That headline is a pretty deceptive thing to quote from that interview, since it was parsed with a BIG "if" (i.e., IF there is enough demand for it, which there isn't), and even that was just in response to an extremely presumptuous and leading question.
Richard Schumer: <'large-sensor mirrorless could be a solution'>
IF there is enough demand for it - IOW, don't hold your breath, because there's not that much demand for it.
quezra: He didn't say anything, just left open the possibility after being asked a terribly leading question.
It's too small a "space" for them to bother. Which is why they haven't and probably won't be any time soon.
Johannes Zander: ...so Nikon will be studying for a while... and then we will get a FF mirrorless, right.Ok, I am waiting... taptaptap...
Since MFT is smaller than APS-C, all existing FF and APS-C lenses would be "fully compatible," just as FF lenses are "fully compatible" with APS-C. Just an adapter would suffice.
Not that Nikon needs to worry about chasing the bottom feeders on MILCs with bigger sensors - there is that little "demand" issue.
DenWil: I thought he was very polite and realistic.
DX was the result of a need for a price point that no longer exists. Why drag it out?
Mirrorless has no appeal for many, is being manufactured by companies that are not exactly doing Apple like business with their products, and is not yet fully realized as a format. Unlike say, Leica's rangefinders, ML is a niche product at this point with no cachet. It weighs less, does some things well and nothing better than a FF DSLR.
4K has yet to prove its viability in the marketplace. It is by no means common in household TVs or computers and unless there is a significant price drop for new products in 2015 it could easily go the way of 3-D, not because the picture isn't great, but because the general buying public simply fails to come on board. 4K doesn't register as being necessary.
All due respect but gear heads are not representative of the general public or working pros and Nikon gets that. Chatter does not equal sales or profits.
"Since tele-photo zooms like 70-300mm lenses are used with the crop body for "extra reach".These lenses do NOT get the most out of the dense 24mp Apsc sensor."
What can I say, except "thanks for making my point."
Flashback: Nikon are you bonkers! Sony have left the door open with the A7 series.
Small size yes, but mediocre focusing speed, slow processing, noisy shutters and a very limited lens line up.
Don't kid us you don't know what's what. You can fix all these problems.
Your Nikon 1 series has all the right features. Just scale it up for full frame.
Yes, and then after squandering all that R&D money you can sell about 1 for every 4 DSLRs that would take less R&D money to produce. What a concept!
Kiril Karaatanasov: Please make a full frame E mount camera please. Sharing mount with Sony will be fantastic for you and the customers.
Alternatively use X mount from Fuji. Just don't do yet another mount
There's a lot more Nikon lenses than Sony lenses. Why cripple a camera with a competitor's mount? On second thought, why make a FF MILC, which is a miniscule part of the market, when you're already one of the "big 2" currently sharing the majority DSLR market?!
designdef: Makes me very happy I swapped all my Nikon gear for the Sony SLT-A99 Full Frame Mirrorless, two years ago! Looks as if Nikon may catch up in a year or so?
As respects your last sentence: So what is your objection to a DSLR, which "produces" image quality second to nothing in more situations than any EVF competitor?
The D810 "works as a camera" better than anything with an EVF. I would never move to a Sony "system" (if you can call it that, lol).
KZMike: So where is Nikon's response to the 645Z?
Where is Pentax's response to the D810? To the D750? To the D610? To the D800? To the D800e? To the D600? To the D700?
Not to mention the D4s, D4, D3x, D3s, and D3!
sandman71g: "What has reaction been like to the new D750?""It has been very well-received, globally"Really?
D3s -> ...-> D4sD3x -> D8xxD700 -> (rip?)D300s -> (rip?)
New -> D6xx -> D750 (why not D650? leave D7xx to pro level)
Jury's out as to whether the D750 is a D610 replacement or a separate line between D610 and D810. We'll see when the D610 stocks run out...
Jogger: Rumour is that the D4x will be 54mp (basically a 24mp APSc sensor scaled up to FF). Pair that with Otus lenses, and there really isnt a need for MF anymore.
@neo_nights True, but the argument would hold up a lot better if the "medium format" wasn't ANOTHER "cropped" format substitute to keep sensor costs manageable, as are most of the so-called "medium format" cameras presently available. Fact is, there is a smaller size difference between FF and the newest "cropped" CMOS medium format sensors than there is between APS-C and FF.
Another thing a "smae pixel pitch as D7100" FF sensor does is completely eliminates the need for APS-C for "reach," since the "reach" would be identical, not that it's really an issue any more with 15+ MP available "cropped" to APS-C size in the D810.
mpgxsvcd: If they had spent their time making a great mirrorless camera instead of making excuses they wouldn’t be in the position they are in now.
