noone

I think the adapter (s)? will be pretty good and that is needed. Three lenses at first will be fine. As I have said, I think the 24-70 f4 that is expected with it could be excellent and the best "kit" lens from anyone FF yet. Sony started FF mirrorless with around that many lenses and a couple of adapters for A mount and the 24-70 f4 Zeiss which was sort of the A7R kit lens wasn't that good for its price and the 28-70 FE kit lens for the A7 while good for ITS price would likely be not anywhere near this Nikon (and neither would the Zeiss) and that is all assuming good copies of all the lenses. There were already APSC E mount lenses that could be used as well though. The other early (2013) lenses from Sony where 35 2.8 (nice light lens but nothing really special) and the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 (which IS pretty special for most who have used it and even now) and 70-200 f4 (ok but maybe not as good as DSLR equivalents it seems). Except for the 55, the later Sony lenses have been generally better. There were two lenses in 2014, four in 2015, seven in 2016 ETC (not counting third party native lenses like the Zeiss Batis as well as the cheaper brands). Sony will get a lot better third party native lens support I think than Nikon will at least for a while anyway.

agreed about Canon and Nikon looking at each other as their competitor historically but FF mirrorless is a new game. A year ago I would have agreed more about Sony's market share as their strength that attracted many (mainly Canon) users was also their weakness in many were buying a Sony as another body for Canon lenses and that is still happening but in the last year there have been more and more ditching the adapter route and I see many posts now that they are done with adapters because for the most part (some exceptions) the lenses are there now. This WILL force Sony to up their game and the area of weather sealing is a huge Achilles heel for them with pro shooters (I have never owned any fully weather sealed cameras or lenses and that includes a few Canon L's) but if you need it, you need it.

The 58 1.2 Noct Nikkor was pretty expensive when released as it is a lens designed to be USED wide open and uses hand ground aspherical elements and less than 12,000 were made I think. Being very good and fast, it has a cult following and many collectors want them as well. I almost got one a few years ago but got some other photo toys instead at the time (can not afford any now). Nikon makes other 1.2 lenses like the 50mm 1.2 but that is not really different to many other non aspherical 1.2 lenses. You can also get other 1.2 lenses for Nikon from third parties like the Mitakon 85 1.2. Do they make a Mitakon 50 f0.95 for Nikon? It makes sense to me if the first camera is aimed at the Nikon D850 and that camera is the one we will see soon but the second 24/25mp one might be later and that might be more aimed at Sony but which one? Given the lead in times, I still think it may have been designed as a A7ii killer or competitor at least but then along came the A7iii. Maybe the second one is still in development? I think most who would have migrated to Sony from Canikon have and these might be more for the faithful as well as new buyers and I am sure there will be some that left for Sony but are naturally Nikon customers. I think there are a few here who use Sony by default but can't wait to dump it (it is funny to see Sony haters post for years in various forums and then suddenly be shooting with Sony cameras - even if still whinging and sometimes then quickly dropping them and going back). I predict the first camera will be good but I will still prefer the ergonomics of the first gen Sony's, it will have a better EVF (I am fine with the Sony one), that the adapter will be great for some lenses not so much others (maybe two adapters?), the kit lens for this camera will be the best FF kit lens yet.

I don't see that many ILCs around at all. Those I do see tend to be either low end DSLRs from Canon and Nikon but just recently, the higher level and FF ones have been changing from Canon and Nikon to Sony FF. It started with some just adding a Sony but in the last couple of months there have been a few switchers. It seems my beloved A7s may have just died this morning. I hope it can be repaired at a reasonable price otherwise I am going to be without a camera of choice for some time and may have to pick up a cheap DSLR or older APSC Sony to be able to shoot something at least (though I will really miss the low light ability of the A7s). I could not afford to switch to the new Nikon at all. I COULD sell my better lenses but that would be just as bad and no way I could ever replace my 17 TS-E now if I sold it.

Forgot about the Sigma 24 1.4, make that eight of them.

Not sure I would want to use a 24 1.4 lens wide open of a general scene (IE not a specific subject close up) like the first shot and the second might not quite be in focus on the rodent? I guess there IS a reason that so few 24 1.4 lenses have ever been made - to date only Canon FD ASPH, FD L, EF first and second versions, Nikon 24 1.4 (only one) Leica 24 1.4 (only one) and the Samyang/Rokinon clones - that is it I think that's only about seven models (counting the Samyang/Rokinon's and stills and video as one). I have the old FD 24 1.4 L and have had it for a while but don't use it a lot but I do love it and it is growing on me. I would stop it down for many uses even a little but for CLOSE in subjects with a wide background I quite like it wide open. Stopped down and then wide open.

