Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              20      
21
       22              33       34       end
  

Archive 2013 · D400 in 2014 or Bust
  
 
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #1 · p.21 #1 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


binary visions wrote:
Why would a DOF button need to change at all?

The DOF button just stops down the lens - an EVF could either operate at max aperture or at the currently selected aperture just as easily, and the DOF button function wouldn't change in that case. I would generally think I'd want the EVF to operate in the maximum lens aperture, the same way I want that to be the case in an OVF, even if the EVF can be brightened to compensate. Easier to identify plane of focus that way.



It should work, I'm just not sure how accurately the EVF would portray the DOF.



Sep 18, 2013 at 06:40 PM
binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #2 · p.21 #2 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


Ah. Yeah, well that's been one of the limitations of EVFs up until this point, but it's not an inherent limitation of an EVF, only a limitation of the current implementation. Accurate portrayal of DOF is all about resolution of fine details, especially on the edges; mediocre EVFs don't have enough pixels to define the edges sufficiently.

Stuff a few megapixels into that tiny screen and it'll be virtually indistinguishable from an OVF, assuming that they can push the pixels around fast enough.



Sep 18, 2013 at 07:14 PM
Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #3 · p.21 #3 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


The blackout between shots in an EVF has so far been a showstopper for me. The EVF spends enough time "in black" when panning and shooting a burst that I lose the ability to track and smoothly follow my target. I'm sure it can improve, but I'll reserve judgment until it actually happens. Until then, I'm OVF only.


Sep 18, 2013 at 07:52 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #4 · p.21 #4 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


^^^ To Binary -- right, but more MP in the EVF ==> slower ==> not good for sports

^^^ To Rodolfo -- Again, another speed issue with EVF ... but on that, it seems to me with no mirror they should be able to make it so that the EVF does not black out like when we do video ... but then again video has much lower noise requierments than a still shot so it may be a requierment of the sensor read for still shots. I know the Si processing well ... but I'm not so up on the electronics end of it.



Sep 18, 2013 at 08:16 PM
binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #5 · p.21 #5 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


Andre Labonte wrote:
^^^ To Binary -- right, but more MP in the EVF ==> slower ==> not good for sports


Sure, but again... implementation details, nothing to do with the fact that it is an EVF. TVs are pushing 2+ MP at 240 Hz and that's realistically far higher than you actually need for an EVF.



Sep 18, 2013 at 08:36 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #6 · p.21 #6 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


binary visions wrote:
Sure, but again... implementation details, nothing to do with the fact that it is an EVF. TVs are pushing 2+ MP at 240 Hz and that's realistically far higher than you actually need for an EVF.



Yes, implementation, but as with all implementations, processing power and electrical power must be considered ... and cameras run on batteries. Also, more robust systems cost more which could push them past the target price point.



Sep 18, 2013 at 10:00 PM
rickde
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #7 · p.21 #7 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


Andre Labonte wrote:
******************************************************

*******************************************************

Ah, now that is an even better idea ... provided the adapter is bundled in an supports all functinality of the camera and lenses without a performance degrade.

Conversely, the space needed for the mirror is only 50% of the size savings ... the prism / VF is the other 50% and as long as the format stays FX or DX, the lenses don't get any smaller ... the size savings is in the body only. But there is a huge cost to Nikon customers with a flange change.


Just wondering... Would it be possible for Nikon to make the flange adjustable internally? In other words it would pop-out to accommodate legacy DX lenses, then pop back in for the new mirrorless DX designs. Thus no adapter required when using legacy DX lenses.



Sep 18, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Jorgen Udvang
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #8 · p.21 #8 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


How about a hybrid viewfinder? Should be possible with a translucent mirror, shouldn't it, like in the Canon EOS 1N RS?


Sep 19, 2013 at 12:12 AM
binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #9 · p.21 #9 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


rickde wrote:
Just wondering... Would it be possible for Nikon to make the flange adjustable internally? In other words it would pop-out to accommodate legacy DX lenses, then pop back in for the new mirrorless DX designs. Thus no adapter required when using legacy DX lenses.


Well, sure, anything is possible but it'd probably get very expensive to try and build a robust but extendable adapter that collapsed short enough to take advantage of the new mirror to lens distance.

Jorgen Udvang wrote:
How about a hybrid viewfinder? Should be possible with a translucent mirror, shouldn't it, like in the Canon EOS 1N RS?


It's possible, but you lose a lot of the advantages of going this route if you start re-introducing mirrors.



Sep 19, 2013 at 12:34 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #10 · p.21 #10 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


^^^^ +1 to Binary on both points


Sep 19, 2013 at 01:32 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Jorgen Udvang
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #11 · p.21 #11 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


binary visions wrote:
It's possible, but you lose a lot of the advantages of going this route if you start re-introducing mirrors.


I agree, but it solves the problems with EVFs not really being live view in burst mode. I didn't try that properly with the E-M1 yesterday, but all other EVFs I've tried only show a slide show of photos already taken when the camera is in burst mode, including the Sony SLTs. Action photography is doable that way, but at the current stage of development, an OVF gives more control.



