Nikon FF Mirrorless

[ND64]

On 8/9/2018 at 2:56 AM, webrunner5 said:

They were not made for mirrorless cameras, and not for 4k and above.

I'm pretty sure %99 of Nikon lenses out there outresolve 8 megapixel ?

[jonpais]

Being able to take screen grabs from the timeline for my blog are reason enough for me to shoot 4K.

[BTM_Pix]

Hmmmm...

Just spoke to a Nikon rep regarding trying to fast track a repair for a lens.

Currently, I've got a general rather than professional interest in their new mirrorless cameras until everything is known about the lens adapter and AF. 

But I thought I'd be polite and mention them anyway to which he replied he'd know a bit more when he's got hold of one "in a couple of weeks"......

Considering that the lad I was speaking to isn't, with all due respect to him, at the level within the company that I would have thought afforded him particularly early acess to products then the gap between announcement and availability might be a lot shorter than I was expecting it to be.

Take it with a grain of salt of course but he seemed to be fairly assured about it.

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, kye said:

understand that.

If you read my post carefully you will notice I mentioned that they might have a 24/25/30fps sync - this is different to continuous lighting.  While this isn't currently available at full power, there are strobes that can recycle fast enough (eg, Profoto D2 - link can recycle in 0.03s and can already sync to 20fps bursts).  All that is missing is having a big enough buffer (capacitor bank) to do full power that fast.

Errr... still missing the point I think? As what I'm saying has nothing to do with how fast the flashes cycle (heck, they could take 10 minutes to recharge for the next flash for all I care, it doesn't impact my point. )

But in your case, you want opposite and them to fire potentially dozens of times a second, and perfectly (so a timecode box with genlock attached to the flashes?? :-o ) in sync with the camera shutter??

Yeah, nah. We know how bad it is for the subject being blinded by flashes a few times in a row, could you imagine doing that many times a second for minutes at a time? Quick path to becoming the most hated photographer in town!

 

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

Someone can list old toenail clippings on ebay for a million dollars, it doesn’t mean a thing.

It means something IF someone pays that much for it. 

As then the market is created with a seller and a buyer. 

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

I'm pretty sure %99 of Nikon lenses out there outresolve 8 megapixel ?

Exactly. I find it hilarious when people say still lenses are not good enough to resolve 4K detail. 

 

9 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

But I thought I'd be polite and mention them anyway to which he replied he'd know a bit more when he's got hold of one "in a couple of weeks"......

Considering that the lad I was speaking to isn't, with all due respect to him, at the level within the company that I would have thought afforded him particularly early acess to products then the gap between announcement and availability might be a lot shorter than I was expecting it to be.

Wow! 

Yeah, someone lower level like him won't be touching a super early release model but something very similar to the actual production model itself. So the official launch can not be too many weeks away. 

Edit:

Well well well, from NR:

 

Quote

Disqus is already messed up in the last post due to the increased amount of traffic and the large number of comments on NikonRumors, so I am opening a new thread here in order to continue our conversation.

NR busy busy busy busy!!! Breaking records for sure. 

[BTM_Pix]

Oh and by the way, he kept referring to it by a name.

Think about one of their current cameras that has traditional styling and replace one of the letters.

Not the second one.

[IronFilm]

DF? 

Hmmm... ZF?

[BTM_Pix]

6 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

DF? 

Hmmm... ZF?

Think more Samuel L Jackson

He'd double dare you to say that again

[IronFilm]

LF as a name?

I wasn't going to even dare MF as the name!

[BTM_Pix]

14 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 

I wasn't going to even dare MF as the name!

Nikon apparently have though....

Probably an internal name for it rather than the actual name.

 

[webrunner5]

4 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

I'm pretty sure %99 of Nikon lenses out there outresolve 8 megapixel ?

Well even Canon Only recommends 36 lenses for their Canon 5DS r. So they all can't be as great as you seem to think. Sure 8mp. 4K, 8K doubt it.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15356

[webrunner5]

8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well even Canon Only recommends 36 lenses for their Canon 5DS r. So they all can't be as great as you seem to think. Sure 8mp. 4K, 8K doubt it.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15356

Well I guess I had a Senior Moment as they say.  ?  8mp Is basically 4K LoL. So yeah even 8K is 33.2 so I would say a hell of a lot of Nikon, Canon lenses should do that also. My bad. ☹️

[jonpais]

There’s a great deal more to it than just resolution - focus accuracy, field curvature, lenses that were previously thought to be parfocal, a slightly decentered lens - all these will be much more noticeable in 6K and 8K.

Similarly, shooting 1080p with a $129 lens might look passable on a five year-old Macbook Air, but won’t necessarily hold up when viewed on a 65-inch OLED. 

And it’s quite possible that even 8K is wasted somewhat on sensors smaller than Super 35mm.

So I’m a little skeptical of figures like ‘99% of such and such’, especially at wider apertures, and if we’re looking at more than center sharpness. 

How many more pixels can be packed into a micro four thirds sensor without deteriorating dynamic range and low light sensitivity? For those reasons, I believe Panasonic can no longer remain in the sidelines of the FF battles.

 

[kye]

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Errr... still missing the point I think? As what I'm saying has nothing to do with how fast the flashes cycle (heck, they could take 10 minutes to recharge for the next flash for all I care, it doesn't impact my point. )

But in your case, you want opposite and them to fire potentially dozens of times a second, and perfectly (so a timecode box with genlock attached to the flashes?? ? ) in sync with the camera shutter??

Yeah, nah. We know how bad it is for the subject being blinded by flashes a few times in a row, could you imagine doing that many times a second for minutes at a time? Quick path to becoming the most hated photographer in town!

Ah!

I thought you were saying it couldn't be done.

If you're saying it would be a bad idea, then that's a different conversation.  I agree that triggering people with epilepsy everywhere you go would be a bad idea, and you can't overpower the sun with anything except very very bright lights, so that's the ballgame for overpowering lighting for video right there.  The alternative would be continuous lighting for a burst but that would be pretty nasty in power requirements and pretty horrific for the poor people the light is aimed at too.

The answer is probably high ISO and digital relighting.  Apples portrait mode but with the tech advanced by a dozen or so generations.

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Exactly. I find it hilarious when people say still lenses are not good enough to resolve 4K detail. 

People say that?  Wow!

13 hours ago, nigelbb said:

You are stuck in today's video vs. photo paradigm. The technology already exists for dual ISO so why not dual shutter speed? or a still image taken at 1/250 or 1/500 or whatever taken in between each video frame or every 10th video frame & stored separately? There are so many different ways this could be accomplished. The 8 Megapixel stills that you can grab off a 4K timeline are sensational & can be used for any commercial purpose from wedding albums to magazine covers to billboards. 

Now that sounds great!!  Why didn't I think of that!

[webrunner5]

Found it when looking for lens resolution. Makes total sense. So FF is not really any better than m4/3 for diffraction.

Written by Paul De Bra on DPR.

"As the sensor gets smaller the same DoF you need requires only a larger f-stop (smaller number) and diffraction also sets in at a larger f-stop. So it doesn't really matter what system you use: you will need a different f-stop and diffraction will be just as bad at the f-stop you need.

When you use m43 say 60mm f/8 your DoF will be the same as a full (35mm) 120mm lens used at f/16. And diffraction will be the same as well. So it doesn't matter whether you use m43 or full frame. To get the same image you will use an f-stop that results in the same level of diffraction.

It is because of this dilemma of getting more DoF versus keeping diffraction under control that techniques like focus stacking have been invented. To get more in focus without diffraction you need focus stacking. Whether you use a smaller or larger sensor has essentially no influence".

[hansel]

9 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well even Canon Only recommends 36 lenses for their Canon 5DS r. So they all can't be as great as you seem to think. Sure 8mp. 4K, 8K doubt it.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15356

Well 36 lenses is enough for me. ? No idea how many nikon has recommended but 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and then a hand full of primes say 20 28 50 85 180 300, sorry that was six plus the three zooms. Maybe a supertele makes ten in total. ?

41 minutes ago, jonpais said:

There’s a great deal more to it than just resolution - focus accuracy, field curvature, lenses that were previously thought to be parfocal, a slightly decentered lens - all these will be much more noticeable in 6K and 8K.

Similarly, shooting 1080p with a $129 lens might look passable on a five year-old Macbook Air, but won’t necessarily hold up when viewed on a 65-inch OLED. 

And it’s quite possible that even 8K is wasted somewhat on sensors smaller than Super 35mm.

So I’m a little skeptical of figures like ‘99% of such and such’, especially at wider apertures, and if we’re looking at more than center sharpness. 

Sorry, I don't get it. A lens that resolves 46mp in photos is suddenly not good enough for video were it is rezed down to 4k? I get the rest but again why would this be more critical in video? Which hybrid cam can shoot 8k video at the moment?

[jonpais]

18 minutes ago, hansel said:

Well 36 lenses is enough for me. ? No idea how many nikon has recommended but 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and then a hand full of primes say 20 28 50 85 180 300, sorry that was six plus the three zooms. Maybe a supertele makes ten in total. ?

Sorry, I don't get it. A lens that resolves 46mp in photos is suddenly not good enough for video were it is rezed down to 4k? I get the rest but again why would this be more critical in video? Which hybrid cam can shoot 8k video at the moment?

Maybe you should brush up on your English. It’s obvious I am referring to the future.

But you enjoy trolling me too much. ?

[hansel]

5 minutes ago, jonpais said:

 It’s obvious I am referring to the future.

But you enjoy trolling me too much. ?

When I last looked this thread was about the near "future" aka Nikon full frame mirrorless with one of the sensors being 8k, like in the d850. Same with a7r probably roughly 8k, too? This is for photo obviously but the sensor does not know this when scanning progressive more does the lens. What has super35 to do with it?

Good night.

[jonpais]

“We are preparing for the next 100 years by leaping into a new dimension.” - Nikon

sweet dreams.

[ND64]

This cheap lens discontinued two decades ago, a lens that even Ken put that in Nikon 10 worst lenses list! I put this on D7500, an almost 6k DX sensor, equivalent to 8k FF sensor, and resolution was pretty good. Sure you find many optical shortcomings in these things, but thats not all because they are old! They're designed for film, which has a slight curve, not for perfectly flat digital sensors, so corners are softer that what they looked in 1980. AND they're designed to be compact, suitable for FM2 style cameras. when you prioritize the size, you have to make compromise in optics. 

[mercer]

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

Similarly, shooting 1080p with a $129 lens might look passable on a five year-old Macbook Air, but won’t necessarily hold up when viewed on a 65-inch OLED. 

They look even better on a smudgy iPhone 5S screen.