If I take three lenses on a walk with me (which is normal) or to a concert/gig, I will change lenses often and sometimes while juggling the three if I just use the one small bag and for me it is much easier the Sony way. Since my A7s is not stabilized, the limited amount of video I shoot is mostly done on a tripod but again, it is still easier for me the Sony way (have used just about all brands since the film days). Again, this is very subjective and no maker is going to please everyone. I still have a camera that doesn't HAVE a lens release button as you just unscrew the lenses (Pentax Spotmatic) and that can get scary if you are too firm focusing.

I doubt it will even come close to covering medium format as it would be much smaller than current medium format cameras and that is with the smaller MF size sensor being used than older film cameras. On the lens change button, I have never really thought about it before but I do much prefer it as it is on the Sony's. It just feels natural ( with my A7s - thumb behind camera and hit the button with my middle finger and take lens off/put on with the left hand). That is like everything to do with ergonomics though and is subjective.

Off topic but THANKS!!!! to this thread and @ntblowz in particular. I have had a Pentax Q for several years but it died after only a year or so. It would power on but immediately bring up a dust removal message and power off and I put it down to a stabilizer issue (my K100d died permanently in a similar way but after a LOT more use). Nothing I did would get it to work. After a few months I sold off my lenses for it and some adapters and only kept the camera, battery and charger and two dumb adapters. I have on a few occasions almost just thrown it (dunno why I didn't) when cleaning up my flat. Otherwise, I just charge the battery every year or so Anyway, thanks to this thread and @ntblowz posts, I got it out to check the area around the tiny sensor and blowed if I know but after trying a few more thousand times, I think I have got it to work. This was never a main camera but it is a LOT of fun (using with lenses like an 85 1.2 and 3002.8 ETC and even a 50 f2 is very different). So at least for now I have a few years old almost mint in appearance Pentax Q to play with again (hopefully it wont go back to hibernation just yet). Charging battery now and glad I kept a couple of adapters. Oh and I am more convinced than ever that all else being equal, the smaller the sensor, the easier it is to get IBIS to work (less movement required, less effort to get it moving ETC). EDIT Oh well, it is still doing it but I can at least take a photo now before it turns off so maybe some hope though still not really useable (yet).

I still think it is more likely where Nikon is going to get their mirrorless FF sensors (or at least one/some of them). All these companies have incestuous relationships. For instance, Olympus two largest shareholders are (or were dunno if it has changed) Sony and Nikon at around 10% each I think.

I don't think it IS too late for Nikon (or Canon) but I actually prefer a smaller FF camera and prefer the first gen Sony cameras over the later ones I think just as I preferred similar shaped SLRs over what they became when loaded with electronics. The smaller size means I can fit an extra lens into the same size bag VS a larger DSLR (and can fit my Sony mounted on a 300 2.8 into the 300 2.8's bag- something I could not really do with a DSLR). In some ways, I find it easier to use my old 300 2.8 with mirrorless and film cameras shaped like my A7s than more bloated DSLRs as well due to the way I hold that lens and balance the lens rather than camera. As for batteries, I never have any issue popping in a second or third even (and my three batteries are all very well used and nowhere near what they were new but still work well enough to shoot a festival or photo day out). For those that DO have an issue, it seems the latest E mount cameras have solved that. This Nikon WILL sell well to those who prefer different ergonomics to Sony as long as it is competent (better if it is excellent). They DO need it ASAP though as there are more and more switchers from DSLRs every day and Nikon may as well get in on the act.

I use a couple of tele lenses (300 2.8 and 350 4.5 and including with 1.4 and 2x converters) and I use a tilt shift lens and they all work fine though my Sony isn't an IBIS one, I have used enough IBIS cameras from various companies to think it wouldn't be an issue for me anyway. It just wouldn't work quite as well as the better M43 cameras (my last M43 camera had IBIS but wasn't the best- GX7).

The sensor is not blocked by the lens mount for movement. If it moves too much it might be "blocked" for vignetting but there is room under the mount and above the sensor at least in the cameras I have seen. There may only be a small (in terms of height) space but it is certainly big enough to allow the sensor to move. If you use an APS camera, or any of the IBIS FF Sony's in crop mode there is little vignetting too (and even Canon APSC lenses made for 1.6x sensors cover FF from around 24mm and up on FF E mount). There are different types of IBIS. Pentax uses a different method to most for instance.

