Do you think Nikon could challenge the X system with something like this (pix)?

Started Feb 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
shigzeo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,331Gear list
Like?
Re: Do you think Nikon could challenge the X system with something like this (pix)?
In reply to Rod McD, Feb 22, 2013

Rod McD wrote:

Every company that has gone mirror-less except Pentax has chosen to run with a new short registration lens mount rather than use their existing mount. This allows the lenses and whole camera to be smaller. Mirror-less holds no advantages if the whole camera is the size of a DSLR with an optical viewing system. And Nikon has never been a company that really believed in small lenses.

Pentax have ceased production of the K01 - they're selling off the last stocks at incredibly low prices (US$316) for a camera capable of the IQ it delivers. Price has not been the determinant of high grade mirror-less sales - many of them are premium price cameras. It's been small size for IQ and feature set that attracted buyers and I think Pentax got that wrong. They relied on legacy glass appeal and it wasn't enough. (It also didn't have a built in EVF.) If Nikon or Pentax do produce a CSC to compete with the X series, they'll have to be small (Pentax) and have small high grade lenses (Nikon) to be successful. A full function adapter is the answer to opening up the camera to legacy glass.

Rod

When Nikon primarily made rangefinder lenses, their lenses were among the smallest available. Their 50/1,8 is much smaller than Canon's LTM 50/1,8 lens, and their 50/1,4 is positively tiny next to Canon's lens.

Both companies copied Zeiss and Leica almost blindly, but lens size was tiny then. Since then, Nikon made small, compact lenses until and only until the AFS/AF-D lens era. Some AF-D lenses remained compact, but most, even compared to their Ai/S brethren, were larger.

AFS is where Nikon lenses have become enourmous. My wife's AFS 35/1,8 is much larger than my Ai 50/2. It is in fact, close in size to my 85/1,8K, and in fact much larger than the 85/2 Ai that Nikon released in the 1970s'.

The fact is that automatic everything increases size. Dramatically in most instances.

Look at cars. Barring American cars, which have gotten smaller, cars from Japan, Korea, Europe, have all become large and beastly compared to their 1960's/70's/80's counterparts. Automatic stuff makes things bigger, makes things harder to repair, makes things fail faster.

Nikon have taken a sort of modern Zeiss approach: their modern lenses are huge. Compared to Canon, they are often heavier, fatter, and longer. They don't need to be. Their lenses from before were excellent and small.

Those days (of copying better, Western designs) are over.

 shigzeo's gear list:shigzeo's gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow