all of those well and easily. It’s because their mounts have fewer constraints.

  • Eric Calabros

    I want it to be F mount, but if it was the case they wouldn’t mention “optics performance”.

    • Antonio

      The answer seems to point to “ultimate optics performance” as one of Nikon’s present strengths and not to something that only a new mount allows to achieve.

      The people that say a new mount is required for the success of a mirrorless system (and according to some even Nikon survival :-)) seem to base their claims more on AF and video performance.

      • RC Jenkins

        I’m one of the people who says a new mount is required for the success of a mirrorless system. I don’t base this purely on AF & video performance–which Nikon can do in a DSLR with AF-P lenses & OSPDAF as well. This AF & video performance has nothing to do with optics.

        The F-mount is presented with certain natural optical limits due to its physical characteristics. Here’s an illustration to help visualize differences:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a5b54d4c451822876f079dc3efa0d29e203a5e65d36f461fb39eb5a9480af1e0.png

        This has very real effects. Purely as an example Canon EF has a 44mm flange distance & 54mm throat diameter. Nikon has a 46.5mm flange distance and a 44mm throat diameter. This makes some lenses impossible to produce on Nikon F, like Canon’s 50mm F/0.95 or F/1.0 lenses. Lenses that capture angular light further from center are the prime candidates for marked improvements–this includes:
        -Wide angle lenses
        -Fast lenses

        And in practice, this usually means fast, wider-than-normal lenses. Telephoto lenses are largely unaffected–because their angles of incidence are so long anyway (in other words, they’re already long tubes; while fast, wider angles are being forced down a long tube).

        Lenses like Sigma Art ultra-wides also perform better on Canon than on Nikon for this same reason. They also accept rear filters on Canon and not Nikon, also for this same reason.

        Nikon can make excellent optics–but today, they usually have to work harder and make more complex, more expensive optics just to match optics from some other systems.

        A new mount helps remove constraints, which can result in simpler, cheaper, better quality lenses in some cases.

        • docnorth

          This is correct, but it means new lenses with a larger rear element and focus plane closer to the rear element. The F-mount lenses, especially from normal to tele, will work almost perfect with an adapter on the new mount (some tolerances will always be present), but it would be very difficult if not impossible to make the new lenses fully compatible with the F-mount (it’s not only the focus plane). Very tough decision, Canon changed mount once and now again on mirrorless, but Nikon must keep F-mount LENSES alive if they decide to change mount.

          • RC Jenkins

            I’m not sure what you’re saying? I’m referring to two completely different mounts. One F-mount and one Mirrorless-mount.

            Nikon continues to design & produce F-mount lenses for DSLRs. Nikon additionally designs & produces mirrorless-specific lenses.

            Nikon F-mount lenses survive on mirrorless through adapters. The mirrorless lenses do not go onto the DSLRs.

            People who don’t want either:
            1) smaller size
            2) improved optics (wider, faster, vignetting, corners, etc.)

            Can continue to use their F-mount lenses on the mirrorless camera. The only new lenses anyone would need to buy are better in these two areas.

            • docnorth

              1)I didn’t mean the rear element must be larger, but it can be larger. I think the limit for F-mount is about 35mm and most lenses don’t even come close to that.
              2)Keeping two different mounts…at the beginning it’s obvious, but for how long? 4 different line-ups of lenses? For how long?
              I am saying it’s a tough decision. There are technical issues (pushing to a new mirrorless mount), marketing issues (pushing maybe to F-mount), short-term and long-term parameters. I hope they have done a correct prospective study and research and make the right choise…

            • RC Jenkins

              Yes, agreed that it is a tough decision, but they don’t need to answer the “for how long?” question today. Mirrorless & DSLRs are two completely different systems that work very differently. Isn’t really a problem in the industry.

              ::Canon has EF (FF DSLR), EF-S (APS-C DSLR), and EF-M (APS-C Mirrorless)
              ::Fuji has X (APS-C mirrorless) & G (medium format mirrorless)
              ::Olympus had four-thirds (DSLR); and now it has micro four thirds (mirrorless)
              ::Sony has A (DSLR) & E (mirrorless)

              ::Even Nikon has “F” & “1.” Before the digital era, Nikon had “F” & “S.” “S” was abandoned by Nikon
              (was the ‘mirrorless’ rangefinder mount, older than F-mount).

