Jump to content
atpaula

Nikon D6 new technologies?

Recommended Posts

Nikon says its coming flagship model will introduce new technologies to enhance performance and reliability.

I wonder what it is gonna be.

My D5 seems to be impossible to be improved, except for its weight.

Would it be capable of seeing through walls? Or behind people's clothes? lol

Anyway, for sure it will not be for me, because for my kind of photography these mirrorless are more than enough.

The D5 is my last DSLR.


Aguinaldo

www.aguinaldodepaula.com

Nikon / Zeiss

"You are not a loser when you're defeated.
You are a loser when you quit".
(Dr. House)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose this superfluous model was probably in development before they realised their ship was taking on a lot of water and the market had moved to more technically sensible options. 

 

I will also never purchase a mirror based digital camera again. Unless it's a rangefinder. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rangefinder camera does not have a mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vivionm said:

A rangefinder camera does not have a mirror

 

Prisms? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one prism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I just don't see the big deal on mirrorless. Can you say why you feel they're going to make your photography better?   Just trying to understand.

 

Thanks,

GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smaller, technically improved, no flapping mirror, electronic viewfinders!

PS, did I say smaller! And the biggy is of course IBIS


Mike Gorman

 

Lumix G9 , GX8 - Leica 12, 15, 20, 25, 42.5 - 8-18, 12-35, 12-60, 35-100, 45-175

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GB111 said:

Guys, I just don't see the big deal on mirrorless. Can you say why you feel they're going to make your photography better?   Just trying to understand.

 

Thanks,

GB

It is not that my photography will be better, but more pleasant to do.

I'm travelling with a D5 and a Z6 right now. I'm using the Z6 way more than the D5. In many days I simply leave the D5 at home and prefer to walk around with only the Z6 and the 14-30mm.


Aguinaldo

www.aguinaldodepaula.com

Nikon / Zeiss

"You are not a loser when you're defeated.
You are a loser when you quit".
(Dr. House)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GB111 said:

Guys, I just don't see the big deal on mirrorless. Can you say why you feel they're going to make your photography better?   Just trying to understand.

 

Thanks,

GB

 

It's not so much the mirror vs no mirror as far as I was concerned, but the smaller, lighter, quicker-handling bodies and smaller, lighter cheaper and top quality lenses that the Fuji X system developed that had me swear off all the exact opposite factors to these that came standard with the Nikon D* cameras. While this was a preference thing that didn't in itself improve the photographs I took, the old adage that my Father would often use about the tools a workman uses being reliable and well made, but most importantly enjoyable to use became the relevant thing. If you enjoy using your tools, it almost goes without exception that the work you produce with them will reflect that and invariably the quality thereof will improve.

 

The truth of this has been demonstrated to me over decades with the cameras I either chose to use, or as often was the case, was forced to use to fulfil the end use requirements of the job. The outstanding case in point for me was the Mamiya RB67, which in the 1980's became almost the standard wedding/portrait camera of photography in Australia owing to the popularity of 16x20" or 20x24" enlargements and their contribution to the profit bottom line of that industry, which I was involved in rather heavily at the time through absolute necessity rather than desire.

 

6x6 and 6x4.5 formats didn't cut the mustard as far as quality of enlargement went, the downside however being that the RB67 was perhaps the most hateful, cumbersome, slow and temperamental camera to use, especially in the high-pressure, time-limited, always-rushed environment of a large wedding. I can honestly say that I have no recollection of ever having taken an outstanding shot with that camera system, and I put that down absolutely to the hatred I had for using that nasty piece of design, which by design discouraged hand-held use and therefore further encumbered things by tying the photographer to a tripod-mounted tool for the whole wedding, which added greatly to lack of choice of angles and a far greater taxing of endurance on behalf of the operator.

