# Why is there always rumors about Nikon?



## nerwin (Jun 8, 2017)

Seriously, just this week there was a rumor that Fuji is buying Nikon, or "helping" Nikon. It seems like every other month there is some sort of rumor about Nikon closing its doors, selling, merging, etc.

Why is that? 

Someone told me it's because Nikon sits in the #2 spot and Canon is in the #1 spot and they want Nikon to fail and shut down. Wouldn't Canon become a monopoly in the DSLR market if Nikon would cease operations?

I mean should we be worried? Or is just flat out total BS that people are spreading or lost in translations that people are taking way out of context in hopes it would somehow harm Nikon? 

It's a total soap opera!


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2017)

It's a soap opera about all the camera makers.
It just depends what one focuses on ...

And yes .. the latest rumors are that the Japanese gov't supposed asked Fuji to help/buy into Nikon.  That's because after the alien attack they stole all of Nikon's new cameras and Nikon is now stuck as the Alien's control all the patents and trademarks on their new cameras, and they don't want to start an intergalactic war.

on another note, why do you care?
Did you know that the Swedish Volvo cars is a Chinese company?


----------



## nerwin (Jun 8, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> It's a soap opera about all the camera makers.
> It just depends what one focuses on ...
> 
> And yes .. the latest rumors are that the Japanese gov't supposed asked Fuji to help/buy into Nikon.  That's because after the alien attack they stole all of Nikon's new cameras and Nikon is now stuck as the Alien's control all the patents and trademarks on their new cameras, and they don't want to start an intergalactic war.
> ...



I never see rumors about Canon or other camera manufacturers like Fuji, Sony, etc. Except for Pentax...but that's to be expected.

It makes me worried that I'm invested in a company that may go away soon.

I mean I've came across people selling their Nikon gear because they believe Nikon won't be around much longer.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2017)

maybe someone(s) is infatuating with creating rumors about Nikon.
It only takes one person to create a rumor.

About that Fuji “helping” Nikon “rumor” | Nikon Rumors

This happens all the time in the stock market .. someone buys heavily or hedges for/against a company then creates some "news" story in order to profit.  And they do it over and over again.

There's always companies looking to improve their technology .. to buy another company or part of another company.

In short though, let's say Fuji does buy Nikon.
Is Fuji going to DROP sales and support of all of Nikon's cameras instantaneously?  Then why buy the company?

Think this through .. if a company buys another why are they buying that company?
Which is the bigger company?  who would buy who?


----------



## Designer (Jun 8, 2017)

nerwin said:


> Why is that?


It could be because Nikon is a very tightly-controlled company that seems to operate in mystery.  So the Rumors fly.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 8, 2017)

I suppose if Nikon wasn't doing well, then they probably would've have released those two high end lenses recently. 

I think Nikon is a great company and I'd HATE to see them go away.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2017)

Nikon DOES need to bring out a Mirrorless camera that is competitive.

SONY is definitely the leader in mirrorless cameras and neither Nikon nor Canon competes well against them. 

Of course there's FujiFilm and Olympus too which neither are as large of companies.

I think if it bugs you so much (based on all of your other postings about this) you should just sell out of Nikon and get Sony or Fuji.  Then you won't have to worry about it so much and you can shoot more.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2017)

nerwin said:


> If Nikon came out with a mirrorless camera that has a similar battery life as a DSLR, people would go insane! lol.


By who's definition ?

If you use a small battery Nikon D5500 and use LiveView all the time you'll have similar battery performance to a smaller battery Mirrorless.

The (simplified) issue is that if you want more battery life, you use larger batteries.
Which subsequently would require the body to be slightly bigger.
The Mirrorless drains more battery because you use an electronic LCD screen for viewing versus the optical (no battery drain) of a DSLR; unless you use LiveView.

The D5500 is a perfect example.  It's really small and compact.
If you remove the mirror box and pentamirror it can really be quite a bit thinner.  That would be the perfect system to convert to a mirrorless camera .. they could even keep the mount sticking out and use the same lenses.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2017)

You shouldn't worry about it.

If you do, then maybe you should switch camera systems.  Or, just use what you have it's not going to stop working *if* Nikon was bought by some company.