              Fun fact: the first digital mirrorless camera was the Epson RD-1, based on the Voigtlander Bessa. In 2002, Voigtlander released a Bessa R2S, which used these Nikon S-lenses, breathing a bit new life into them. Nikon’s S-mount brought us the W-Nikkor 3.5cm F/1.8, the world’s first 35mm lens faster than F/2 in 1956. It took Nikon another 15 years to release a 35mm lens faster than F/2 on F-mount.
              http://mynikkor.com/history_noteworthy.html

            • docnorth

              True it is impossible to stick on one mount forever with these technological changes and evolution. Nikon may use mirrorless as an oppotunity or an “excuse” to introduce a larger mount without massive reactions.
              “For how long?” unfortunately is the question about everything in photography the way we learned it. But Nikon should become more flexible and adaptive to answer such questions in time.

          • docnorth

            BTW (speaking of lenses wider than normal and why they could become smaller and maybe better on mirrorless) we use to describe 50mm focal length on film or FF as normal, but the real normal is ~43mm (= the diagonal of film or FF sensor and the diameter of 135 format). Many of us know that already but it’s difficult to change habits.

            • RC Jenkins

              Yes, this is correct.

              I think one reason they went with a “50mm” standard decades ago may have been to give them a bit of room to place the aperture, elements, and other components on very early designs, like the Cooke triplet.

              🙂

        • Antonio

          Quite illustrative post – certainly not due to the drawing aderence to reality 🙂 – about the effect of throat dimensions to the flexibility to develop fast lenses and the Canon advantage there. However, if we go to mirrorless it doesn’t seem that Sony E mount has the same level of advantage with a throat that exceeds Nikon F by 2mm only (46mm against 44mm).

          But my point was that when Nikon refers to the “ultimate optics performance”the expression is more likely to be linked to the company’s present strengths that to future lenses no matter the adopted mount.

          • RC Jenkins

            LOL, thanks. 🙂

            Correct that Sony E mount doesn’t have the advantage. They have a flange distance advantage but tiny throat. Most people think this is because it was probably originally designed only for APS-C, not full-sized sensors.

            There’s an interview out there with Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki, where he was asked about designing lenses for Sony E mount. His response:
            “He said the diameter is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses. He is yet not sure about it but to him it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF.”

            So Nikon could have a larger-throat-diameter advantage over Sony E, and a thinner flange-distance advantage over Canon EF. This doesn’t necessarily translate into “better optics” in all cases but it definitely removes constraints.

            Also improves the ability to do things like in-body-image stabilization. 🙂

            But yes, I agree that the comment about “ultimate optics performance” was probably not a hint about future mount.

            As much as I want Nikon to use a new mount, I think they will actually try to re-use the F-mount–probably in some convoluted way that fails hard or gets a deeper and deeper competitive disadvantage relative to others. I think this is a make-it or break-it moment for Nikon…

    • Allan

      I’m not sure I understand your comment.

  • Brent Rawlings

    Maybe a new mirrorless lineup is needed but what about the long awaited for DX lineup of f/1.8 primes and f/2.8 zooms bzzz bzzz (as Thom Hogan would add)? That would be a huge win for Nikon.

    • A. F.O.

      Yes….some good DX primes f/1.8 please!

    • EnPassant

      The lenses you are asking for are coming for Nikon’s mirrorless DX system!

      • Brent Rawlings

        Of course they are. Once again, right answer to the wrong problem. Oh wel.

  • Nguyên Toét

    it should be a new line with new mount that bigger, and some new lenses. The bigger mount may be for FX and medium format sensor…Just wish so…and dont forget weather-sealing, Nikon.

    • Allen_Wentz

      +10 on the weather sealing. And durability.

  • KevHot

    Not long ago we bashed Mirroless interchangable lens cameras, not because they were slow compared to DSLR cameras, not because their autofocus was not on par with what we had, not because they made no significant change in weight difference, but because we were egocentric and dint want to believe anything or anyone should ever rival Nikon and Canon.

    • Yes, tell that a lot of Sony fanboys coming to Nikon threads, Nikon forums, Nikon news and arguing about their Zonies. They give pretty much the impression of a Sony shill.

    • I disagree – mirrorless cameras were and some still are not as good as DSLRs in many aspects. Like I already said, simple things like second memory card slot, improved battery live, faster AF, usable EVF just became available in the past 12 months.