I would not be too worried about most vintage lenses and distortion as I do think many older lenses are better corrected than some modern ones that might be better but use in camera correction to save costs or to be better in other areas. That said there are some old ones that have noticeable distortion (Vivitar 28mm f2 was one I had that was very noticeable). It is also possible that some modern cameras (maybe the Sony E mount cameras) will also correct some old adapted lenses (especially older Canon EF) that use smart adapters at least a bit as often the EXIF will show as being a very different A mount lens (depends on the adapter though I think). My FD 24 1.4 L is a lot better corrected than that old Vivitar 28 f2 was. Most of my lenses are adapted and some are around 40 years old and others "only" thirty or so but I have not worried about distortion with any of them. This was close up with the FD 24 L, there is no doubt some but not an issue for me.

But that doesn't affect how WELL it works, it MIGHT affect the edges for coverage (but I still am not sure). It isn't that people say the centre of Sony IBIS images are as good as M43, it is that stabilization doesn't work as well. If it WAS the mount, then I would think Sony images and video would be well stabilized in the centre and less so at the edges but that doesn't happen. The sensor can still move around behind the mount.

I don't think it has much to do with the mount size but simply that the smaller the sensor, the easier it is to stabilize. M43 should always be a bit better than APSC and APSC better than FF and FF better than medium format ETC. Still, it is getting pretty good. From memory, my Pentax Q was seemingly better stabilized than my APSC Pentax cameras (the Q and the K100d both died because the stabilization stopped working I think). More recent cameras are better than older ones. I actually now prefer a non IBIS camera with good high ISO (IE my A7s) because I would tend to stress IBIS using a long lens like my old 300 2.8 and IBIS simply isn't needed as much for me with better high ISO. I do have a couple of stabilized lenses though. The other reason is I just get less worried when cleaning the sensor with a non IBIS camera (I just use a sensor swab from time to time but otherwise just use cotton tips gently to get rid of dust spots which I would not likely do with an IBIS camera).

Given the long lead in times in developing new cameras (and I would imagine even longer for a new mount/system), and given that they seem to be aiming at the Sony A7 higher MP pair, I wonder if they were aiming at the A7Rii and A7ii or the iii's? If the ii's I could see Nikon engineers getting a lot closer than if the iii's or at least it would be a lot easier for them to achieve. What reasons could they have for such a say nothing announcement? Stopping some switchers seems most likely to me though I would have thought most would have done already (given Nikon DSLRs are great it isn't for better image quality really with Nikon right now).

Indeed, The Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 is probably optically my best lens but it is far from my dearest. I have a Canon EF 20-35 2.8 L lens that is almost 30 years old. These have been updated FOUR times since (17-35 2.8 and three 16-35 2.8 since) and yet they still sell for only about $100 to $200 less than a second hand Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 I have a almost forty year old Canon FD 24 1.4 and these still sell for MORE than the Sony 55 can be found new! I strongly recommend the FE 85 1.8 for anyone even remotely interested in an 85mm lens (unless wanting the much more expensive Batis 1.8 or the great 1.4)

I have owned quite a few decent Canon lenses including several L's and while Sony does have some very expensive (but very nice) lenses, the equivalents for other mounts are not that much cheaper or in some cases are not cheaper. There are fewer good cheap E mount lenses as yet because the system is a lot newer but there are some. The FE 85 1.8 for instance, is I think, the biggest bargain going in photography for ANY brand. Not too expensive but very sharp with great bokeh. The Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 IS expensive for a 1.8 normal prime lens but it is anything but a "normal" lens and if it was made by Canon it would have an L ring on it. The 28 f2 and 50 1.8 FF E mount lenses have their fans and are not too bad optically (the 50 especially seems to be ok optically but it is other things that it often gets pinged for). That said, the 55 1.8 Sony Zeiss can often be had at quite reasonable prices - I got mine early on and even then didn't pay anything like MSRP though even at its MSRP it isn't overpriced for what it is. Has put me off wanting any other normal primes after using a great many over many years. There are other bargains now like the 28-75 2.8 Tamron too and even Samyang auto focus lenses with more all the time.