Yes, they would be in a far worse position, squandering their R&D resources on a bottom feeder market that won't do anything to add significantly to their market share.
@Freemonster the "crop factor" doesn't give you "reach." This is a myth perpetrated to convince you to buy cameras with less than half a sensor in them, back when that's all they could make at affordable price points due to sensor production costs. The "crop factor" provides no "reach," it simply LIMITS angle of view. It is pixel density (only) that means anything with respect to "reach."
A D800/D800e/D810 has more "reach" than a D300 or any other DX camera before it, and about the same "reach" as a D7000. If they make a FF sensor with the pixel pitch of the D7100, the "reach" advantage of APS-C will be completely gone, because cropping to APS-C will provide exactly the same "reach."
As a practical matter, the "reach" advantage is already gone, because you're already beyond diminishing returns on APS-C at this point anyway. 15+ MP is plenty of "cropped" pixel density, unless of course you think all of your DX images were garbage when you were shooting with D300s and D200s LOL.
mpgxsvcd: PR 101:
1. Don’t ever point out what your competitor’s product has that yours doesn’t.
2. Don’t ever admit that you made a mistake and you might keep making that mistake in the future.
3. Don’t ever say that you need to listen to your customers more. It is something that every company could do more of. Mentioning it just makes you sound like you know you should do it but you choose not to.
@Mike Sandman MILC wasn't a "product breakthrough," it was a "well, obviously we can't compete with Nikon and Canon in the DSLR market, so let's try something different and cheap to make" product.
bernardly: A candid interview from Nikon. On the mirrorless question, what he said:
“So maybe if there is enough demand we may be able to provide another type of mirrorless camera with larger sensors. This is one of the solutions.”
And what he didn't say but was probably also thinking:
“May that day be far off.”
When Nikon & Canon reluctantly enter the APS and FF sensor interchangeable lens camera market the DSLR halcyon days will be at an end. But before that happens they will fight tooth and nail over every inch of DSLR dominance. They probably and hopefully are incubating competitive mirrorless systems in their R&D labs. Because when the market reaches the mirrorless tipping point they will have to compete with the best of Sony, Samsung, Olympus, Fujifilm and Panasonic. Canon and Nikon are making money while the camera divisions of the competing firms are struggling for profitability. In the interim, Canon and Nikon will be hoping to force as many of their competitors out of business.
There isn't going to be any "tipping point" for mirrorless. It's a niche product, that's it. DSLRs are better and that's why they continue to sell 4 for every 1 MILC.
Eugene232: people need FF mirrorless!
2 years gone, Sony only who able to produce FF mirrorless cameras.
Nikon, Canon, wake up! or you will die as dinosaurs.
Yes, 3 FF MILCs that are never "out of stock" anywhere. There is SUCH a "need" for more of those to chase that miniscule market!
MPA1: "So maybe if there is enough demand we may be able to provide another type of mirrorless camera with larger sensors. This is one of the solutions."
Build it and they will come - a light large sensor FX mirror less camera would sell faster than they could make it.
Yeah, at about the usual rate of 1 for every 4 DSLRs. No need for Nikon to chase the bottom feeders.
reinish: who would believe five years ago , that NIKON will say - oh we need to catch up Sony and Panasonic
That's not what he said. I'd characterize the response as more of a "guess we'll need to check that box on the spec list since others have." Video is hardly issue No. 1 for stills cameras, just a "nice to have" add-on. So no "catching up" to do until competitors have D810 image quality AND 4K video few care about.
nnanda: Why Nikon kept AA filter? It is throwing that out from all its cameras (at least newer models), then why it is still there? That alone is a deal breaker for me!
I know they're not the same, hence the use of the term "count," as opposed to "density." If you take the same exact picture of the same exact subject with two sensors of different sizes but the same number of pixels, the "sampling" of detail will be equal. The only difference will be the FF will get more resolution (because it demands less from the lens), so that would be the only reason the FF would have increased likelihood of aliasing compared with the smaller/same pixel count sensor (i.e., that some fine detail resolved sufficiently BY THE LENS for the FF sensor to record it but not for the APS-C sensor to record it was the right "interference" pattern to introduce some aliasing).
Actually the D750 has the same pixel count as the D7100, so as long as you are comparing images that use the entire frame on each camera, there would be the same likelihood of moire, false color, etc. in a D750 sans AA filter and a D7100. Only when cropping the D750 shot will the pixel density be an issue, relatively speaking. It is the total number of pixels in the photo, not the "pixel pitch," that matters in terms of the relative likelihood of moire, false color, etc. occurring.