Sep 19, 2013 at 01:54 AM
rickde
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #12 · p.21 #12 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


Basically a 2" diameter x 1" long heavy duty alloy tube with some plates on each end to support the lens-mounting flange, etc. The tube would surround the Cmos sensor when it retracts into the camera body for new mirrorless DX lenses. Conversely, the tube/flange assembly would extend out from the camera body about an inch to accommodate legacy DX lenses(& legacy FX also maybe!). Shouldn't be that expensive... Just brain storming here...


binary visions wrote:
Well, sure, anything is possible but it'd probably get very expensive to try and build a robust but extendable adapter that collapsed short enough to take advantage of the new mirror to lens distance.




Sep 19, 2013 at 02:06 AM
brunobarolo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #13 · p.21 #13 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


Andre Labonte wrote:
********************

Knowing what I do about optics, I can assure you that shortening the flange to sensor distance is going to have little impact on the size of the lens ... if anything shortening the distance will increase not decrease the size of the lens... sensor size is the primary factor.

Edit: The two lenses you mention have different optical formulas and that likely has more to do with the size difference than flange distance. Remember that as you disperse light more at the back of the lens, you need a larger rear element. As you shorten the flange-sensor distance, you
...Show more


No offense intended, but whatever we know, recognising the obvious facts is never a bad idea

These two lenses have different optical formulas because the DSLR lens needs to leave room for the mirror, the mirrorless lens doesn't have that need. It isn't possible to use a lens that is built like the small Panasonic lens with a DSLR, the DSLR constraints require the lens to be larger.

You can find the same issue if you look at the two Olympus 9-18mm wide angle zooms: the DSLR lens is clearly bigger and heavier than the mirrorless lens.

You're right about the distortion problem. Mirrorless lenses tend to have higher distortion figures and need digital correction (which can imply some minor loss of resolution).



Sep 19, 2013 at 09:45 AM
binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #14 · p.21 #14 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


rickde wrote:
Basically a 2" diameter x 1" long heavy duty alloy tube with some plates on each end to support the lens-mounting flange, etc. The tube would surround the Cmos sensor when it retracts into the camera body for new mirrorless DX lenses. Conversely, the tube/flange assembly would extend out from the camera body about an inch to accommodate legacy DX lenses(& legacy FX also maybe!). Shouldn't be that expensive... Just brain storming here...


It's never that easy, though

1" is pretty deep, first of all. It's actually deeper than the entire NEX body at that point - and you still need room for a PCB, LCD, buttons, chassis, etc. So I don't think it's feasible to do in one solid piece. Doing it in 2 pieces might work, but then you have this slider mechanism that has to support a lot of weight and a bending force, which is exactly the kind of force a 2-piece sliding tube is going to be bad at supporting. So it's gotta be a really nicely designed tube, with some pretty substantial reenforcements and a locking mechanism. It needs the mount interface on the front, so you have to create secure electrical paths that will survive repeated extensions/contractions. And since it has to have the mount interface on the end of it, if you break it/bend it/whatever, your camera becomes useless - you can't just discard it or buy a new one. Unless, of course, they make it a modular piece - which is even MORE expensive.

All of this to avoid machining a simple, solid aluminum adapter... But I think we've drifted topics here.



Sep 19, 2013 at 10:35 AM
DontShoot
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #15 · p.21 #15 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


any D400 yet?


Sep 19, 2013 at 11:32 AM
LarryBoy57
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #16 · p.21 #16 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


Please change topic title to "Random Nikon Gear Talk"


Sep 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM
RRRoger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #17 · p.21 #17 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


LarryBoy57 wrote:
Please change topic title to "Random Nikon Gear Talk"


Or "The Future of DX Cameras?".
Or "What will the next Nikon Flagship DX Camera be like?"



Sep 19, 2013 at 01:16 PM
rickde
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #18 · p.21 #18 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


RRRoger wrote:
Or "The Future of DX Cameras?".
Or "What will the next Nikon Flagship DX Camera be like?"


Agreed



Sep 19, 2013 at 01:56 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #19 · p.21 #19 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


Well, since the D400 would be the next DX flagship, discussing the possibilities of what it could be seem appropriate.


Sep 19, 2013 at 03:45 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #20 · p.21 #20 · D400 in 2014 or Bust


brunobarolo wrote:
No offense intended, but whatever we know, recognising the obvious facts is never a bad idea

These two lenses have different optical formulas because the DSLR lens needs to leave room for the mirror, the mirrorless lens doesn't have that need. It isn't possible to use a lens that is built like the small Panasonic lens with a DSLR, the DSLR constraints require the lens to be larger.

You can find the same issue if you look at the two Olympus 9-18mm wide angle zooms: the DSLR lens is clearly bigger and heavier than the mirrorless lens.

You're right about the
...Show more

*************************************

That's because when Olympus went from 4/3 to m4/3 (i.e. DSLR to mirrorless) they decreased the size of the flange by 6mm. There was no inherent reason why the DSLR needed a larger flange size. If the DSLR had been made with the smaller flange size, it's lenses would have been smaller.

You are confusing convoluted factors.




Sep 19, 2013 at 03:56 PM
1       2       3              20      
21
       22              33       34       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              20      
21
       22              33       34       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password