# Three reasons not to leave Nikon for Sony's game changer



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2015)

I was reading my Twitter feed and noticed Nikon Rumours shared a post on DPReview and I thought it was quite interesting. Worth a read.



> With all the talk about the Sony A7R II being a game changer, it has got me wondering about the future of full-frame and why I think it still belongs to Nikon and Canon.
> 
> Reason #1
> 
> ...



Source: Three reasons not to leave Nikon for Sony s game changer Nikon FX SLR DF D1-D4 D600-D800 Talk Forum Digital Photography Review


----------



## unpopular (Jun 24, 2015)

Reason 3 is the only one that has any weight, and is something i've thought about quite a bit.


----------



## JimMcClain (Jun 25, 2015)

My hope is that, before I become too weak to carry my Nikon D810, Nikon will come out with a really great FF mirrorless camera. That way I can save a few bucks on lenses, flash and other proprietary gear. I'm impressed by the latest Sony offering and by the Fuji camera @Gary A. used when he visited recently, but not enough to invest in a mirrorless setup at this time.

Jim


----------



## JoeW (Jun 25, 2015)

I think you have to be in a very unique situation to choose one brand over another.  For most serious amateurs, there are a lot of camera bodies out there that do the job just fine.

I shoot Nikon and have for a couple of decades (and before that, it was a mix of different bodies).  I'm less enamored with a brand then I am a specific body and set of glass.

Think of it this way, it's like buying a car.  Someone can make the case that Volkswagon is the best brand for the range of products they offer and value for the dollar.  But that doesn't mean that a Jetta is a good fit for me.  Given that most of us are not that worried about resale value of the gear we buy, I think the real issue isn't Nikon vs. Canon vs. Sony vs. some other brand.  It's really about getting a body and glass that fit our needs.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 25, 2015)

Canon and Nikon still are the big players in the photography game, Panasonic and Olympus found a niche where they don't need to fight the big two and they are doing good in their niche, Fuji has a very interesting offering and is fighting the big two in the APS-C front. 
Sony is the only one that really offer a serious third option to the big two, it has strong products in APS-C, FF but in the mirrorless front, they are getting better and better with their camera bodies (not so much with lenses).
I think calling the A7R II a game changer is silly, there is nothing in this camera that is a game changer.

1.In body 4K - GH4
2.In body VR - done in the past by many camera makers including Sony
3.Lots of resolution - how about 5DS
4.Back lite sensor - NX1

Nothing here is a game changer, the A7R II is not out yet so I am still waiting to see real "in the field" review of this camera but I am sure its a superb camera but NOT a game changer, I bet the D810 replacement will be better then the A7R II and the A7R III will be better still, its a constant evolution NOT revolution in technology, just constant improvement by all camera manufactures.
Nothing on the A7R II makes me wanna jump ship to Sony especially when they are still lacking in the lenses department.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 25, 2015)

I can't wait to see the trickle down technology from the yet to be released/finalized Nikon d5 specs.

but it's always one jumping over the other ...


----------



## SnappingShark (Jun 25, 2015)

There's always going to be better and faster and smaller and more capable cameras.

Question is - can you afford to give up everything you have to invest in a new set of technology? Do the benefits outweigh the cons?

I believe if Canon / Nikon do enter the Mirrorless market with full force, with features and capabilities which exist on DSLRs, Sony/fuji etc will be back to where they were before mirrorless cameras took off. 3rd or 4th choice.

I think this is why Sony/Fuji are hitting the market hard now - to win over the mirrorless market before the big boys arrive.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 25, 2015)

BrightByNature said:


> I believe if Canon / Nikon do enter the Mirrorless market with full force, with features and capabilities which exist on DSLRs, Sony/fuji etc will be back to where they were before mirrorless cameras took off. 3rd or 4th choice.
> 
> I think this is why Sony/Fuji are hitting the market hard now - to win over the mirrorless market before the big boys arrive.


It really is all about the lenses!!!
If Canon and Nikon will find a way to continue using their lenses on their potential mirrorless then they will rule the market, if they will start a brand new lens line then Sony will have a big advantage over them.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 27, 2015)

This Sony may or may not be a "game changer" depending on your point of view. On another canon forum there is an awful lot of complaining by guys that have thousands invested in canon gear, but feel the Sony sensor on other brands is better for their needs(mostly landscape guys wanting better base dr). I could see a canon shooter with many lenses buying this camera as an addition or replacement for their Canons, so it is a very smart move by Sony.

Anyone starting out who buys this may well not really be tied into a single system


----------



## unpopular (Jun 27, 2015)

goodguy said:


> If Canon and Nikon will find a way to continue using their lenses on their potential mirrorless then they will rule the market



This is a simple issue of a correctly registered extension ring. There is no technical difference between mirrorless and mirrorful aside from the flange distance.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 27, 2015)

unpopular said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon and Nikon will find a way to continue using their lenses on their potential mirrorless then they will rule the market
> ...


Thats a good piece of info!


----------



## wfooshee (Jun 27, 2015)

But by the time you reach the flange distance so you can use existing lenses, you don't have a more compact camera any more. Doesn't matter if there's no mirror box or pentaprism in there, the flange still has to be that far from the image sensor.

So you can do FF with a new line of lenses and have a compact camera, or you can do FF with the current line of lenses and have a dSLR-sized camera. Why bother with mirrorless, then? Plus, I'd like my batteries to last all day, thank you!


----------



## goodguy (Jun 27, 2015)

wfooshee said:


> But by the time you reach the flange distance so you can use existing lenses, you don't have a more compact camera any more. Doesn't matter if there's no mirror box or pentaprism in there, the flange still has to be that far from the image sensor.
> 
> So you can do FF with a new line of lenses and have a compact camera, or you can do FF with the current line of lenses and have a dSLR-sized camera. Why bother with mirrorless, then? Plus, I'd like my batteries to last all day, thank you!



Respectfully disagree, Sony's A7 cameras aint small, they might be smaller then FF DSLR but they aint small.
Mirrorless is known to be small and it is with smaller sensors, the MFT have nice small bodies but the Sony lost this advantage.
I think in time mirrorless technical advantage will be bigger then DSLR and because of that it will take over the market and not because it's smaller, yes its smaller but not by so much that it will make a big advantage.
Another thing is that the big fast lenses feel very weird on smaller body, I put my Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 on my D5100 and it just feels awful, on the D750 it feels natural and well balanced.


----------



## wfooshee (Jun 27, 2015)

But they _are_ thinner. Yet to be thin they have to use their own E-mount lens line. The A-mounts that someone might already have from using a Sony dSLR can be used with a fairly expensive adapter, and then not only are they not thinner any more, that adapter is rather chunky by itself.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 28, 2015)

wfooshee said:


> But by the time you reach the flange distance so you can use existing lenses, you don't have a more compact camera any more. Doesn't matter if there's no mirror box or pentaprism in there, the flange still has to be that far from the image sensor.
> 
> So you can do FF with a new line of lenses and have a compact camera, or you can do FF with the current line of lenses and have a dSLR-sized camera. Why bother with mirrorless, then? Plus, I'd like my batteries to last all day, thank you!



The issue is backwards compatibility. When Nikon and Canon go mirrorless, and they will, there will also be a new line of compact lenses for the system - just as we've seen with the A7 and NEX Alpha adapters.


----------



## Overread (Jun 28, 2015)

Eh I think mirrorless is still a long way off - certainly if the DSLR is to remain a tool for action and fast scenes then cameras still have a long way to go. First up the sensor needs to read over the whole sensor not in lines (ergo so we don't get that bendy helicopter rotor blade effect in video); then you need a video system that can do in live view as good as mirrors can for fast moving subjects.

The tech will come but its a while off; honestly for me the bigger game changer wouldn't just be mirrorless; it would be using mirrorless to actually make an ergonomic camera - as opposed to one that is a box on the back of a lens.


Sensor wise it all depends - Sony is sinking huge amounts into sensors because they know they have to make big waves to take a slice of the market; but th question is how long can they keep sinking that investment into sensors and how long can they stay ahead.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 28, 2015)

wfooshee said:


> So you can do FF with a new line of lenses and have a compact camera, or you can do FF with the current line of lenses and have a dSLR-sized camera. Why bother with mirrorless, then? Plus, I'd like my batteries to last all day, thank you!



The answer is simple:economics. A mirrorless camera of a similar class is cheaper to manufacture than a DSLR with its mirrors and prism. A smilar quality similar size sensor lense for a mirrorless camera is cheaper to manufacture, than a larger lense for a DSLR. Even if the difference is small, in the long run DSLR manufacturers will start loosing and will have to cut corners to compete. So the question for the manufacturers will be exactly the opposite: why bother with DSLRs? 

A DSLR has just one and a half advantage: faster AF and OVF.  Shooting with X-T1 I do not think any more of an OVF as an advantage. I find it easier to shoot sith a high quality huge EVF. Mirrorless AF is still not there, but it is catching up with a frightening speed. As soon as it is there mirrorless will swiftly become a weapon of choice for sports pro photogs, because of its superior continuous shooting speed. Any additional shot per second is a victory for DSLR manufacturers because of that flipping mirror. With mirrorless it will easily go to 30 frames per sec, especially with an electronic shutter. It is simply a more modern technology. 
But never mind, there are good news for DSLR shooters: used DSLR lenses will get really cheap.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 28, 2015)

Overread said:


> The tech will come but its a while off; honestly for me the bigger game changer wouldn't just be mirrorless; it would be using mirrorless to actually make an ergonomic camera - as opposed to one that is a box on the back of a lens.
> 
> 
> Sensor wise it all depends - Sony is sinking huge amounts into sensors because they know they have to make big waves to take a slice of the market; but th question is how long can they keep sinking that investment into sensors and how long can they stay ahead.



Agree re ergonomics, I think future  pro mirrorless will be larger, but not nessessary similar in shape to DSLRs of today. it probably will still be much thinner, lighter, but will have a large (detachable?) grip, will be wider, with a huge screen and large battery compartment.

What is important, it will be better balanced with large zooms, since the mount will be nearer to the back of the body (that it of course if you shoot with dedicated mirrorless lenses, not your old DSLR zooms with an adaptor). I think a mirrorless may be made ergonomically much better than a DSLR since it is not restricted by the large flange distance.

It will not happen tomorrow, of course, and DSLRs still have some time, but when it happens, I predict the change will be swift.


----------



## Overread (Jun 28, 2015)

I suspect that economically the most sound choice will be to keep the EF mount for Canon and the FX for Nikon - I can't see them shifting to mirrorless and dropping all those production lenses and manufacture setups. It's just too big a drop- - esp for the casual market. 

What I can see happening is that they will just make DSLRs that are mirrorless - heck they might even still call them DSLRS or even Mirrorless DSLRS or MDSLRs

Heck the early ones might even be hybrid - we kind of that already with digital overlays being a common thing in DSLRs. Letting the video overlay do what it can whilst the actual reflection of light through the lens is still done by the mirror - best of both worlds.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 28, 2015)

Overread said:


> Eh I think mirrorless is still a long way off



If we were where we are now five years ago, we might expect 10 years development to get to where we need to be.

But "a long way off" doesn't mean the same as it did five years ago, and I suspect that DSLRs will begin to phase out by 2020. They will be available for some time yet - I suspect the flagship full frame models will linger on  - but the inevitable sensor-size race will ultimately kill the DSLR.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 28, 2015)

To be fair I think to much emphasis is put on interior workings of the camera. Couple that with labels. CSC implies compact system camera, but do each maunufacture of mirrorless call them that. Not sure if FF cameras that have no mirror are known as CSCs. I mean if I got a camera tomorrow that uses all my current lenses and does everything the same or better than my current camera, I dont really care what technology made it do so.

If in 5 years, 5 months, 5 weeks time a camera is released (I'll talk stills only) and it does everything that say a 1dx does now, as well as a 1dx does now, it doesn't matter what it inside as long as it's robust and reliable. What will matter however is if it is mirrorless it will have an EVF. This will not suit everyone even if EVFs are so good that the lag makes no difference even for a person shooting sports at 15 fps, many grew up with OVFs and simply don't want the change.

For most pros especially, they need a camera to get the job done, i'm sure they don't really care how the camera is internally made


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2015)

So far Sony has not made ANY "game-changer" cameras....only battery-changer cameras with weak, small batteries that require three per day of serious shooting. So far, the Sony lens line has been mostly promises. The A7 line still uses cooked 11-bit RAW imaging...still has nowhere near caught up to Fuji's EVF technology or quality...and this is why Sony has 11 percent, or less, of the camera market, even despite HUGE price cuts on first the a900, then the a850, then the NEX bodies, and then the initial two A7 models...Sony has proven, multiple times, that they cannot even BUY market share by offering their best products at huge markdowns almost immediately after their market introductions. Sony has no "game-changer" anything.


----------



## Overread (Jun 28, 2015)

What about all those sensors everyone raves about?

Also I'd say 11% in the time they've been in the market and considering the market itself is pretty impressive


----------



## runnah (Jun 28, 2015)

Overread said:


> Eh I think mirrorless is still a long way off - certainly if the DSLR is to remain a tool for action and fast scenes then cameras still have a long way to go. First up the sensor needs to read over the whole sensor not in lines (ergo so we don't get that bendy helicopter rotor blade effect in video); then you need a video system that can do in live view as good as mirrors can for fast moving subjects.
> 
> The tech will come but its a while off; honestly for me the bigger game changer wouldn't just be mirrorless; it would be using mirrorless to actually make an ergonomic camera - as opposed to one that is a box on the back of a lens.
> 
> ...



The bendy video is due to a rolling shutter vs. a global shutter. As far as a I know the way the shutter works in a dslr is the only way to get super fast shutter speeds and high fps.


