Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Sorry guys. It won't happen. Innovation has seized to exist. theSuede has said so already.
I fail to see any innovation in losing a lot of money. That's been done before.
The RX1 uses a side-mounted mainboard, and extra-thin LCD package to get down to 9mm - something that's possible in a compact-style camera body. It has no mirror assembly. It has no mechanical shutter at the sensor plane. It has no continuous AE
Going to the trouble to build a full mirror-box, using sensor-plane shutter, maybe even having a PDAF possibility - and then paying a few thousand MORE to NOT have all the for-free extras inherent in the general product format is not in any way innovative. It's plain stupid.
theSuede wrote:
I fail to see any innovation in losing a lot of money. That's been done before.
The RX1 uses a side-mounted mainboard, and extra-thin LCD package to get down to 9mm - something that's possible in a compact-style camera body. It has no mirror assembly. It has no mechanical shutter at the sensor plane. It has no continuous AE
Going to the trouble to build a full mirror-box, using sensor-plane shutter, maybe even having a PDAF possibility - and then paying a few thousand MORE to NOT have all the for-free extras inherent in the general product format is not in any way innovative. It's plain stupid....Show more →
And why would a side-mounted mainboard and an extra thin LCD package not be possible with an SLR camera? What does "the for-free extras inherent in the general product format" mean? What is the stupid part here? The mirror box?
Although I don't think it will last forever, DSLR are still outselling mirrorless cameras in most of the world. The former is an old-fashioned concept, but it still works fine, sometimes better than the more modern variety, and many prefer it. Recently launched cameras have shown that people are willing to pay extra for "traditional cameras with a twist". One variety that photographers have asked for at numerous forums for years is the back-to-basics DSLR. Maybe nobody will make it. I can live with that. I still use my OM cameras, not as much as the m4/3, but still.
theSuede wrote:
I fail to see any innovation in losing a lot of money. That's been done before.
The RX1 uses a side-mounted mainboard, and extra-thin LCD package to get down to 9mm - something that's possible in a compact-style camera body. It has no mirror assembly. It has no mechanical shutter at the sensor plane. It has no continuous AE
Going to the trouble to build a full mirror-box, using sensor-plane shutter, maybe even having a PDAF possibility - and then paying a few thousand MORE to NOT have all the for-free extras inherent in the general product format is not in any way innovative. It's plain stupid....Show more →
The problem here is the extra's aren't free. They come with a very significant cost in size & weight, and one that there was at least once a significant market for the avoidance of. Nobody except Pentax makes a compact, high-performance DSLR, and even Pentax's is large by the standards of what is possible, and also lacks the FF sensor that continues to play best with SLR lensmounts.
I simply don't see the market that kept the FM2n and F3 in production for ~20 years, long after the introduction of all-singing & dancing AF SLR's, having disappeared. And quite frankly the success of the M9 proves this. There's a clear market for an M9-alike DSLR, compact, high-quality and simple. I'm not saying we should abandon all the tech toys, but rather come up with something more akin to a Pro DSLR with the speed & weight removed. No need for 10fps and the size increase it requires, but also no need for all the consumer-oriented crapware that infest the mid-range & low-end DSLR's.
mawz wrote:
The problem here is the extra's aren't free. They come with a very significant cost in size & weight, and one that there was at least once a significant market for the avoidance of. Nobody except Pentax makes a compact, high-performance DSLR, and even Pentax's is large by the standards of what is possible, and also lacks the FF sensor that continues to play best with SLR lensmounts.
I simply don't see the market that kept the FM2n and F3 in production for ~20 years, long after the introduction of all-singing & dancing AF SLR's, having disappeared. And quite frankly the success of the M9 proves this. There's a clear market for an M9-alike DSLR, compact, high-quality and simple. I'm not saying we should abandon all the tech toys, but rather come up with something more akin to a Pro DSLR with the speed & weight removed. No need for 10fps and the size increase it requires, but also no need for all the consumer-oriented crapware that infest the mid-range & low-end DSLR's....Show more →
The closest to this was the Sony A900/850, if you disregard the size: simple, intuitive operation and great UI for a DSLR; no LV; no video; gorgeous OVF; a battery that goes forever. Shrink the size of the A900 to something quite a bit smaller with use of current tech (smaller than the K5 would be great, similar in size good), keep the OVF but add split screen MF and a peaking overlay, use an updated 24MP sensor; improve mirror/shutter for less slap and quieter shutter release; simplify UI even further; ditch in-body stabilisation if it adds bulk; and you're done. The only problem's that this would be a Sony and not a Nikon, so no MF legacy lenses and Sony's moving in the opposite direction anyway (although they may come round to doing something at the same time radically different and yet strangely similar, if they release a compact, no frills, full-frame mirrorless). Maybe Sony and Nikon are working on a compact A(D?)FM3 with Nikon mount right at the moment, in a parallel universe which detached itself from ours only a few minutes ago? The only problem is how to get yourself trans-materialised across...
theSuede wrote:
None of the cameras you mention are DSLR's with optical viewfinders, only one is FX (and it costs MORE than the D800... Does that give you a clue?).