 

Swapping from DSLR to mirrorless had a similar liberating effect for me as had the early 1990's acceptance of 35mm film and a more 'journalistic' style of wedding photography and less of a demand for big enlargements, which enabled me to dispense with the RB67, and thus my Nikon F4 outfit bought in 1993 to replace the RB was the analogue equivalent to the RB67 as the digital Fuji X cameras were to the D3s and its big, heavy body and lenses.

 

So now I don't do weddings anymore, and most of my photography is in B&W of relatively static objects which should have suited the RB/RZ system I had bought to start using my preferred medium of film again, but the hatred for the thing's design and awkward handling hadn't diminished, and no outstanding work resulted, so the outfit sat and collected dust.

 

However I still wanted to shoot medium format film, and as Hasselblad gear was skyrocketing in price, I took a chance on Soviet-bloc cameras, although it took a total of six Kiev-60 and Pentacon bodies to finally get two perfect Pentacon Six TL bodies. Now at first glance they look awkward and heavy (and to some degree they are), and they couldn't be more opposite to the Fuji digital mirrorless system if they tried, but the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are superb (the longer lenses a stop faster than the Hasselblad's shutter-bound equivalent which, with the stop-faster 1/1000 shutter speed, further aids the possibility of hand-held shots), and they are, believe it or not, simply the best fun to use. As a result I am increasingly taking wall-hanging quality shots with those Pentacons bodies and Zeiss lenses, am enjoying the ways of using B&W film again, and though the Pentacon Six camera is heavy and bulky (and has a mirror 😲!!!), my B&W photography has once again started to match what I know I'm capable of. :D 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GB111 said:

Guys, I just don't see the big deal on mirrorless. Can you say why you feel they're going to make your photography better?   Just trying to understand.

 

I am, at the moment, looking at either upgrading my 6 year Olympus E-M1 bodies, or adding a different new system to what I already have. Not once has the notion of going back to a DSLR even entered my periphery. As far as I am concerned it is a dead technology. 

 

Did mirrorless improve my photography? Yes, I think it did. I got so much more confident with the cameras I was using because I could see what I was doing before I did it, thanks to the EVF. IBIS also helped tremendously to the point where I no longer need to sharpen my images. Less time spent in post production is always my aim and so far, apart from the HDR stuff I do for real estate and product photography, I am quite happy to off load images directly from camera to clients when I am shooting events or editorial work. 

 

Cameras currently on my radar as possible upgrades are the Olympus E-M1 Mk ii, Panasonic G9 or GX9, Sony A6400 and Canon EOS R. Why not Nikon Z series? Way, way, wayyy too expensive here and terrible after sales service. I did handle the Z6 and I liked it a lot, but from my standpoint the Canon EOS R and the entry point to the EOS line of lenses just makes a lot more sense. I’ll be writing in AOV about my current bout of GAS one of these days...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sticking to four thirds sensor in almost 2020? Really? How come?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dallas said:

Cameras currently on my radar as possible upgrades are the Olympus E-M1 Mk ii, Panasonic G9 or GX9, Sony A6400 and Canon EOS R. Why not Nikon Z series? Way, way, wayyy too expensive here and terrible after sales service. I did handle the Z6 and I liked it a lot, but from my standpoint the Canon EOS R and the entry point to the EOS line of lenses just makes a lot more sense. I’ll be writing in AOV about my current bout of GAS one of these days...

 

if I were you and if possible budget-wise I'd go for a significant leap in image quality and a future proof system and buy a Canon EOS R. Canon makes excellent tilt-shift lenses which should serve you well for real estate photography. A pity the Z6 is that expensive in SA, in the Netherlands lowest price is now only  €1.299.

Edited by Luc de Schepper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to all for your responses. Though I am still not 'sold', I think I will stop by the local camera store and hold a Z7 in my hand to feel the difference.

 

Based on what I've heard and read, the advantages to mirrorless are

1) lighter due to lack of mirror mechanism.

2) less vibration due to mirror flapping up (the reason many cameras, esp older ones, have mirror lock-up capability)

3) WYSIWYG so far as exposure

 

The disadvantages are

1) uses more power for the always on screen. But from what I've heard, battery life has not been an issue.