----------



## fmw (Jun 8, 2017)

On the positive side, if Nikon were to disappear tomorrow (very, very unlikely) your gear would continue to work as it always has.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 8, 2017)

I know where you coming from and understand your worries.
Here's a little story, I used to own an Acura MDX, fantastic vehicle, loved it, it had one issue it was horrible on gas, 2008 gas prices went so high I got really scared and everywhere big SUV sales dropped and everybody was talking about moving small.
Well I didn't talked, I acted, I sold my MDX for a stupid price and ran to by a Toyota Camry Hybryd, great car which I hated with passion.
After 4 years I sold my Camry and bought a Ford Explorer and now I own an Acadia, these are still big guzzlers but I like this type of vehicle and willing to pay the price.
I made a HUGE mistake by getting into the stupid hype about USV is dead and I must buy a small economic car.
Just like you I hear all the latest Nikon aches and cries but I refuse to give to it!
Logically even if Nikon will not be able to stay a private company it will be bought by a big company probably Sony and they will continue to make Nikon cameras.
Is it possible that Nikon will suddenly disappear and its users will get stuck with useless lenses ?
Yes its possible.
Is it likely ?
I don't think so, its too big and the name carries too much value that it will simply vanish like AGFA did.
No doubt Nikon is facing hard time now but I believe it will come out stronger (well I hope so anyways).
There is no doubt and everybody agrees Nikon knows how to make good cameras, it acknowledged they have mirrorless in the future so I guess all we can do is sit and wait.
If you feel the fear eating in you as astroNikon said then move to another system, just be sure not to look back and feel sorry you ran away and left a great system.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 8, 2017)

goodguy said:


> I know where you coming from and understand your worries.
> Here's a little story, I used to own an Acura MDX, fantastic vehicle, loved it, it had one issue it was horrible on gas, 2008 gas prices went so high I got really scared and everywhere big SUV sales dropped and everybody was talking about moving small.
> Well I didn't talked, I acted, I sold my MDX for a stupid price and ran to by a Toyota Camry Hybryd, great car which I hated with passion.
> After 4 years I sold my Camry and bought a Ford Explorer and now I own an Acadia, these are still big guzzlers but I like this type of vehicle and willing to pay the price.
> ...



The weird thing is I see more and more SUV type vehicles everyday!


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2017)

Are DLSRs dead ??
Can you identify the make and model of cameras here ?


----------



## nerwin (Jun 8, 2017)

All I see is Pentax.


----------



## KmH (Jun 8, 2017)

nerwin said:


> I never see rumors about Canon  . .


All you have to do is look for them:
http://www.canonrumors.com/


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2017)

KmH said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I never see rumors about Canon  . .
> ...


OMG

Canon is buying itself ?!?!
a hostile takeover !!
Canon Inc. to Acquire Own Shares


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2017)

for reference about battery power and longevity

*The SONY A6500 battery is*
Capacity  1020 mAh
Output Voltage 7.2V
Minimum Capacity  7.3Wh (1020mAh)
Dimensions (W x H x D)    1.2 x 0.8 x 1.8" / 3.1 x 1.8 x 4.5 cm
Weight    1.5 oz / 42.5 g

*and the "Pro" a9*
Capacity    2280 mAh
Output Voltage    7.2 V
Dimensions    1.5 x 0.9 x 2.0" / 38.7 x 22.7 x 51.7 mm
Weight    2.9 oz / 83 g

and the grip on the a9 is of course much larger than on the a6500.

*The Battery for a D7x00, d6x0, d750, d8x0, d500 is*
Amp-Hours    1900.00 mAh
Chemistry    Lithium-Ion
Output Voltage    7.0 VDC
Dimensions (W x H x D)    1.5 x 2.2 x 0.9" / 3.8 x 5.7 x 2.2 cm
Weight    3.1 oz / 88 g

*Nikon D5500 14a battery*
7.2V
1230 mAh   (14 -non-A is 1030mAh)
8.9 Wh
2.1 x 1.5 x 0.6 inches
0.1 pounds / 1.6 oz


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 9, 2017)

Meh.

It was a horrible translation of a japanese posting that had no merit to it either.

Really speculation based on badly translated speculation.

So the source of these rumors is simply that some people are trying hard to prove something thats not happening.


----------



## Overread (Jun 9, 2017)

Because most internet news-websites/blogs work by reporting on things that sound interesting to generate hits. Most just want hits because that turns into advertising revenue from clicks on their site. 

