Jorgen Udvang
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #2 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do? | |
theSuede wrote:
The geniuses (as you correctly label them) that came up with the compact J/V 1/2 series actually saved Nikon's butt last year. Those series most probably (from looking at their official economical statements) made more money than all of the FX and DX bodies combined in 2012 - which kind of was a saving grace for the R&D department and Dev. department at Nikon imaging, keeping them in a positive cashflow, allowing them to continue looking forward in stead of stagnating from running on fumes financially.
What you specify is AI-S spec and AF-S (G) spec full body, but in FM2 sizes - which isn't physically possible unless you accept that the body WILL be about 15mm thicker front to back than the FM2. This would make the camera quite bulky.
The film plane and film guide plus about 1mm of steel plate backing is adding 1.5mm from the focal plane backwards in a film camera. That's all you need, there's nothing more there to do. 1.5mm, plus some strengthening beams in the back plate. If you want a digital sensor in stead of film, it's not so simple.
In digital you have a sensor with sensor plate backing (3mm) plus al/cu heatplate (1mm) plus insulationplate (1mm), before arriving at the mainboard (1.5-2.5mm) that sits just in front of the camera body back plate (1mm). Behind that you'd need an LCD assembly for the screen, the and the thinnest SCP 3" LCD assembly I know of is about 6mm thick....Show more →
How do you explain the RX1 then, or the X100 or the Coolpix A (yes, the two latter have smaller sensors, but they are just that, smaller, not thinner)?
theSuede wrote
Adding to that - you specified AF-S auto focus. One of the reasons that the FM is compact in height is that it DOESN'T have AF. The AF module sits under the mirrorbox, and adds about 15mm under the sensor that wasn't there on the FM series.
So the D3200 doesn't really have AF then? To make it even simpler, Nikon could offer AF based on the technology used in the 1-series cameras, which seems to work excellently.
theSuede wrote
Then after that, you'd probably want a real grip hump - I've used the FM quite a lot, and it's a very uncomfortable camera. It's slippery, it's thin, you have nothing to hold on to, and where you WANT to hold on to it to - it's all sharp edges. You can get more compact - but then you have to drop the F-mount, and with that - all F-mount lenses. And phase detection AF would have to go too. Anything else is just a pipe dream..
And the OM-D, which doesn't have a grip, is of course a failure.
theSuede wrote
F-mount flange distance: 46.5mm. Plus a minimum of 15mm body and electronics - 62mm. This is the minimum thickness of the camera body if you want F-mount, digital sensor and a back LCD.
If you don't want to invent and don't want to progress, your arguments make a lot of sense. Luckily, some camera manufacturers ignore this kind of thinking. That's the reason why we have cameras like the RX1, the X100s, the Coolpix A, the GR and the Merrils.
|
