stefanosensolini: some body size? you mean you could go out and take photos without the lens? do not know why we continue to consider the size of the camera without lens; so the first nex were considered small, they really were not less portable to a Nikon 5200!
"so the first nex were considered small, they really were not less portable to a Nikon 5200!"
Yes they were. Body size is an important factor because body size + lens size = total size. It's like 5 + 5 = 10. If you can reduce the size of one of those variables, you can have (for example) 3 + 5 = 7. 7 is less than 10. In the context of a camera, this means you have smaller overall package, making it less bulky and more portable. It's the foolish people who think that body size does not matter simply because you have to attach a lens to the body. In the equation X + Y = Z, where X is the body and Y is the lens, X does matter.
raztec: Nikon haven't done anything right since the D300. Even the D700 had only a 95% viewfinder. What kind of company cripples their pro cameras?
This company is in serious decay mode. They've sold out their name and brand for maximum profit. They are after the fast buck. Building cheap consumer cameras for the masses and holding people heavily invested in Nikon glass by the balls with teasers of 'finally' a camera like the Nikons of old.
Don't hold your breath folks. These guys aren't innovative like Olympus and Fuji, they are your cheap brand name company giving you the toy like V1 and J1 or the problem laden, crippled D600.
Now you have a pretentious retro DSLR that can't be too good or it will 'hurt the sales of their pro DSLRs' or too manual because the 'masses won't buy it'. This company is run by marketers, not creative, risk taking entrepreneurs and innovative engineers.
Keep digging your grave Nikon.
@Karroly - you mean people who just like to point and shoot, and only shoot JPEGs. Sure. But most *serious* shooters shoot RAW, and do edit their own images.
nathondetroit: The only thing that sucks about this generation of cameras is that we're paying more money for less features. There are benefits of usability, and some construction/durability benefits, but in general stripping cameras down to their basics should yield some cheaper bodies as well.
Why not replace a mode dial with a shutter speed dial on the D3200? Why not replace a high res screen with a low res one? (Think M9–If the screen isn't the primary finder, then its performance isn't a necessity). There could be a pretty "hip" plastic rendition of these cameras...
Once "simple" and "retro" break through the "premium" class of cameras, there will be a huge reaction; Throw some real dials on entry levels cameras and give purist consumers a chance to reap the benefits on technological advancement–not pay a premium to get a luxury replication of bricks of the past.
@Raymond Cho - if you want cheaper cameras that are still crammed with features and performance, there are *plenty* of them in the market that you can buy. The notion that you can't buy inexpensive cameras today is simply foolish and out of touch with reality. So just like motor vehicles, cameras too have gotten cheaper over time, with better features and specs than older cameras. It just goes to show that, even as products have gotten cheaper and better over time, consumers simply get whinier and more spoiled over time.
$1400 (the cost of a Nikon F100 in 1999) would be equivalent to $2000 in today's dollars. $2000 today will get you a Nikon D610, which isn't just an empty shell for film like an F100 is; it has a full frame imaging sensor, a powerful processing chip, a 3" color LCD screen, faster frame rate, better AF, better metering, better viewfinder, video shooting, imaging software, rechargeable battery, etc. In other words, you get a LOT more for your money than in the past!
aeschylus: If you've a desktop computer and conventional screen I struggle to see the point of manipulating images on any tablet. Better to use the former and then transfer them.
I hope I never have to buy another Dell in my lifetime. What cr@p devices.
Michael Ma: Don't cut yourself short by losing the ability to fully process raw on a tablet. Use a powerful laptop instead. You can the latest and greatest i7, 8GB ram, SSD, for less than price of an iPad if you buy a Toshiba, Asus, Samsung. An Apple is going to cost you 3x more, but you'll have a nice looking case.
There is the sit-down, find-and-electrical-outlet, open-up-your-laptop, fire-up-your-RAW-software crowd. But I think most of these people are just going to want to sit at their home desktop workstation to process their images anyways! That's what I came to realize. So I have an iPad for when I'm out and about, and I have my desktop workstation at home for heavy work. I no longer have a need for a laptop. Plus, as iPads have moved to the new 64 bit A7 processor, I think they are going to be able to do a lot more powerful stuff with the new class of apps being designed to take advantage of this power.
