I would like a compact FX body, along the lines of the Sony A7C. I'd use it with the 28 and 40mm muffins, but I'd also welcome another lens or two in that lineup.
KR Photo wrote:
I would like a compact FX body, along the lines of the Sony A7C. I'd use it with the 28 and 40mm muffins, but I'd also welcome another lens or two in that lineup.
Tbh, I think that's coming. NikonRumors stated a Zr styled camera is coming...
I am ready to pull the credit card out for almost any new Nikon cam. And I love this style because when I am doing fun walk-around travel I’m almost always shooting from the back LCD with camera held over my head, so a big juicy screen would be sweet. But no IBIS is a deal killer for me.
Ross Martin wrote:
I am ready to pull the credit card out for almost any new Nikon cam. And I love this style because when I am doing fun walk-around travel I’m almost always shooting from the back LCD with camera held over my head, so a big juicy screen would be sweet. But no IBIS is a deal killer for me.
I don't think they'd put a FF without IBIS. In fact, I don't think a single full frame Z camera comes without ibis. So thats hopeful
PixiPhotography wrote:
I don't think they'd put a FF without IBIS. In fact, I don't think a single full frame Z camera comes without ibis. So thats hopeful
Well, Peter’s rumored specs on that link says No IBIS. I hope that is wrong.
I'd buy it without IBIS if the price is right and the focal length is either 28mm or 35mm. The X100V is just about the perfect form factor and no IBIS never held me back. Of course, APS-C without IBIS is a bit easier to control than FF, but still.
The Z7 IBIS was so terrible that it might as well not even had it
RoamingScott wrote:
Yeah, but VV is only slightly wider than the current 2:3 36mm-wide sensors (up to about 41mm), so in the end it doesn't mean a whole lot for still cameras.
It's nowhere near being able to cover, say, miniMF, sure, but Raptor-X VV does have a diagonal of 46.31, which is enough of an increase to probably be very interesting for corner sharpness and vignetting performance on the 43.27 diagonal sensors.
RoamingScott wrote:
Of course, APS-C without IBIS is a bit easier to control than FF, but still.
Wrong. Physical dimensions of a sensor play absolutely no role in camera's susceptibility to shake. What matters is pixel pitch, lens FOV, and mass. An FF camera is likely to be heavier, and more stable as a result.
old-gregg wrote:
Wrong. Physical dimensions of a sensor play absolutely no role in camera's susceptibility to shake. What matters is pixel pitch, lens FOV, and mass. An FF camera is likely to be heavier, and more stable as a result.
It can be argued that pixel pitch and mass matter, but mass matters more or less depending on how the sensor is mounted/suspended. IBIS mounting complicates vibrations, separate from the IBIS motion.
RoamingScott wrote:
One of the worst all around sensors Sony has released and somehow made it into 13 cameras. I'm glad Nikon held out
Of course the 60MP sensor is not for all around use. It's a very high IQ sensor, the best in FF/FX for several years now.
Nikon has lost most of my business any many others due to their narrow focus on action for stills. They need to wake up and smell the coffee. Everyone is not about flying BIFs and sports. At least they are making some prgress in video, though I have no personal use for it.
It's ridiculous that Nikon has not secured other sensor suppliers after all these years being dependent on the Sony.
EB-1 wrote:
It can be argued that pixel pitch and mass matter, but mass matters more or less depending on how the sensor is mounted/suspended. IBIS mounting complicates vibrations, separate from the IBIS motion.
EBH
A smaller sensor has lower mass but given a fixed imaging field of view (i.e. larger sensor is coupled with a correspondingly longer focal length lens), the correction required in the sensor plane is smaller (in mm) with the smaller sensor than with a larger sensor, and in a camera whose size is largely dictated by the size of the human hand, there is likely more space to move it thus much higher amplitude shake can be corrected, at least in theory. Of course, if the smaller sensor has smaller photosites, then the movement precision has to be greater to keep the image sharp at the pixel level.