      • Exynos

        But dslrs will never have EVF , Zero bkackouts , silent shutter … unlike dslr , mirrorless cameras are improving fast ( for example AF from first a7 tk a9 a huge leap )

        • Yes, all this is happening now, not before. Mirrorless cameras have been around since 2008 if I am not mistaken. After almost 10 years we are finally seeing mirrorless cameras worth competing with DSLR and this is why Nikon will jump soon in the mirrorless market. It was not worth it before.

          • Exynos

            The real question is what nikon will be in mirrorless market , push innovation or playing the catch up

      • Allen_Wentz

        IMO folks focus :~) too much on specs in camera discussions, because in my world issues of handling and overall synergy of all the parts in hard, real-world usage is what makes one body “better” as compared to another camera.

        Measured my way, no mirrorless approaches the Nikon D5 yet. Admittedly my XL-sized hands do give an edge to larger DSLR bodies, but I am looking for Nikon to be a leader in bringing synergy in handling to the mirrorless category. And no, Nikon does not necessarily need to cater to XL hands.

        IMO what we do not need is replication of the past like Df or OM-1 or even D1. Nikon needs to move forward, not try to do legacy well. I hope that Nikon can give us the _conceptual_ equivalent of the D1 in mirrorless; i.e. another milestone. We shall see.

      • jefffromvirginia

        From a technical point, the Sony A9 is already better than the D5. Where Sony dropped the ball, in my opinion, is poor decision on card choice and ergonomics. Make the A9 slightly larger, add dual XQD slots and I’m not sure there’s anything where the D5 is better.

        • DaveR43

          Oh, and add that Sony still lack the range of lenses the target market would need – wide aperture telephotos in particular…

          • jefffromvirginia

            I agree on that.

  • john doe

    I jumped ship to Sony with the a7s…and like Arnold I know I’ll be back

  • A. F.O.

    Well, I am very pleased with the current Nikon DSRLs… we’ve never ever had so great gear as today, so if Nikon is going to mirroless, good for all you guys! I suspect I will continue to take great fotos today, tomorrow and the years to come! Personally I will get me D500 in a year or so and some more glass and that’s it! or a D900 as TIM wants 🙂

    • Exynos

      Mirrorless or dslr , The important thing is enjoy shooting

      • A. F.O.

        You’re correct, indeed.

      • A. F.O.

        For me I guess mirroless would do very fine for astrophotography, the EVF will be better for focus… but I’m not 100% sure about it.

        • RC Jenkins

          I use live view + tilt LCD screen on my DSLR for my astrophotography. I don’t use a VF at all. In fact, I block the VF to avoid having any stray light enter the chamber… 🙂

          IMO, mirrorless & DSLR are functionally similar for astrophotography–with 1 exception: Mirrorless could result in better astro lenses (wider, faster, sharper), if they go with a new mount.

          • A. F.O.

            thanks fot the EV tip!… I also use live view to focus.
            yeah…more than new bodies…we need better (and chipper) lenses for astro: a AF-S/P, at 14 mm f/1.8.

            • RC Jenkins

              I’d personally rather have a 14mm F/1.8 mirrorless mount (neither AF-S, nor AF-P)…

              It will probably outperform the F-mount versions. 🙂

  • Amir

    The end of DSRL era has come to reality! New era of mirroless is about to begin! Imagine how funny will be those autobiographicical pictures of famous photographers with their tank DSLRs & bazoka-like lenses in next centuries!
    You can also imagine in that time,a D500 with Nikkor 800mm lens successor will be in the size of current Canon EOS m3 with 22mm pancake lens!!
    We will be seemed like Hercules to our far next generations,as their ancestors!

    • IronHeadSlim

      Maybe pick up a book on optical physics. : )

      • RC Jenkins

        LOL yes!

        800mm = focal length = distance from sensor plane to effective lens aperture. No mater how you look at it, it will be 800mm = 0.8 meters. 🙂

        The only lenses that could potentially get significantly smaller with mirrorless cameras are ‘normal’ & wider lenses, since the ‘aperture’ needs to be within the mount for these lenses.

        For example, a 24mm focal length is inside of the 46.5mm flange distance (physically behind the lens / inside the camera body) on Nikon F-mount but outside of most mirrorless mounts.

        Of course, these benefits are only realized with a new mount.

        • IronHeadSlim

          Thanks!

          A new mount on a mirrorless would be great and all but I am still partial to OVF and SLR since early 1970s so will take some getting used to. I have a N1 V1 and I can see the benefits of mirrorless but hope DSLRs are built side by side for a good while just like there is still an F6.