Jimmy jang Boo: Why would anyone want to process an image on an ipad - especially if they have a computer? I wonder if these same hipsters would prefer to eat their apples riding a donkey across the country instead of flying in a jet?
Not everyone is a hardcore image editor who has time to be sitting at a computer. There are millions and millions of casuals shooters who simply enjoy the ease and convenience of doing it on their iPad while sitting on their couch while watching TV, waiting at the denstist office, or wherever. And these people aren't all "hipsters." They are busy parents, kids, grandparents, etc. My sister has three young boys, and she finds her iPad indispensable for quick image editing, because she simply can't afford the time to sit at a computer while her boys are running around. She basically has to be where her kids are, watching them. So don't be such a narrow-minded buffoon making lame comments about iPad users being just a bunch of "hipsters". Devices such as iPads offer a very valuable level of convenience, mobility, very long battery life, ease of use, and performance that offers a welcomed alternative to being confined to sitting at a computer.
Donnie G: My guess is that this camera will be a bare bones, entry level, full framer that will replace the APS-C D300 series in the Nikon lineup. Having some type of hybrid ovf/evf switchable viewfinder and support for full compatibility with all of Nikon's legacy dslr glass along with completely analog controls will be the camera's defining feature set. I'm also guessing that this camera will be priced at around USD $1800, just like the D300 series was. To me, that would be the move that would make the most sense within the Nikon marketing scheme. :)
There is nothing about this expensive ad campaign that remotely hints at it being a low priced camera! Look at the ads: classical music, Scottish highlands, fly fishing, camping with your Range Rover, guys who look like they buy their clothes from European custom tailors, etc. This camera is undoubtedly aimed at the premium market-- for people who are definitely not price-conscious. Premium visuals for the premium market. This is not aimed at the price conscious mass market. If it were a bare-bones, inexpensive camera, there's no way Nikon would create an exotic ad campaign like this one around it, with these high end visuals in exotic locales. Budget priced bare bones FF camera? You guys are dreaming.
"even in the film days when new they were cheaper. F100 body $1000US"
The F100 was introduced in 1999 for $1400, which when adjusted for inflation would be about $2000 today. That's for a camera that was basically a glorified empty box that held film. No expensive sensor, no expensive processing chipset, no 3" full color LCD screen, etc. Heck, it doesn't even include a rechargeable battery and charger! The components you get with today's DSLRs are far more costly and numerous than what you got in film cameras. The cost of R&D is also far more costly, as well. Plus, software/firmware costs, which film cameras didn't have.
How much do you think a DSLR would cost if you stripped out the image sensor, its image processor chipset, the big rear LCD screen, and its associated software? You'd be left with what is basically an empty shell..which is what film cameras basically were. Today's cameras are powerful little computers crammed into SLR bodies. That's what you're paying for.
Do you realize how spoiled you sound? Cameras, these days, give more bang for your buck than ever before. It's amazing the level of performance and capabilities you can get for so little money. Heck, even today's entry-level cameras have much of the performance, specs, and features of high end, expensive pro bodies of the past-- for far less money.
Besides, it's not feature-stripping that drives down costs. Certainly not to the degree you seem to think it does. In reality, it's production volume and sales volume that drives down costs. High volume products with mass appeal that enjoy economies of scale make products cheaper. So if you "simplify" a product by stripping out features that make it less appealing to the average consumer, resulting in fewer sales, the "simplification" actually becomes counterproductive to lowering costs. Consumers buy features. That's what sells. Consumers don't flock to bare-bones products. Your "huge reaction" to such a product is ill-conceived.
I think you're greatly overestimating the size of the "purist" consumer entry-level-hip-plastic-camera-with-dials market. Huge reaction? No, the purists would want an all-metal body, and would be willing to pay more money for a premium-built camera. And other consumers would simply ignore it.
Even back in the film days, retro-styled cameras were basically driven out of the market by modern-design cameras. There just weren't enough "purists"--even back then-- to keep those designs in the market.
Debankur Mukherjee: The body should be without grip and auto focus to call it a true retro design....