So a lot of sites exist purely to generate "rumours". 
They don't have to show sources; be accountable or anything - heck some of the worst just repeat whatever they find in forums that looks interesting. 


Now I'm not saying that all news sites are like this; but many are.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 9, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> Nikon DOES need to bring out a Mirrorless camera that is competitive.


 I thought so too for the longest time. But frankly recently the whole mirrorless deal looks more like a fashion trend than anything else to me.

Theres two aspects I always thought need to be realized before mirrorless would be a real advantage:

- The autofocus problem. How to autofocus as well as a DSLR if you only have the sensor itself. Now that problem can basically been seen as solved now, even if in extremely low light DSLRs still seem to have an edge. Its nice though that mirrorless always allow you to put the focus point anywhere in the image.

- The steep angle on incidence problem. I always thought solving this would give mirrorless cameras an edge with wide angle lenses. This problem however was never addressed by anyone but Leica. And Leica doesnt capitalize on their knowhow, either. Thus mirrorless doesnt actually have much of an advantage with wide angle lenses; they too have to make them retrofocus, just like with SLRs, because the sensor cant handle anything else.

On top of that, I learned that bright wide angle lenses have to be made retrofocus anyway. They are just geometrically not possible otherwise. Near symmetrical Biogon type designs (as opposed to Distagon/retrofocus) only can give you so much maximum aperture, which the wider they get decreases quite rapidly.

- Additionally, EVF has one problem that cannot be removed: continued use of current. And quite a lot of current, too. This generally puts heat stress on the sensor, potentially decreasing image quality especially for longer exposures, and it limits the number of shots you can get from one battery. This is especially bad if the photographer looks through the viewfinder for extended times, such as with wildlife.

- Finally, switching to a mirrorless mount is impossible for Nikon without dropping one of the most important advantages they have - the superior glas in a mount thats in principle (with the so-called AI conversion) backward compatible to the 1950s.

Thus, overall I would prefer if Nikon didnt. They most likely will, though. If it makes sense or not - the market dictates it.





astroNikon said:


> SONY is definitely the leader in mirrorless cameras and neither Nikon nor Canon competes well against them.


 Really its not much of a stretch to compare the statement "being leader in mirrorless cameras" with a statement like "leader in red colored cars". Your car color doesnt matter if you want to get from A to B, and mirrorless or SLR doesnt matter to the final image either.

Also no, I dont think Sony does the best mirrorless cameras. Quite frankly I would put them on one of the last spots for cameras. They think if a camera has a great looking spec sheet, their work is done. Correspondingly, they have poor service, their lens selection is disappointing, and they also put too little value in ergonomics.





astroNikon said:


> I think if it bugs you so much (based on all of your other postings about this) you should just sell out of Nikon and get Sony or Fuji.  Then you won't have to worry about it so much and you can shoot more.


 Now that part of your posting I agree with.





fmw said:


> On the positive side, if Nikon were to disappear tomorrow (very, very unlikely) your gear would continue to work as it always has.


 Well, hardware usually works, yes - but theres no guarantee for that.

But if I have any trouble, with Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm or any other good company I can get service.

With a company thats gone, I would have to rely on the used market instead. Which is a limited resource that vanishes over time.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> Are DLSRs dead ??
> Can you identify the make and model of cameras here ?
> View attachment 141232


1 little, 2 little, 3 little Canons.  4 little, 5 little, 6 little, Canons.  7 little, 8 little, 9, little Canons.    Oops, who let the Nikon in?


----------



## chuasam (Jun 9, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> Did you know that the Swedish Volvo cars is a Chinese company?


Yes.
Did you know that Hasselblad is owned by DJI (another Chinese Company)
The Japanese government wanted Fuji to bail Nikon out to avoid being taken over by a Chinese company as a point of national pride.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 10, 2017)

chuasam said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that the Swedish Volvo cars is a Chinese company?
> ...



maybe this is why Nikon isnt really doing much in the mirrorless market.
what if Fuji buys into nikon and they basically merge. Fukon? Fujikon? Nikuji?
the conglomorate would already have a mirrorless setup in the fuji camp, and the dslr section covered with Nikon.
could be quite the power couple.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2017)

Mirrorless and the positives and negatives of it--well-discussed by solarflare above.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 11, 2017)

chuasam said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that the Swedish Volvo cars is a Chinese company?
> ...