I would not call any of the E mount cameras to date "weather sealed". All the A7 series have had SOME sealing of sorts but very little beyond maybe a gasket here or there. That said, unless you are shooting in adverse conditions, it isn't something I would worry about too much. I have used my A7s (and previous A7) in light rain and and with the A7, used it for most of an Australian football match in slightly harder rain and was using unsealed adapted lenses with a plastic bag over the lens and it did stop towards the end but was fine after drying it out. Most cameras I have had from Pentax, Canon and Nikon would have been no different really and even though I have had dozens of lenses in my lifetime from many makers, I don't think ANY have been weather sealed and that includes several thousand dollars worth of Canon L lenses. As for this new camera, it LOOKS promising and I hope it is fantastic but unless I can adapt my Sony FE 85 1.8 and Sony Zeiss FE 55 1.8 AND is bargain priced it isn't for me (I would bet I will not be able to adapt those lenses and it isn't bargain priced). The mount while bigger than Sony E and Canon M seems hardly big enough for medium format (it is only about 3mm bigger than the small Sony E I think and 2mm than Canon M which is to date only APSC). As for fast lenses, well Sony E takes Canon lenses and native lenses including f1, f0.95 and even f0.85 for that APSC Ibelux so that isn't going to be anything new with the new fast lens patents. Maybe it might mean much less vignetting? Again, I hope this is just the beginning and it is brilliant (and the same for Canon).

I just gave away a Nikon 50 1.8 AF non D (different meaning D) made in Japan. Probably the best of many 50 and near 50s I have had (other than the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8, FD 50 1.2 L and Pentax 50 1.2 K all of which are much dearer). It can be used just like any other manual focus 50 and has a decently recessed front element. Honestly though, if just after a 50 1.4 and not one based on a specific lens, I would just go to Ebay and search lens, 50mm 1.4 and go of ending soonest as they are all pretty good and a condition and life of each lens will be a much bigger factor.

I used to use Pentax as my main system and have had a few FD lenses too. Most of those lenses have gone but I still have a couple of FDs and K and M42 mount lenses. They were certainly different for the most part. FD 50 1.2 L was my favourite normal lens (until I got the FE Sony Zeiss 55 1.8) but my Pentax 50 1.2 k was another I loved but they were very different (sold the FD and tossed the Pentax when it fell to bits from overuse) and both would have been fairly similar in age I think. I might see if I can shoot my ancient Promura 28 2.8 in m42 mount against my ancient EF 20-35 2.8 L at 28mm and then the 20-35 against my also ancient FD 24 1.4 L at 24 2.8. I am not even sure if the Promura has any coating or maybe a single coating

I don't really buy into the sterile VS clinical thing and to me it is just a different look from lens to lens (I love some older ones and some newer ones equally). If you put some of the latest lenses on older cameras you might find they have even more distortion for instance than some older ones as some manufacturers seem to be cutting costs or making the lenses better in other ways by correcting in camera and either make cheaper or make it better in some other area. I have a lovely old Canon EF 20-35 2.8 L (hard to imagine some EF lenses are now around 30 years old) and it probably has a bit less distortion than most newer similar lenses (Canon has updated it four times since via 17-35 and 16-35 lenses) but it doesn't get corrected like the more recent ones do on the latest cameras. I also think the laws regarding use of glass with lead in it (now outlawed) might have a difference on the look of some lenses.

It is not a 24-3000mm 2.8-8 zoom, it IS a 4.2-532 2.8-8 zoom that gives an image like that of a 24-3000 mm f"somethingverysmall" on a FF camera. Yes, it really is 2.8-8 but equally, yes it is not 3000mm. It does not give an image like an 24-3000mm AT f2.8-8 You can of course correctly say it is an equivalent 24-3000mm lens that is 2.8 to 8 but equally you can correctly say it is 4.2-532 lens that is equivalent to f45 (or whatever it is). Does it really matter if we know what it is?

Agreed, though what is heavy and isn't is subjective. That new 400 2.8 Sony actually weighs 5 grams LESS than Nikons CURRENT 300 2.8! (that has to have been deliberate I would think). Many people will hand hold a 300 2.8 for quite long periods but a lot less so a "normally" heavier 400 2.8. I know I can hand hold my old manual focus 300 2.8 for the duration of a football game or several sessions at a cricket match - putting it down from time to time to the point I don't even take a tripod or monopod now or I put it in a backpack and go for a walk. Not going to do that with a 400 2.8 except maybe this one (if I win the lottery). I should say my old Tamron is probably the lightest 300 2.8 made though and I use it with an A7s (previously several DSLRs ).