[photoptimist]

And the main advantage, from a manufacturer's perspective, is that it is cheaper to make mirrorless due to simpler assembly and fewer parts. Hence potentially higher profits and more competitive pricing.

I am not a mirrorless hater, by any means, but I think a lot of the marketing of mirrorless to consumers is driven by this corporate necessity to find ways to simplify manufacturing and keep costs down. Perhaps more than particular features of mirrorless speaking directly to most camera consumers. Supply-side push at work as much as demand-side pull, as it were.

MILC is cheaper mechanically, but more expensive electronically. MILC requires a higher-spec sensor to create an acceptable high-fps data stream for the EVF, higher-powered processing to create a low-lag stream for the EVF, and the high-resolution EVF itself.

[Rondec]

How large are the A9 and A7 cameras??

The main advantages of MILC are

(1) user sees what the sensor sees - after gain is applied and with lens at chosen aperture

(2) they have been able to attain "insane" burst rates

(3) focusing doesn't need to be adjust for "front" or "back"

(4) mechanically simpler

(5) seem to handle video better

Most of those aren't real advantages. The focusing is probably a real thing (although in practice my lenses were perfect out of the box). I have discussed this a myriad of times, but if you are shooting RAW you definitely do not see what the sensor sees -- what kind of color depth do you think the average EVF has? And the whole insane frame rate thing is pretty pointless for the average photographer. Once you get over 9 or 10 frames per second, you are just increasing the time necessary to pick through your photos after the fact. Who really wants to come away from their kid's soccer game with 3000 photos? I certainly don't. As far as video goes, I think it has more to do with SLR makers not investing in the codecs and things like that. When you pop up your mirror on your SLR, you basically have a mirrorless camera. There is no reason that the video on a D850 should be worse than the video on an A9, except that Sony has invested more in the video side of things than Nikon.

Regardless, at a given price point, you get very similar photos choosing between mirrorless and SLRs. The lens offerings in F Mount will far out number those in the Z Mount (without an adapter). We are talking specifically about Nikon's offering and other than have a f1 aperture lens (that's going to be really expensive) there is no particular reason I would choose it over one of Nikon's SLRs or a Sony mirrorless, if I wanted to go that direction.

[reh321]

I have discussed this a myriad of times, but if you are shooting RAW you definitely do not see what the sensor sees -- what kind of color depth do you think the average EVF has?

"Seeing what the sensor sees" relates to composing the shot - DOF and coarse adjustment of gain - not all the fancy stuff you might do with software later, not how many colors can be seen.

[ffking]

"Seeing what the sensor sees" relates to composing the shot - DOF and coarse adjustment of gain - not all the fancy stuff you might do with software later, not how many colors can be seen.

Speaking from a position of personal ignorance (in that I have never used a modern EVF) - my THEORETICAL concern would be/ is that the visual memory of the viewfinder scene you would have from mirrorless has already been interpreted by the camera, so attempts to get back to some sort of actual reality in PP might be hampered. It's true that most of us post process with a view to maximising the aesthetic appeal of the image rather than the often rather dull version a RAW file delivers, but I'd prefer my reference point to be my brain's digital processing not my camera's. Yes, you can still take your eye from the viewfinder and just look around, but that image doesn't imprint itself onto the memory in such a specific was as that seen through an OVF - even if that too has the inherent weakness of seeing the scene at open aperture or unrealistically dark. It's complicated (hence turning into a ramble ) - and most of us use the rear LCD for many types of shooting anyway, but I do usually (where possible) like to compose through the viewfinder even if I then choose the read LCD to monitor the scene.

[Rondec]

"Seeing what the sensor sees" relates to composing the shot - DOF and coarse adjustment of gain - not all the fancy stuff you might do with software later, not how many colors can be seen.

I guess so. I tend to be biased against EVFs because I get headaches and eye strain when I use one for more than ten minutes or so. From what I understand, there are a group of people like myself (not sure how large), but it doesn't seem to be something that we can just think our way out of.

My experience is that most people learn pretty quickly how to compose a shot and what they can do with it after the fact, simply from a combination of chimping and viewing the photos on whatever screen they view them on later on. It is possible to use an optical viewfinder and get well composed, in focus photos that look good -- as good as those shot on a camera with an EVF.

[reh321]

My experience is that most people learn pretty quickly how to compose a shot and what they can do with it after the fact, simply from a combination of chimping and viewing the photos on whatever screen they view them on later on. It is possible to use an optical viewfinder and get well composed, in focus photos that look good -- as good as those shot on a camera with an EVF.

If there is sufficient light. As I've already commented, I took the photo below in a dark corner where I had to use the LCD to compose it. Holding the camera was awkward, and I didn't have a tripod with me; I took a total of two photos that way that day ... EVF would have been so much more convenient.

[reh321]

Speaking from a position of personal ignorance (in that I have never used a modern EVF) - my THEORETICAL concern would be/ is that the visual memory of the viewfinder scene you would have from mirrorless has already been interpreted by the camera, so attempts to get back to some sort of actual reality in PP might be hampered. It's true that most of us post process with a view to maximising the aesthetic appeal of the image rather than the often rather dull version a RAW file delivers, but I'd prefer my reference point to be my brain's digital processing not my camera's. Yes, you can still take your eye from the viewfinder and just look around, but that image doesn't imprint itself onto the memory in such a specific was as that seen through an OVF - even if that too has the inherent weakness of seeing the scene at open aperture or unrealistically dark. It's complicated (hence turning into a ramble ) - and most of us use the rear LCD for many types of shooting anyway, but I do usually (where possible) like to compose through the viewfinder even if I then choose the read LCD to monitor the scene.

It turns out that some of us use a camera the same way as sports and news photographers do - start with SOOC JPEG, then do minimal PP ... more interested in "reality" than in 'aesthetic appeal'. I hope this doesn't lead us down another rabbit hole, but discussions of the 'accelerator' have already revealed that divide.

I understand these issues, but sales of MILC in Japan and elsewhere show that the market is there. That is what Nikon is reacting to - not to theory.

[ffking]

It turns out that some of us use a camera the same way as sports and news photographers do - start with SOOC JPEG, then do minimal PP ... more interested in "reality" than in 'aesthetic appeal'.

Yeah, there are different types of photographers doing different things in different ways with cameras - easy to forget - and a regular warren of rabbit holes!

[surfar]

And theres more

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[reh321]

Yeah, there are different types of photographers doing different things in different ways with cameras - easy to forget - and a regular warren of rabbit holes!

My original comment was basically "this is what seems to attract people to MILC". I don't care about quick focusing or about queue issues - sometimes after taking a photo I think "I should have used a short burst for that" - but better focusing and better burst/queue characteristics is on almost every list of what needs to be improved in Pentax DSLRs. I don't want video - at least I want one in which slipping into video mode is harder - but that is just me, and I know it.

[D1N0]

Nikon D850 DSLR vs. Nikon Z6/Z7 mirrorless cameras specifications comparison | Photo Rumors

[ffking]

Looking good if that's right

[The Squirrel Mafia]

So much development in the mirrorless world. I guess we'll see what they can do tomorrow.

[D1N0]

There is a full set if images on Nokishita including three lenses and adapter:
【?】??????????????「Z6」「Z7」???|?????????

[ffking]

There is a full set if images on Nokishita including three lenses and adapter:
【?】??????????????「Z6」「Z7」???|?????????

nice, thanks - looks like a proper camera