The RX1 is more expensive than a D800 in large part because you get a premium Sony/Carl Zeiss lens attached to the camera.
mawz wrote:
There's a clear market for an M9-alike DSLR, compact, high-quality and simple. I'm not saying we should abandon all the tech toys, but rather come up with something more akin to a Pro DSLR with the speed & weight removed. No need for 10fps and the size increase it requires, but also no need for all the consumer-oriented crapware that infest the mid-range & low-end DSLR's.
You're singing my tune, mawz.
Mescalamba wrote:
I would be happy with any analog SLR with digital sensor. Only problem is that we dont have them, except DMR.
Pretty much why the DMR is a 'til death do us part' camera for me.
mawz wrote:
I simply don't see the market that kept the FM2n and F3 in production for ~20 years, long after the introduction of all-singing & dancing AF SLR's, having disappeared.
When the FM2 came out it could be bought for $300. That's about $700 in real terms accounting for inflation. 35mm image sensors, LCDs and high capacity batteries, as well as the R&D costs of developing a full digital camera (firmware, circuit board design) would add massively to the cost, pushing it toward the $3000 mark.
The market for a $700 camera without AF in a time when AF was new and not all lenses supported it is completely different to the market for a $3000 camera without AF in a time where AF is ubiquitous...
redisburning wrote:
EVF & AF are a non-starter to me.
seriously AF is either for for pros/people with disabilities or the sort of chumps that drive automatic transmissions.
And you liked that band before they were popular too, right?
This kind of discussion is such a load of garbage....whether you use autofocus or manual focus, aperture priority or full manual, if you get the shot you are after, who gives a flying crap about what you used to get it?
I use manual focus lenses and autofocus lenses. With my AF lenses, most of the time I use AF...it's faster and in many cases more accurate than I can be in many situations...why wouldn't I take advantage of that? So I felt 'cool' or more 'pure.' What a bunch of elitist hipster speak. In situations where the AF may be fooled easily, or I want to pinpoint focus with limited DOF, or when using a manual only lens, of course I'll use MF, but who cares what someone else used?
(FTR: I drive a car with a 6 speed manual transmission, and specifically had it ordered when I bought it new 5 years ago...I prefer them because they're more fun to drive in my opinion...but I don't care one iota if someone else prefers an automatic.)
p.3 #10 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do?
ditch AF and the LCD, pick another mount with shorter flange distance and I'd buy one
but whoever decided to build something like that would be stupid, it would lose them money for sure
p.3 #12 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do?
Well, for me it seems to me that at a minimum a FM3D should have:
- High resolution, high DR EVF so I can actually see the true DOF of some of my fast lenses (unlike the high DOF of OFVs)
- Phase Detect On Sensor - so I can EITHER (1) get very reliable AF and/or (2) have a really fantastic focus direction and confirmation capability that is very accurate
- B&W rear LCD to confirm focus and camera settings. A color display IMHO is not really necessary for the vast majority of things that you would use the LCD for. The rear LCD could be left off if you have a nice EVF AND there was an optional detachable/tethered LCD for when you wanted one.
- Lots of external controls (ISO, WB, EC, front/rear dials, etc. etc.).
I consider the concept of an FM3D to be focused on landscape/street/candid type photography as opposed to studio or sports, so high shutter speeds and super fast AF would not be a requirement.
Would it sell enough to be profitable - I have no idea, though I'd buy one for a D800-like price.
p.3 #13 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do?
ZOMBIE THREAD!
with recent developments in the EFV/MILC/Mirrorless field, I think the FM3D could finally happen.
Sensor: Pick your poison. Something simple from Sony that has already been in production for a while. D600 chip?
Mount: something with a short register, basically F but not F. Possibly bigger for adapting... And sell an accessory adapter that will provide AF with G/AF-S lenses.
Mirrorless for sure.
Throw a big, awesome, fast-refreshing EVF in there, and give it a 20+ mm eye relief.
No LCD- that's what the EVF is for. What LCD/LED tech is the best on power? OLED? Whatever it is, use that for the EVF.
p.3 #14 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do?