2) can't compose w/o turning on the camera

3) not seeing the actual scene but what the camera sees. This actually can be considered an advantage though, since it really doesn't matter what is really there but what will be on sensor!

 

I took a quick look online and didn't immediately see why the lenses need to change. I'm sure I can find it if I spend more time, but  for now will assume that technical quality differences between the lenses is a wash.

 

Atpaula, Alan, thanks and great point on the enjoyable factor. But Atpaula, realize too that you're comparing the Z to a D5, which is the biggest beast Nikon makes. That thing is a brick, and unless I'm planning on climbing the Himalayas I don't see a reason to own one. That would definitely suck the fun out of normal photography!  I own a D800 and it's not too bad, but with the 24-70mm f2.8 I agree that that combo just isn't fun to do photography with. I usually use my 24-120mm for the added zoom and, as you'd guess, significantly less weight. Not to mention that I prefer to keep a low profile when shooting, and the bigger the camera-lens combo, the more attention I attract.

 

Alan, your exp with that RB67 sounds horrible!  :)I also own a Mamiya 645e and yep you miss a lot of shots with its bulkiness. I have taken outstanding images with it, but they are far and few between. I still use it, infrequently,.. Nikon lenses don't even come close to the quality of the Mamiya's IMHO.  I do use a tripod quite a bit, but even then a SLR is more flexible. Good luck with the Russian cameras.

 

Dallas, I still don't see why it would make the images better, but ... I haven't used a mirrorless yet so can't appreciate it.  Note that IBIS has been around for awhile. It makes total sense to have one image stabilization mechanism instead of duplicating it on each lenses. However, I read years ago that it was a disappointment, for whatever reason... Maybe they've solved the tech issue(s) now. If they have,  good riddance to OIS! 

 

I also read a review in photo mag where the prof photo said having a tilt screen was immensely helpful in that he didn't have to lay on the ground any more... He could just lower it down (on a stick?) and see the screen while standing up. That alone may make your shots better because sometimes you just don't feel like laying in the mud for a shot :)

 

Thanks again all.

GB

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mexecutioner said:

Sticking to four thirds sensor in almost 2020? Really? How come?

 

MFT just works for me. Small, practical, great quality (for my needs). I used to be wow'ed by the low price lenses but that is no longer the case, unfortunately. 

 

7 hours ago, Luc de Schepper said:

 

if I were you and if possible budget-wise I'd go for a significant leap in image quality and a future proof system and buy a Canon EOS R. Canon makes excellent tilt-shift lenses which should serve you well for real estate photography. A pity the Z6 is that expensive in SA, in the Netherlands lowest price is now only  €1.299.

 

Luc, this is probably the reason why this R system is most likely going to join MFT as another system I use, but I don't think I will use the R just yet, more likely to get the RP. Do you know that in SA I can get an RP and a 17mm T/S lens brand new for the same price as the Olympus E-M1X? Crazy. And the Nikon Z6 + 24-70/4.0 costs even more than the E-M1X. 

 

2 hours ago, GB111 said:

Dallas, I still don't see why it would make the images better, but ... I haven't used a mirrorless yet so can't appreciate it.  Note that IBIS has been around for awhile. It makes total sense to have one image stabilization mechanism instead of duplicating it on each lenses. However, I read years ago that it was a disappointment, for whatever reason... Maybe they've solved the tech issue(s) now. If they have,  good riddance to OIS! 

 

I also read a review in photo mag where the prof photo said having a tilt screen was immensely helpful in that he didn't have to lay on the ground any more... He could just lower it down (on a stick?) and see the screen while standing up. That alone may make your shots better because sometimes you just don't feel like laying in the mud for a shot :)

 

Thanks again all.