          Hey, wait, if I go back to film then I don’t have to give up SLRs ever!

          • RC Jenkins

            Yep…that’s a DSLR vs. mirrorless thing, not necessarily a mount thing. I like both in different ways.

            Fuji made things very interesting with their XPro mirrorless that have both EVF & OVF (not through the lens OVF though).

            If Nikon can do the same, they’ll have something for DSLR photographers, rangefinder photographers, and EVF photographers. Use an adapter and your mirrorless has access to all of your F-mount lenses + mirrorless-specific lenses.

            That would draw me never to buy (example) an 800mm F/5.6E mirrorless-only lens. I would buy the F-mount version and then throw it on the mirrorless camera via adapter (because this case has no benefits for the mirrorless mount and no loss in performance by using the adapter).

            On the other hand, I would buy a mirrorless only 9mm F/4 or a pancake 35mm. In this case, there are clear benefits to the mirrorless mount.

            By the way, “film” isn’t synonymous with “SLR”… 😉

            If you scroll up to the beginning of this page, you’ll see a picture of a Nikon 35mm rangefinder camera, not an SLR. It didn’t use F-mount! Nikon had a separate “S-mount” for these cameras… 🙂

            • IronHeadSlim

              I did mix subjects.

              I love SLRs from the first time I looked through one after using rangefinders exclusively. I just really enjoy an OVF. My hope is that there is always a current tech SLR available. That was why my comment on F6, it is SLR and will probably be available forever even if DSLR aren’t! : )

              I also think mirrorless will provide tools that aren’t available otherwise. A new mount is crucial to that but Nikon is in a bit of a 100 million Nikkor lens jam and I believe pro mirrorless will be F-mount.

              Alongside of that Nikon is going to have to start a new system with a wider flange, shorter flange to capture plane to be future proof. It won’t be easy.

    • A. F.O.

      Yes, like ironheadslim says… the laws of physics are “just” the laws of Nature.
      In 2017 D500 is a reality. I know that there scientists working on future “sensors” that will not need any glass in front.
      Eh, but that is the future. Today DSLRs still are better than mirroless, for me and my needs.

  • jimh

    What I like about this is just the idea of any camera maker actually committing to something in the future. All we ever get these days are vague non-replies to questions, from execs who’ve been told to show up, smile, but then say nothing and just push the current product line.

  • DieMusik

    Think differently Nikon. Come up with a new mount and therefore a new line of lenses. But, let the new mirrorless lenses be usable on F mount cameras via adaptor. Old F mount lenses will always be usable on your DSLRs. Legacy users who have F mount lenses do already have F mount bodies. I will buy Nikon mirrorless bodies lenses despite a new mount if the lenses somehow can be made usable on my D800E/700/7000.

    As a Nikon user with a sizable stock of lenses maintaining legacy support is a necessity. But if that hinders the inevitable innovation don’t. I think so long as the new lenses are usable on the cameras already existing things will be fine.

    • It would be hard if not impossible to go from a mirrorless-designed lens to DSLR. Going from DSLR to mirrorless “just” requires and adapter to link the functions and fill the flange-to-sensor distance.

      • DieMusik

        I wasn’t aware of that at all. I was thinking in the opposite then. I thought that because of the shorter flange distance of the mirrorless body adapting mirrorless lenses to F-mount bodies would be easier. Putting more distance is easier than reducing it lol.

        • RC Jenkins

          The optics for expected flange distance is (ironically) inherent to the lens, not the body. 🙂

          So a lens designed for F-mount is designed to focus onto a sensor that is 46.5mm behind the lens’ mount. If a camera has a shorter flange distance, you just put some extra space there (adapter). No problem.

          The reverse is not true–you usually cannot put the lens “inside” the camera body.

          So F-mount optics are easy to adapt to a mirrorless body (with a smaller flange distance). However, a mirrorless lens is not easy to adapt to an F-mount body.

          • DieMusik

            Thanks! Very informative.

        • Yes, except you have to focus those darn things…:-). The mirrorless lenses would be designed to focus at a short distance. You could probably design an adapter, but it would involve additional lenses to take the rays from the lens and re-project them the additional distance. To further complicate it, each lens would probably need its own adapter.

          • DieMusik

            I still wouldn’t mind a new mount if my investment all of sudden doesn’t become dead weight with a new body 🙂

            • My guess is we’ll all be fine. Nikon does understand that all that legacy glass out there is valuable to them. I’m pretty sure the old lenses will be able to be used with their FF mirrorless camera.