ISO1600 wrote:
ZOMBIE THREAD!
with recent developments in the EFV/MILC/Mirrorless field, I think the FM3D could finally happen.
Sensor: Pick your poison. Something simple from Sony that has already been in production for a while. D600 chip?
Mount: something with a short register, basically F but not F. Possibly bigger for adapting... And sell an accessory adapter that will provide AF with G/AF-S lenses.
Mirrorless for sure.
Throw a big, awesome, fast-refreshing EVF in there, and give it a 20+ mm eye relief.
No LCD- that's what the EVF is for. What LCD/LED tech is the best on power? OLED? Whatever it is, use that for the EVF. ...Show more →
+1
I'm mostly with you there. I'd love a D600-class chip with a shorter registration distance. I'd give up my D800 in a heart beat. Not sure how well the current Nikon FX sensors would do for continuous readout, but I'm sure Nikon is working on one for a mirrorless FX camera since Sony has one coming out soon (according to the rumor mill at least).
p.3 #15 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do?
Jman13 wrote:
(FTR: I drive a car with a 6 speed manual transmission, and specifically had it ordered when I bought it new 5 years ago...I prefer them because they're more fun to drive in my opinion...but I don't care one iota if someone else prefers an automatic.)
Would you care if an automatic transmission was the only choice? The vast majority of cameras are optimized for AF. Compare a D800 viewfinder with a Leicaflex SL or Nikon F viewfinder.
p.3 #16 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do?
Spyro P. wrote:
ditch AF and the LCD, pick another mount with shorter flange distance and I'd buy one
but whoever decided to build something like that would be stupid, it would lose them money for sure
+1
i don't use AF and i'd gladly leave off the lcd in order to get size down to that of the fm2. there aren't enough f-mount lenses that i really like to get it in f-mount though.
p.3 #17 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do?
telyt wrote:
Would you care if an automatic transmission was the only choice? The vast majority of cameras are optimized for AF. Compare a D800 viewfinder with a Leicaflex SL or Nikon F viewfinder.
Was that what I responded to? No, no it wasn't. What a jump in logic....
I'd be mildly upset if the car I wanted didn't have a manual option, though this is completely, 100% unrelated to the statement I was responding to.
I understand people wanting cameras more optimized for manual focus, and I understand people who ONLY use manual focus. If an FM3-D was made with manual focus and it appealed to an audience, then that's fantastic. If manual focus helps them get the shot, go wild. What I was responding to, if you'll go and look back, was the statement that those who used autofocus were either chumps or disabled.
p.3 #18 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do?
Sorry to spoil the party, but I guess it's more creative to use your imagination on the next Android camera, the Sony QX development or if you want to stay with Nikon: what will come next after the current serie 1, D3200 and Coolpix S800C. There is just no market for the kind of nostalgic products like an FM3-D. An FM3 was an archaic camera already when it was introduced in 2001 and it was produced and sold in very small batches. I know what you like about it, the mechanical construction, the haptics and the design that made it look a "jewel". That is what modern plastic products lack. But reality is that technology changes so rapidly these days that nothing lasts for a long time and most photo gear has to be designed like a kind of "disposable" product. Until we, consumers of these products, fundamentally change buying habits the manufacturers won't change their offerings into the kind of products you are asking for now. Look at Leica and maybe a few others, they are just able to serve a very small niche market and hardly generating big profits.
p.3 #19 · Nikon FM3-D imagined..What would you do?
As far as the ergonomics/haptics go, Olympus and Fuji have done fine jobs either re-imagining the small film SLR feel of the OM and PEN lines or mimicking the satisfying look and utilitarianism of the Leica M series. I don't see why Nikon should fancy no adequate demand for this. The "disposability" paradigm is more a function of a lack of upgradability of sensors or electronic controls on a modular basis but this would mean a long-term commitment by manufacturers and their mindsets are still geared to an 18 month product overhaul/redesign cycle across their supply chain rather than thinking outside the box, like Ricoh and their (imperfect) modular sensor/lens set. Leica, on the other hand, is trapped in a longer cycle upgrade and by the time they do (M240), makers like Sony have outfoxed them with the likes of the RX1-R.
As the superb capabilities of recent Sigma and Ricoh compacts demostrate, just the mere addition of a superior EVF to these, presently absent but even without lens interchangeability, renders hulking DSLRs a relic with fading appeal. So why can't Nikon see this as an opportunity, even a niche one (isn't the Sony RX1?), of a simplified shooter's compact FF DSLR in a FM-3 type body?