----------



## Overread (Jun 28, 2015)

Runnah I thought in video mode the shutter was open the whole time and that it was the way the sensor reads the light not just how the shutter curtains work (though yes the term rolling shutter is the one I've heard as well). 

I think that it is possible - Nikon had a DSLR which could operate without the shutter curtains being in control over the exposure. I forget which camera; but it was the only one done that could do flash sync at nearly any speed; because there was no rolling shutter nor shutter blades when using flash (it defaulted to using the blades when shooting without flash) it meant that the time the sensor was powered was the only time light mattered - ergo it could power it for the fraction of a second needed when the flash was fired. 

In theory then it can be done;' but from what I recall it eats up a lot of processor power; and with MP always getting more and more its likely that modern DSLRS would need a huge upgrade in processor power and performance to keep what they have whilst also allowing for such a system - even though it would in many ways be superior ot shutter curtains (barring battery lifespan)


----------



## runnah (Jun 28, 2015)

Inthink you are thinking about the mirror being locked open for video mode. The electronic shutter still operates in video mode.

Global shutters that are found in video cameras are more off/on rather than sliding up and down like the dslr shutter. That is why you don't get bendy images.


----------



## wfooshee (Jun 28, 2015)

Neither rolling shutter nor global shutter are actual mechanical shutters, but terms describing the electronic capture of what's on the sensor.

Rolling shutter in video works by recording the sensor as a scan, and things move during the scan. One famous example I've seen is a frame from a video of  champagne cork popping and hitting the man in the face. In the frame, the cork is just out of the bottle, but the shadow of the cork, farther down in the frame, is against his face. (Or maybe I'm recalling those backwards and the cork was hitting but the shadow wasn't. Regardless, the time from the scan of the frame was enough to have a different event being captured, as the subject moved during the capture.)

Global shutter works by recording the entire sensor, every pixel, simultaneously. Nothing changes position during the capture other than normal motion-blur from "long" shutter. This is obviously a more intensive process electronically, thus more expensive. It makes the video more of what you expect to see, though, by a large factor.

Shutter speed is STILL a factor. 1/60-second shutter gives "smooth" video, with the shutter being the frame rate, no "empty space" between frames. Very fast things in the image will show motion blur if you pause the video. Very fast shutter speeds make a very fast capture of the frame, then wait until time for the next frame, resulting in possibly a choppy video, with visible stuttering of fast items like propeller blades in airplanes. Stills show frozen images, but video doesn't move as smoothly, playing as a series of stills rather than smooth motion.

It's important to realize that shutter speed is independent of frame rate, and high-speed shutter with normal frame rate is possible.

It's also important to know the difference between rolling shutter and global shutter, and to understand that both are electronic captures, not a mechanical shutter opening and closing. Rolling shutters are easier and cheaper, global shutters appear on more expensive equipment.


----------



## runnah (Jun 28, 2015)

Yup, you explained it better than I.

Best example was a person with a flash light. Global shutter is turning off and on the flashlight and rolling is using you hand to cover the light in an up and down motion.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 30, 2015)

Err ... rolling shutter is not any kind of shutter at all.

Its an effect in photographs - the "rolling shutter effect". That result from an ordinary electronic shutter that isnt a global shutter, i.e. has to read the image pixel by pixel (or, in case of Sony sensors, pixelline by pixelline, since every pixel in a line on a Sony EXMOR gets its own A/D converter).

Its not exclusive to electronic shutters either. If you have a focal plane shutter thats very slow, you'll get exactly the same effect.



The main reason I wont buy the Sony is simply that as a hobbyist, photography is not a source of income to me, thus the cameras I buy have to be very carefully selected.

The camera I'm looking forward to is the rumored medium format Fuji. I think (or rather: hope) it will probably be a mirrorless with the 44x33mm sensor from Sony (or its successor, considering it will take up to 2 years before Fuji goes public wih this).


----------



## chuasam (Jul 1, 2015)

Game changer my ass!
it's all the disadvantages of a Mirrorless camera and none of the advantages.
you'll have bigger lenses and slower focussing.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 3, 2015)

It has all the advantages of mirrorless.

It does however NOT have a smaller sensor. Which is how many mirrorless manage to get even smaller.

But thats not an intrinsic advantage of mirrorless. A SLR that is specifically designed for a smaller sensor(*) will also be much smaller.


(*) Canon EF-S and Nikon DX are NOT specifically designed for a smaller sensor.


----------



## nipsip (Jul 19, 2015)

Sony's game changer was the A6000. For the price, there is not a better APS-C camera on the market today.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 19, 2015)

nipsip said:


> Sony's game changer was the A6000. For the price, there is not a better APS-C camera on the market today.


But you pay for it in terms of not being able to find lenses and accessories


----------