...they could also only give it center weighted metering, make you crank a film lever to re-cock the shutter before every shot, make you pop open the entire back of the camera to access the memory card slot as if you were changing film, etc., etc. Obviously, they could have been very dogmatic about making it a "true retro design", but doing so just for the sake of being "true" would limit its practical usability...which would limit the number of people who would actually go out and buy one (as opposed to simply admiring it for its "true"-ness, but *not* buying it). So including a grip and AF are obviously nods to making it a more functional and useable camera, while still offering retro elements. Companies do need to be practical, especially in today's tough market. Removing the grip and auto focus to please a few strict retro purists would just further limit its appeal and sales. Not a very practical business decision.
AngryCorgi: It's a shame that it shall be obscenely overpriced. :(
"Overpriced compared to what other retro styled full frame DSLR?"
Being the only retro FF DSLR basically gives it license to be overpriced, which is generally what happens in the absence of competition or alternatives.
"Also, compare prices of Nikon full frame DSLRs to Canon. Nikon is cheaper across the board."
Really? Nikon's least expensive FF DSLR is the D610 at $1999. Canon's least expensive FF DSLR is the 6D at $1899. Canon generally gets a bit more aggressive with pricing than Nikon does.
As for the pricing of this new Nikon DF, don't expect any agressive pricing. Everything about this expensive ad campaign indicates that it's geared towards the premium, upmarket buyer: classical music, Scottish highlands, fly fishing, camping with your Range Rover, guys who look like their buy their ruggedly classic bespoke clothes from old world European boutiques (the same boutiques that the Royal Family buys their country estate clothes from), etc.
victorian squid: Nah, a whole bunch of excitement went away. If it's just a DXXXX with squared edges - BFD.
A truly and fully manual digital camera would have been something. This looks like another hipster/poseur product. I'd have been all over a fully manual skinny little DSLR like white on rice. This looks like it gives the feeling of manual control (speed controls on dial), perhaps it's more than that - I guess we'll have to wait a little longer.
And I wouldn't get too excited about no oil on the sensor or other current problems unless this sucker is built in Japan (again) - which would at least raise the interest level a point or two.
Yes, I'd say someone who implies that anything less than a "truly and fully manual digital camera" isn't interesting is kinda being a "snob". Yes, I think someone who says that anything less than a "truly and fully manual digital camera" is just a "hipster/poseur product" is kinda being a "d!ck". Yes, I'd say someone who asks, "Were you ever even around to use a fully manual camera [Answer: Yes, I was. My very first SLR was a Nikon FG. My second SLR was a Nikon FE2]...4x5? Medium format? Own a studio? E-6 processor..." yes, anyone who feels the need to list this string of criteria as an attempt to show his purebred purist superior pedigree (..."bragging rights"? LOL) really is kinda being a snob *and* and an elitist d!ck!
I don't think tapping into Nikon's manual camera interface and design in order to put a new spin on the modern-day camera should simply be dismissed as a "hipster/poseur product." There is a practical, tactile benefit to it that some people prefer.
"Even the D700 had only a 95% viewfinder. What kind of company cripples their pro cameras?"
I would hardly say that a 95% viewfinder is crippling. In fact, I actually prefer 95-97% viewfinders because it allows you to frame the image, but the actual image captured ends up being just slightly more than what you saw in the viewfinder. This extra bit of image area gives you a bit more flexibility and wiggle room when cropping or straightening your images later in post (which can come in very handy!). Maybe 100% viewfinders might have been more important back in the film days, but in this age of digital where everyone has the capacity to crop and straighten their own images, framing the image *perfectly* with absolutely nothing more than what you might have originally intended to capture, is just being militantly anal for the sake of being militantly anal. It's just not something to lose sleep over. Heck, I'd even say that claiming a 95% viewfinder is crippling is just pretentious!
"A truly and fully manual digital camera..." would have truly been an exercise in a stylistic dogma at the expense of practicality. A camera that has a UI that offers a set of dial controls a la a "truly and fully manual" camera, yet can still switch over to modern automation ends up being a much more practical and functional product. So, frankly, I think being a "truly and fully manual" camera just for the sake of bragging that it is such a beast is far more pretentious than the hybrid route that Nikon has smartly taken with this camera.
