Nikon mirrorless mount picture surfaces

http://nikonrumors.com …rless-mount-is-real.aspx/

The picture of the Nikon mirrorless mount is real. How do I know? Nikon officially requested the Chinese forum Xitek to remove the entire post containing the camera code name and the picture. The post is now gone.

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com …-real.aspx/#ixzz1Sr9W20​oi

Looks quite small.

Maybe it just has a REALLY big lens mount?

Seriously, though, It was rumored to be a 2.5x crop, which is about 25% smaller diagonally than 4/3. IF you look at a 4/3 camera with the lens off, it's not that big either. Certainly not as small as the Pentax Q, as some are estimating.

E-P1 camera mount and sensor:

i cant imagine using a camera that uses interchangeable lenses with a smaller sensor then m4/3. might as well put the sensor in a point and shoot. i dont know what these companies are trying to achieve.

same as mantot...what's the point?

Well, the point is... there is no point!!

Say goodbye to them wide angle lenses..

whtchocla7e wrote in post #12865843
Well, the point is... there is no point!!

Say goodbye to them wide angle lenses..

That's what they said about APS-C and m4/3, but now we have 8 and 10mm zooms for APS-C and 7mm zooms for m4/3. The other systems like this have better wide prime options than Canon APS-C.

Yes, "zooms" being the key word there.. while the users of larger sensors get to enjoy an abundance of small, wide, and sometimes even fast primes. :/

whtchocla7e wrote in post #12866533
Yes, "zooms" being the key word there.. while the users of larger sensors get to enjoy an abundance of small, wide, and sometimes even fast primes. :/

I mentioned primes. The m4/3 system has a new 12mm f2 that is sharper than the 24L at f2. Not to mention the 14mm f2.5, 17mm f2.8 and 8mm fisheye.

Sony NEX has a 16mm f2.8

Samsung NX has a 16mm f2.4 and a 20mm f2.8

tkbslc wrote in post #12866639
I mentioned primes. The m4/3 system has a new 12mm f2 that is sharper than the 24L at f2. Not to mention the 14mm f2.5, 17mm f2.8 and 8mm fisheye.

Sony NEX has a 16mm f2.8

Samsung NX has a 16mm f2.4 and a 20mm f2.8

So you have 24mm/ 34mm/ 28mm/ 16mm fisheye equivelant... and thats with a 2x sensor. I cant even imagine what lenses they will make with a 2.6x sensor as rumored. The thing is the Oly/Pana/Sams are pretty small already with a decent sensor, why would you want a insanely tiny camera like the pentax or have a P&S sensor in your nikon? I cant imagine image quality is going to be great at all. I hope canons version is at least a 1.6 crop sensor, if they price it the same as nikon then they will take the market.

tkbslc wrote in post #12866639
I mentioned primes. The m4/3 system has a new 12mm f2 that is sharper than the 24L at f2. Not to mention the 14mm f2.5, 17mm f2.8 and 8mm fisheye.

12mm f/2 on m4:3 is functionally the same as 24mm f/4 on 35mm format. How does that m4:3 lens compare to the 24L stopped down three stops?

I own a M4:3 camera. It's nice but I'm made aware of the limits of the smaller format every time I use it. My panasonic 20/1.7 is an eccellent lens that is sharp wide open. But the reality is that it is functionally like having a 40mm/3.5 prime on a camera like my 5D. That's not especially fast for either low light work or shallow DOF and the results reflect this.

Overall, for a smaller, handy body m4:3 fits a nice spot between a clunky dSLR and a very limited P&S. But the smaller format does indeed hurt and I see no point at all to something like an EP-2 or GF-1 with a P&S sized sensor.

im all for mirrorless, but im not all for sensors smaller then aps-c. the option to adapt any lens is a big factor for me, i dont mind manual focus being a filmmaker primarily. the 2x crop of m43 seriously sucks, i have a gh2 and its the worst part about it. these cameras are also not great at long exposures. unfortunately it doesnt look like a mirrorless canon is coming anytime soon.

JeffreyG wrote in post #12879420
12mm f/2 on m4:3 is functionally the same as 24mm f/4 on 35mm format. How does that m4:3 lens compare to the 24L stopped down three stops?

Oh, c'mon, should we compare it the Hasselblad 35mm f3.5 @ f6.8, too?

i think mirrorless Canon/Nikon on APS-C with EF/AF compatible lens mount would be a great idea. I might even buy one. If I can't use my lenses though then there is no real need to stick to Canon and in fact, for me, no point in getting involved in the format at all.

tkbslc wrote in post #12880739
Oh, c'mon, should we compare it the Hasselblad 35mm f3.5 @ f6.8, too?

Yes, we should. Any time you are suggesting what lenses will do the same job on different formats you need to consider both the AOV and also the impact of the aperture. There are specifically two effects I'd talking about:
1) Because we use shorter focal lengths for the same AOV on smaller formats, we gain DOF at the same aperture.
2) Smaller format cameras in general (at the same tech level) have higher noise. So we use larger apertures on smaller formats to offset that we are forced to use lower ISO.

Panasonic (for example) has the LX line of cameras which have zoom lenses that run something like 6mm and f/2 at the wide end.

I don't see why people can accept that 6mm on the LX3 gives the same AOV as 24mm does on a 35mm format camera, but they cannot accept that f/2 on the LX3 is functionally equivalent to about f/8 on a (same era) 35mm format digital camera.

It's worth understanding that if you are using a 24mm f/2 lens today on a 35mm format camera, going to a 12mm f/2 lens on m4:3 format is not goint to be functionally the same. It is going to be like you gave up two stops in maximum aperture when you consider both DOF and noise in the final image.

When I said it is sharper than the 24L, I was referring to the fact that there are some VERY good wide angle primes for m4/3. I was making no claims as to absolute equivalency. The 12/2 is actually just as sharp (if not a little sharper in the middle) than the 24mm f1.4 II @ f4 anyway, according to slrgear. So $1700 prime 2 stops down vs $800 prime wide open. Not bad.

Many of us have never used FF, medium format, 8x10 cameras. So it does absolutely no good to compare to those formats. For you, it might, although I doubt you bought the GF-1 assuming it would have lower noise or shallower DOF than your 5D. For me, a 1.6x crop shooter, it is equivalent to what would be a 15mm f2.5 L, which I would love to have!