  • k8kk Ertuiwa

    nikon doesnt need to rush its development. people who buy the a7 platform are paying too high cost for sony’s research development for a full frame mirrorless. you want a product you can use until you upgrade for the next camera.

    • I hope that Nikon is close to the finishing state for it’s mirrorless. It’s not all that great if customers are switching away to Sony or Fuji. Also perception of the brand name plays an important role. Does Nikon attract young people with their DSLRs that grew up with smartphones?

  • Дмитрий

    mb carbon boddy like red.
    not reduces weight revolutionary.
    ff mirorless c with a weight 200 grams

  • Alex Efremov

    Hope to see Nikon 28TI in it’s Digital reincarnation!

  • Frank O’brien

    just rid off the mirror in dslr and make the same body and ergonomy of present cameras. mantain f-mount and it’s done. please don’t make that small cameras as sony or fuji, it seems to have a gameboy on hand

    • James Michael

      At times I feel the same way, because I love the D750 body. It feels great in my jumbo hands. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. With mirrorless you are essentially running the camera in live view. I won’t detail the list of gripes with Nikon’s live view, but it is not the best. To get the best results you would need to use E-type lenses. As many others have already stated, the F-mount is too narrow to get all of the benefits of mirrorless.

      • Frank O’brien

        Explain me in practice why you think is due to the lens, I am not expert and curious. I guess the main problem is the F.-mount (or the F-mount lens) has the focal point developed to be at certain distance from the sensor. Without mirror you could save space getting closer the rear element to the sensor in therory but not in practice because the focal plan not corespond the the distance rear element-sensor anymore. The F- mount or E-mount sony doesn’t concern anthing from my knowledge. as well as the Focus speed in liveview is not a matter of F-mount at all rather… nikon is putting the minimal and necessary effort to develop the video area.Yeah added 4k, create some plasticky lens like AF-P which has faser and smoother focus for video but nothing special. I finally appreciate the to eliminate de leverage for aperture and hopefully soon (After the D7500) even the leverage for AI-lesn which if you want to compete in a market with smaller, lighter and functunoal body is ridicolous mantain stuff 30 years old.

  • nukunukoo

    Excited to see it in Q4, 2019. I’m sure they will highlight one of it’s most advanced feature: 4k at up to 50 fps (interlaced, 0.70 crop). Add that to their superior wireless connectivity software that they are known for, can’t wait. =) Who says Nikon does not listen to its users?

  • Ricardo Boks

    Maybe Nikon high end mirrorlees wil have a sensor larger then 24×36, more like 33×44, lot of F lenses cover this area already .

  • minivini_1275

    It’s only logical, right? The Sony a9 proves the concept that a properly designed mirrorless body can outperform even the best full-scale traditional dslr body. I just wish they’d hurry and get it out there. I switched to Fuji a few years ago, and I’m looking for an excuse to come back to Nikon. I miss my full frame bodies 🙁

    • Michiel953

      Have you tried the EVF of the A9? It’s laughably bad. Headache-inducing.
      Get an SL if you really, really want an EVF.

      • The SL has the best EVF I have ever seen.

        • Michiel953

          Yes it has. Very nice camera (with its own problems).

          • size and weight is what I don’t like about it (and price of course)

            • Michiel953

              Isn’t it about the size and weight of a D750? The D500 body, slightly taller grip, actually turns out to fit my mediumsized hand perfectly. And perceived weight is a result of absolute weight and ergonomics. A Contax RTSIII weighs some 1200 grs, but you don’t really feel them in your hand.
              Hanging by the neck of a DSLR should be punished. By hanging from the neck.

  • PhilK

    As I replied below to paige4o4:

    That is one of the consistent problems with Nikon: out of touch and not equipped to stay current with software, consumer electronics and operating system changes.

  • RC Jenkins

    LOL.

    I can’t believe you wanted to try to go there. Unless you’re in some top fraction of the top 1% (in which case you’d be joining me), I can guarantee you I travel & make more than you do. I took over 130 flights last year. In fact, that’s one of the main reasons I’ve bought and continue to be so interested in smaller form factor cameras & lenses.

    I’ve got lifetime top-tier status on multiple airlines due to how much I fly, and I actually posted that from the airline lounge. My next flight is tomorrow.
    I’ve got 3 more flights just this coming week. I am a million miler. Are you?

    You’ll get there one day.

  • Back to top