Yes, I'm well aware of Hasselblad being owned by DJI ==> Hassleblad bought by Chinese drone mfr

A Chinese company may well buy Nikon for the name.  But I doubt they would want to buy the entire structure.  They would get all the manufacturing plants, employees, etc.  For a Chinese company that would want to pull all production into china that is a waste of investment money (not that companies waste money buying other companies).   They would get into DSLRs and without knowing the exact details of what Mirrorless are in the pipeline, most would argue buying a DSLR company would be a decreasing investment.

Plus, what about the other sectors that they are in.  Nikon would not want to sell the lithography business to Chinese.  If DJI threw away the contracts with SONY that could be devastating.  Plus the medical, etc businesses that they serve.  And keep in mind, the Japanese gov't and investors would still have to approve any such purchase.

And for those out of the loop, SONY recently released the a9, which by specs and all the reviews I've seen/read puts them at the top of the Mirrorless heap.  SONY has an advantage of course, they make most of the sensor chips out there. FujiFilm makes their own and they have APS-C and a Medium format camera too.


----------



## fmw (Jun 11, 2017)

Solarflare said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon DOES need to bring out a Mirrorless camera that is competitive.
> ...





> Theres two aspects I always thought need to be realized before mirrorless would be a real advantage:
> 
> - The autofocus problem. How to autofocus as well as a DSLR if you only have the sensor itself. Now that problem can basically been seen as solved now, even if in extremely low light DSLRs still seem to have an edge. Its nice though that mirrorless always allow you to put the focus point anywhere in the image.
> 
> - The steep angle on incidence problem. I always thought solving this would give mirrorless cameras an edge with wide angle lenses. This problem however was never addressed by anyone but Leica. And Leica doesnt capitalize on their knowhow, either. Thus mirrorless doesnt actually have much of an advantage with wide angle lenses; they too have to make them retrofocus, just like with SLRs, because the sensor cant handle anything else.



Leica isn't the only company with a pure wide angle lens.

You missed the major advantage of the mirrorless which is smaller size and weight.  It is exactly why I moved to mirrorless.  I don't care whether a mirrorless focuses as fast as a DSLR or not.  I have yet to encounter a situation where it mattered.  I may but it won't be often.  Autofocus times are now less that 1/10 second on some modern mirrorless.  I think this is a complaint that has expired.

Using retrofocus lenses isn't a disadvantage because they are also used on DSLR's.



> - Additionally, EVF has one problem that cannot be removed: continued use of current. And quite a lot of current, too. This generally puts heat stress on the sensor, potentially decreasing image quality especially for longer exposures, and it limits the number of shots you can get from one battery. This is especially bad if the photographer looks through the viewfinder for extended times, such as with wildlife.



My mirrorless cameras don't turn on the EVF until I put my eye up to it.



> - Finally, switching to a mirrorless mount is impossible for Nikon without dropping one of the most important advantages they have - the superior glas in a mount thats in principle (with the so-called AI conversion) backward compatible to the 1950s.



They have already done that with the Nikon 1 lenses.



> Thus, overall I would prefer if Nikon didnt. They most likely will, though. If it makes sense or not - the market dictates it.



Nothing wrong with disliking mirrorless cameras.  People should use what they like.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 11, 2017)

The people who are employed to write and report rumours are called hacks who have columns or blogs or some space to fill in return for money.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 11, 2017)

BananaRepublic said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, just this week there was a rumor that Fuji is buying Nikon, or "helping" Nikon. It seems like every other month there is some sort of rumor about Nikon closing its doors, selling, merging, etc.
> ...


Oh, you mean Forum Members.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 11, 2017)

fmw said:


> > - Finally, switching to a mirrorless mount is impossible for Nikon without dropping one of the most important advantages they have - the superior glas in a mount thats in principle (with the so-called AI conversion) backward compatible to the 1950s.
> 
> 
> 
> They have already done that with the Nikon 1 lenses.


You forgot to add that the "absolute" statement is incorrect.  Not all older Nikon lenses are great on a modern high megapixel sensor.
Other companies, such as Canon, got to the point where they changed the mount of their main cameras.  Switching mounts is important for making jumps in technology.  Nikon has been hesitant just like Microsoft keeps some backwards compatibility compared to Apple who doesn't care.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 11, 2017)

fmw said:


> You missed the major advantage of the mirrorless which is smaller size and weight.


 I didnt miss it - that part is just complete bullocks. The laws of optics dont care at all if you have a mirror box or not. The only place at which you can gain in size and weight in this respect is with wide angle lenses. Depending upon how well your sensor can handle steep angles of incidence.

Otherwise mirrorless is smaller simply because the sensors are often smaller. And if they arent, as with the Sony FE cameras, you just have a poorly balanced system with little grip, and EVERY lens you have has to be bigger than their DSLR counterpart to compensate for the missing mirror box. Meaning your camera weights the same and your lens bag just got heavier.

The other exception is Leica M because for that you only get prime lenses with manual focus - which can be made really small. Even more so because Leica, as said before, can handle light at steep angles pretty well.





fmw said:


> Using retrofocus lenses isn't a disadvantage because they are also used on DSLR's.


 I didnt said retrofocus lenses are a disadvatage to mirrorless, I said mirrorless will have to use retrofocus wide angle lenses *as well*, because symmetric wide angle lenses quickly run out of possible maximum aperture and then you have to go for retrofocus anyway.





fmw said:


> Nothing wrong with disliking mirrorless cameras.


 I never said anywhere I wouldnt like mirrorless ? I thought for a long time it will be the future. Well, I still think it will become really successful, very likely dominant, possibly even killing of SLRs in the end. But I dont think it will be for the reasons people think it will.

I like the Fujifilm X and G systems because they are really well done, with good glas, and in 5-10 years the X system will very likely be as good as DSLRs in respect to lens choices (in fact it might be superior overall in that category, the average lens quality for Fujifilm X is very good), flash support, and overall performance - minus the fact it obviously will still only be APS-C.

And the Fujifilm G system already looks extremely competitive right now in pricing, useability and performance to all other digital format systems.

Personally I think all Nikon has to do is allow EVF during lifeview, with all the possible features, and to allow to permanently lock the mirror up, which would be a requirement for certain wide angle lenses - then you can haven have 100% of the advantage of mirrorless on a DSLR but still keep the OVF for when you need its advantages.


----------



## fmw (Jun 11, 2017)

Solarflare said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > You missed the major advantage of the mirrorless which is smaller size and weight.
> ...



That is a strange thing to say.  My current camera has exactly the same size sensor as my DSLR and weighs less than half with or without a normal zoom lens attached.  My telephoto zoom fits in my pants pocket.  You are simply mistaken.



fmw said:


> Using retrofocus lenses isn't a disadvantage because they are also used on DSLR's.


 I didnt said retrofocus lenses are a disadvatage to mirrorless, I said mirrorless will have to use retrofocus wide angle lenses *as well*, because symmetric wide angle lenses quickly run out of possible maximum aperture and then you have to go for retrofocus anyway.[/quote]

You suggested that an advantage of a mirrorless would be the use true wide angle lenses.  While that is true,  you are comparing DSLR's and mirrorless cameras.   Since DSLR's don't and can't use them, it is a meaningless comparison.



fmw said:


> Nothing wrong with disliking mirrorless cameras.





> I never said anywhere I wouldnt like mirrorless ? I thought for a long time it will be the future. Well, I still think it will become really successful, very likely dominant, possibly even killing of SLRs in the end. But I dont think it will be for the reasons people think it will.



Your writing suggests you dislike mirrorless.  I think mirrorless will kill DSLR's over time.  I think the reason will be size and weight.  That is what moved me.



> I like the Fujifilm X and G systems because they are really well done, with good glas, and in 5-10 years the X system will very likely be as good as DSLRs in respect to lens choices (in fact it might be superior overall in that category, the average lens quality for Fujifilm X is very good), flash support, and overall performance - minus the fact it obviously will still only be APS-C.



I'm not sure it will be APS-C.  I think technology will take us to even smaller sensors.  We have some decent smaller ones as well as full frame in the Sony line right now.



> Personally I think all Nikon has to do is allow EVF during lifeview, with all the possible features, and to allow to permanently lock the mirror up, which would be a requirement for certain wide angle lenses - then you can haven have 100% of the advantage of mirrorless on a DSLR but still keep the OVF for when you need its advantages.