A practical "best of both worlds" approach may not appeal to your unyieldingly pretentious "I'm-so-cool-because-I'm-truly-manual" elitism-for-the-sake-of-elitism litmus test (which, in many ways, is just as galling and self-delusional as being a "hipster/poseur"), but I think the hybrid approach yields a much more functional and versatile product. This purist judgementalism smacks of snobbery.
fmian: The very idea behind this camera is a joke as far as photography goes.It undermines the very notion of what it means to be a photographer.If people really wanted that old time pure feeling of using a manually controlled camera then they would just buy a manual film camera. And plenty of people are doing just that!This camera will appeal to those who think of their cameras as more of a fashion accessory rather than an actual device to capture an intimate moment or a breathtaking scene.It brings nothing new to the table and will serve to fill in the gap between honest talented photographers and those pretenders who think their new camera somehow makes a difference.Another thumbs down to Nikon from myself and many others here I see.
@fmian - "This camera is essentially just about the design. Nothing else."
Practically everything is about design, you buffoon. Engineers and designers *design* all kinds of products to look, feel, handle, and function a certain way. And when it comes to user interface, how a human interacts with a camera, especially with something has handling-intensive as a camera, yes design is very important! So don't be a fool be dismissing the essential importance of design.
Kodachrome200: Everyone is saying this is going to be 3000 bux and to me this is just nuts. no way it is. this is just like when every one said the d800 was going to be 4400 it made no sense in the market. this is an attempt to gain some of the cool factor mirrorless has and have a hit. its tech specs are great but there is nothing to make you think it will cost more than 1800-2300 range. And dont say the d4 sensor. the s4 sensor is not what makes the d4 expensive
@Kodachrome200 - what "mass appeal"? It has merely generated curiosity based on mystery. That is not "mass appeal" that will translate to the Best Buy shopper flocking to this camera. "Mass appeal" is things like: fast shooting, touchscreen, art filters, specs-specs-specs, features galore. Not some lone dude in the country side slowing clicking his settings into place and pressing off a single shot. Most people will look at this ad and say, "What the heck? Looks like boring product." It's only a small niche of the market who will say, "Yeah, this is like my old manual film camera I grew up shooting back in the early 80's! Nostalgia city! Take my credit card number, please!"
Remember, the manual-oriented camera was driven out of the market by modern-interface cameras. "Mass appeal" didn't save the manual-interface camera the first time around. These interfaces have niche appeal. Mainly just the Leica crowd, these days.
You're mistaking curiosity for "mass appeal".
@groucher - "Doubtless, this camera will sell by the bucket-load and will prompt Nikon into releasing a true digital FM/FE in the future."
No, I don't think it will sell by the bucketload, unless you're talking about small buckets. This is a niche camera. Nikon has other cameras designed and priced to sell by the bucketload. This one will be more of a boutique, lower-volume product.
"If people really wanted that old time pure feeling of using a manually controlled camera then they would just buy a manual film camera."
"Manually controlled camera" does not necessarily mean "film camera". What's so wrong about offering a manually controlled camera that happens to be a digital camera? Sure, this camera isn't for everyone, but I don't see why every camera has to be a camera that everyone likes. This is a camera that clearly caters to a very specific market and a specific type of shooter. As much as I like a good modern camera, if I had an extra $3K sitting around, I certainly wouldn't mind having this camera. It offers a good change of pace, and certainly would bring something "new to the table", something different from the cameras I currently own. It's like gun collectors who like shooting with different types of guns, car enthusiasts who like to drive different cars, etc.
This is more of a niche product, not a mass market product. That's why it will be more expensive, not $1800-2200. This is definitely not a camera for everyone. It's for the slow-and-methodical shooter who takes his sweet time to set up a shot, dial in the settings, and take the shot. So it's more of a boutique camera within Nikon's product line. That means it will definitely be premium-priced. This is a camera aesthetically, stylistically, and financially aimed at the $90,000 Range Rover crowd. Just look at the videos! They clearly are not marketing a value-oriented product. Does that guy look like he cares about price?