GB

 

 

 

Well, they are now using them both together to give you up to 6.5 stops of stabilisation! I used the Olympus 300/4.0 and E-M1X on this year's safari and it was ridiculous just how stable they are together. However, the downside to the OIS with any lens is that it screws up your bokeh, whereas IBIS on its own doesn't. BTW, that bit about lying on the ground was one of the major selling points for me when I converted to Olympus in 2013. There's a photoI took  of our safari group lying in the sand shooting a chameleon in the Namib desert. I got shots of the critter simply by crouching down and using the touch screen. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hatred for "the mirror" is amazing here.

I'm sure Nikon is using a mirror in the D6 just because....

Not like they can't do mirror-less.

 

If you want to keep people here, stop deriding their gear choices.


Hot bodies (D800E, D810, D4, D500) and plenty of glass, but always lusting for more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fredazinger explain to me how you arrive at the use of the word "hatred" in this conversation? I'm really interested in that inference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought a camera with a mirror and I am incredibly happy with it. Some people prefer other choices and that is OK too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any hatred, maybe just enthusiasm for a shinny new gadget. But regardless, I really doubt we will see a wave of great photos in the next X years that will be traced back to people going mirrorless.

 

But who knows - I just checked the difference is weight between the Nikon Z7 and D810. The Z7 is 585g, the 810 980g (!)  That is a very substantial difference.

 

G

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sensor in the Canon R falls short of Nikon and Sony according to this https://www.dxomark.com/canon-eos-r-sensor-review/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Anthony said:

The sensor in the Canon R falls short of Nikon and Sony according to this https://www.dxomark.com/canon-eos-r-sensor-review/

I am sure it is good enough to make decent pictures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/11/2019 at 15:28, Mexecutioner said:

I am sure it is good enough to make decent pictures

 

Indeed.

 

But are we interested in the best available or the merely decent?  Each of us must make his or her own choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many factors come into play when making these decisions about cameras and which one we end up getting. Right now I am looking very closely at the Canon EOS RP and a 17mm T/S lens. Obviously I would prefer to get the R but that is much more expensive and for the purposes I have in mind, it doesn’t make sense to spend more and not get a commensurate return on the investment. I can’t charge a customer more for my photos just because they were made on a more expensive camera. I have to weigh out everything and find a balance between input cost and output gain.

 

Right now if I look at the many different systems available from all the makers, Canon seems to be the one that ticks the most boxes for me in the area that I want to work in (architecture, interiors, etc). The main reason for this is because they have the lenses that I need and as far as cost goes they seem to be playing on a level that I can afford. For example, I can buy here in South Africa, an RP body and the 17mm T/S for a shade more than the cost of a single Olympus E-M1X body on its own (ZAR55,000 vs ZAR50,000). I don’t get all the bells and whistles of the EOS R or even the Nikon Z6/7 but I get access to the EOS line of lenses, which is where Nirvana lies in architectural photography. 

 

For me this is not an emotional thing anymore. I feel the same way about this as I would about buying a digger if I was in construction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can only wonder if tilt/shift lenses are **mostly** a thing of the past in the digital age. Given enough resolution (and a wide enough lens) digital perspective correction emulates shift more than good enough, and focus stacking emulates tilt very well for non-moving objects, as most of architecture and interiors pictures contain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they are still very relevant and necessary for top end architectural work - not because of the vertical correction, but because of the shifting of perspective without having to move the camera. This lets you set a shooting position but then shift the image up or down, left or right quite significantly to reduce things like too much ceiling or floor, etc. Not only that, the sharpness and lack of distortion is a major selling point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dallas said:

No, they are still very relevant and necessary for top end architectural work - not because of the vertical correction, but because of the shifting of perspective without having to move the camera. This lets you set a shooting position but then shift the image up or down, left or right quite significantly to reduce things like too much ceiling or floor, etc. Not only that, the sharpness and lack of distortion is a major selling point. 

 

All what can be done on a tilted camera with a normal lens wide and sharp enough and a sensor with enough resolution / pixels and then using perspective control in SW afterwards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.