Again, except for size and weight which is what mirrorless is all about, at least for me and many others.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 11, 2017)

Why Buy a DSLR?


> What it boils down to for me is the OVF (optical viewfinder) vs. EVF (electronic viewfinder) question.


 I stongly disagree. OVF vs EVF is actually just one of many variables of a system. I find the notion that somebody would pick their system based on viewfinder type alone quite riddiculous.

Its not even clear to me whats the better choice, OVF or EVF. Sure, EVF can have some additional information display, and especially for smaller sensors the viewfinder can be a lot better, but how important are these displays to a skilled photographer, and how many of these displays are actually getting implemented in the first place in the system in question ? And it also has many potential issues with EVF, like lag especially in more challenging scenarios, limited dynamic range unable to preview the scene as its recorded - ironic since some people believe EVF guarantees WYSIWYG - being too bright in low light, flickering with artificial light, general discomfort of many people using them including issues of people with visual defects, and it will always require current to run, putting stress of the sensor and draining a battery much quicker than a OVF camera as well.

And if I had to pick the _most important_ topic for any system - its always lenses. Not even sensor size and certainly not viewfinder type. In fact viewfinder type doesnt actually do anything at all to the final image. Except EVFs might have a bit more noise because they constantly read the sensor, thus increasing the temperature and thus increasing the noise.





> Follow-focus is still a win for DSLRs, and lens adaptation is a win for mirrorless, to name just two examples.


 Actually follow-focus is pretty good on recent mirrorless, like the Fuji X-T2.

Lens adaption however, I'm not sure how important I should rate this. Especially since no, its not a clear win for mirrorless. Most mirrorless systems arent that good at adapting, because they have a crop factor. The one system that doesnt is a Sony, and I have quality issues with that system. All in all, I like the idea of adapting a lot, but adapting has somewhat of a toy nature to it.

When it comes to native lens selection, DSLRs still have the strong advantage. The only ones who really challenge sheer number of choices is MFT, who however still have a lot of holes in their selection, the only ones who challenge the glas quality of Nikon F, Canon EF and Pentax K is IMHO Fujifilm X.





> So who, these days, all other things being equal, would choose an entry-level DSLR with a small mirror-box finder?


 So far the bang for the buck ratio of entry level DSLR hasnt been challenged by mirrorless much. Even Fujifilm so far cannot challenge that, despite them having the cheap but well performing glas in their two XC zooms - their X-A* offers lack a viewfinder at all. And these DSLR rely on autofocus anyway, so the inferior viewfinder isnt a big issue really.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 11, 2017)

fmw said:


> You suggested that an advantage of a mirrorless would be the use true wide angle lenses.


 Oh my.

COULD !!!!!

I said _in the past_ I believed they COULD be better. By using near symmetrical, straightforward Biogon designs instead of retrofocus Distagon designs. Biogon and Distagon being the terms Zeiss coined for these types of lenses.

I explained in detail why I no longer think so, too. Do I have to repeat myself ? Only Leica really looked into the issue of digital sensors handling steep angles of incidence, and bright wide angle lenses need to be retrofocus anyway. As they have to be for DSLRs, always.





fmw said:


> Your writing suggests you dislike mirrorless.


 Then please stop reading stuff into my postings I didnt write at all !

I see advantages in both EVF and OVF and quite frankly I probably would prefer to simply have both.




fmw said:


> I think technology will take us to even smaller sensors.


 Well then have fun with those, I persume. For the enthusiast I on the contrary see that medium format gets in our grasp now.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 11, 2017)

obviously some things need to be pointed out here. again

mirrorless cameras are smaller than their mirror-box DSLR counterparts. thats just a fact.  FX mirrorless bodies are smaller than FX DSLR's, APS-C mirrorless bodies are smaller than APS-C DSLR's, and in some cases APS-C mirrorless bodies are the same size as m4/3 bodies.  

size matters. to disregard smaller size and weight as being a major component of choosing a camera is just plain stupid. if lugging around 50lbs of gear doesnt matter to you, then fine...but its absolutely a concern for some people and a legitimate factor when considering a system. especially when the mirrorless systems can provide everything a dslr can for most peoples needs. 

as for lenses...
whoever said mirrorless lenses had to be bigger than their DSLR counterpart is wrong. 
my fuji 18-55 f2.8-4 lens is smaller than both the nikon and canon counterpart, and the fuji is a faster lens.  
its even smaller than my tamron 17-50 f2.8 was. 
my fuji 35mm f2 is smaller than my nikon 35mm f1.8 was. its actually more the size of the older MF 35mm f2. 
and thats comparing DX to DX lenses. 
if you drop down to m4/3, the lenses get even smaller (yes, smaller...because mirrorless cameras DONT NEED BIGGER LENSES)
lens size is largely a product of the sensor it has to cover and the electronics the manufacturer wants to put in it. 

fuji and sony lenses are as good as anything nikon and canon produce.  Fuji has an absolute fantastic lineup of both consumer and pro grade lenses that cover everything from 18mm to 400mm so unless you need/want more than 400mm, Fuji has you covered. the few speciality lenses that canon and nikon make account for such a small section of the market i hardly even count them. I will put fuji pro lenses against anything leica makes any day of the week with full confidence that the only difference you will find is on one of those rediculous MTF charts, but nothing end product. 

but hey, what do I know?
ive only only owned olympus m4/3 cameras, and nikon 1 cameras, and fuji cameras, and nikon DX/FX cameras, and sony DSLR's...
so ive used plenty of lenses for all these systems, and personally seen the differences. 

I think mirrorless is the future. its already so close to traditional DSLR's its almost scary. 
m4/3 and even 1" sensors are already better than DX sensors in DSLR's from a decade ago. 
big clunky DSLR's are fine if you need huge tele lenses, but for the average consumer who doesnt want to walk around the park with
20lbs strapped to their neck, the smaller profile of mirrorless cameras will only become more and more appealing.
the size and weight difference between my fujix-e2 with 18-55mm lens and my D7100 with 17-50mm lens was significant.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 12, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


They've been a casual couple for years. Even back when Fuji made DSLRs with Nikon bodies.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 16, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> mirrorless cameras are smaller than their mirror-box DSLR counterparts. thats just a fact.


 If all you have for defending a statement is "thats just a fact" then maybe that means you dont have anything to back you up.

I repeat: laws of optics dont care if you have a mirror box or not. All that matters is sensor size/image circle, focal length, maximum aperture. That plus extra space for features like autofocus etc. Thats also why Leica M cameras have always been so small: no autofocus there.

If you have no counterargument other than "thats just a fact", you're obviously wrong.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 16, 2017)

Solarflare said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > mirrorless cameras are smaller than their mirror-box DSLR counterparts. thats just a fact.
> ...




zomg...really?
you _*really*_ want to go on record as saying that mirrorless _*cameras*_ are in fact, _*not *_smaller than DSLR's?

if so, please explain to me oh enlightened one, exactly how focal length, aperture, and autofocus come into play when comparing camera _*body*_ sizes?

i mean, what exactly do you think i actually need to back up that statement?
have you not seen mirrorless cameras or DSLR's before?
do you want me to take some pictures for you to illustrate?

'cause frankly, im sticking with my statement as being a fact, and you being very very wrong.


----------



## Elpistolero (Jun 19, 2017)

nerwin said:


> Seriously, just this week there was a rumor that Fuji is buying Nikon, or "helping" Nikon. It seems like every other month there is some sort of rumor about Nikon closing its doors, selling, merging, etc.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> ...



You shouldn't be worried.
Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi as a member of the MUFG group (Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group)
In Japan, there is a system called "keiretsu" a quote from wiki will explain you how this system works
A member of this keiretsu is the largest bank in Japan, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi

"A *keiretsu* (literally _system_, _series_, _grouping of enterprises_, _order of succession_) is a set of companies with interlocking business relationships and shareholdings. It is a type of informal business group. The _keiretsu_ maintained dominance over the Japanese economy for the second half of the 20th century.

The member companies own small portions of the shares in each other's companies, centered on a core bank; this system helps insulate each company from stock market fluctuations and takeover attempts, thus enabling long-term planning in projects. It is a key element of the manufacturing industry in Japan."

More about Mitsubishi keiretsu click here.

Nikon's role in this keiretsu as a part of the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is to make precision instruments.

Beside cameras Nikon make some bad ass precision instruments, metrology scanners, sport optics and other instruments like microscopes. I've linked all of them to the main page.

Also Mitsubishi is heavily involved in military industry, so there is always a business for Nikon.

So no worries


----------

