>>3253585>Why aren't these two motherfuckers in mirrorless fullframe jet?Because they are really retarded, just look at that ulgy and big Nikon DF.
I'm glad Fuji and Sony jumped in and offered something for people that have been begging Nikon for a digital F since mid 2000s.
>>3253591>What would be the benefit then?Pic related
>>3253594>Start with new mount, and you're new kid, pissing off own established consumer base in the process.New mount is not essential, especially when you still sell ancient manual lenses brand new like Nikon does.
>>3253597>Why would someone with a Nikon/Canon/whatever dSLR switch to a mirrorless that is neither smaller, nor lighter, nor can it adapt more lenses than their current dSLR?Full frame mirrorless can be a lot lighter and smaller then FF dslr. Sony proved that more then half a decade ago with the RX1, lenses can also be a lot smaller then they are now IF THEY DON'T MAKE THEM FOR "PROS". That would not be such an advantage though, with the current mount, but with existing mount the camera shouldn't have to be any smaller then Nikon FE.
>>3253780>Secondly a mirrorless sensor would need to be developed totally anew.Nikon uses Sony sensors in their DSLRs.
