apil_ua: Sorry, its me again.Can't sleep with this thing in my mind - why not "micro-F"?!
Design micro-F specs, build at least one smaller micro-F-body, at least one smaller micro-F kit lens, F/micro-F adapter... and "new" camera system is ready. Ready for mass use! Having the perfect potential. And almost for free, comparing to costs of development of "nikon 1" system.Make an impression that Nikon is consistent or even innovative company, which tries to satisfy customers expectations. Let people dream of new products, hit competitors with customers expectations of new system. Restore status-quo in micro-SL(R) market, instead of inventing "new" one.
This idea looks so obvious that I cannot imagine that "micro-F" will not be introduced slightly later.I cannot explain myself why one of the biggest manufacturers having so many customers didn't chose such easy and mutually beneficial way.
Does Nikon have some non-aggression deal with Sony?Any IP (intellectual property) issues? Whatever?
I agree. Nikon should have moved into micro4/3. I have a GF2 and the moment I saw their new 10mm 2.8 I wanted to purchase but now as it has a different mount for a different size sensor, I wonder if these will be off limits. I can purchase a Nikon adapter, why make a whole "new" system. That said, the design is gorgeous, but I don't have budget for multiple bodies, hoped to spend the money in lenses. I guess I will have to go for Lumix' new zoom or the Olympus 12mm. Unless Canon decides, rightly, they'll start developing lenses for m43