Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM'

By dpreview staff on Oct 25, 2013 at 19:20 GMT

The rumors of Nikon creating a stripped-down, film-era-style camera are exciting - not least because it's something people have been calling for, for years. Until recently, the very idea of one of the big camera makers going down that route would have seemed unlikely - after all, you don't get to push technology forward by looking back.

Nikon Rumors has been reporting possible specifications all week. Some interesting bits of information that were first reported include:

- The name will be: "Nikon DF"
- No video 
- Announcement in early November 
- Expected price tag: $3,000 for body only, $3,300 with 50mm lens 

A couple of factors now make it seem real. Firstly, the rapid collapse of the compact camera market has left camera manufacturers looking for new niches to exploit. Secondly, Fujifilm has shown (with its hugely successful X100) that there's a market for a camera with pre-digital-era controls and looks.

Looking at Nikon specifically, the Coolpix A shows the company is now paying attention to photo-enthusiast niches that it has ignored for a long time. Whether it thinks there are significant profits to be made in these niches or because it would help burnish the company's credentials as a maker of products for photographers, it would make sense for Nikon to produce a product that plays on its heritage (especially since it's Sony's RX1 and Fujifilm's X100 that are tugging at the purse strings of photographers).

If the rumors do prove to be true, we can only hope Nikon will balance the desire to look back while including some updated camera ergonomics, which have come a long way since the Nikon F3 and FM. We hope such a camera ends up classically-inspired, rather than a slavish throw-back.

This week Nikon released a short teaser video and ad campaign for a "pure photography" camera adding fuel to the flame. 

'It's in my hands again' - Nikon teaser video

Is this the camera you've been waiting for? Or are there cheaper, better options already on market? 

Update: Nikon Rumors now believes some of its previously-reported specifications to be 'fake'.

Source: Nikon Rumors

Comments

Total comments: 554
12345
sean000
By sean000 (6 months ago)

Interesting that they chose to use a moody video to market a camera that doesn't shoot video. Aside from that, I am intrigued as a long-time Nikon shooter. The price tag is going to keep me away though. I have wished for a digital FM for a long time, but I thought the idea would be that it could be a little smaller, just the basic features... and a LOT cheaper than their full-featured FF cameras. Now I'm scratching my head wondering, "How could I justify this when a D600 costs half the price?"

Perhaps the details will answer that question, but I have a feeling that this camera is intended for folks who have more money to spend on style than I. You would think that a camera that has a stripped down feature set, focused more on ergonomics and basic controls rather that high-performance features, would cost less than even the D600.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

""How could I justify this when a D600 costs half the price?"

The price of products aren't always the the sum of their parts and features. What it really comes down to is, "How much can we get people to pay for this...irrespective of what they are actually getting?" If you market a product in a certain way, building a certain aura, prestige, and pedigree around a product (much like this brilliant Nikon ad campaign is doing with this new Nikon camera), you can ask people to pay much more for it than they might otherwise. Especially if your marketing campaign is geared towards the kind of buyers who aren't very price sensitive, and care more about (as you say) style.

Personally, I think it's a smart move for Nikon. Not everyone cares about specs and features, nor does everyone care about price and value. There are people who are willing to pay a lot more for a camera that looks and feels a certain way, and that gives them a joy of ownership that will justify the cost.

3 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (6 months ago)

I'm sure you are right. There are a number of high-end cameras on the market these days that are expensive, stylish, and... while excellent for certain types of photography... are not as versatile as less expensive models. They are niche products, and some of them sell quite well despite competition from less expensive cameras that provide similar features and performance. If Nikon finds the market for the DF to be more limited than they thought, the price may come down. Or it could be that this is intended to be a limited edition collectible. Nikon and others have made those before. It's a good way for a brand to maintain legendary status for the future.

0 upvotes
knize10
By knize10 (6 months ago)

I love HIS shoes.

1 upvote
Eurodynamica
By Eurodynamica (6 months ago)

Yea.....I can't afford the camera, but, maybe if I save up, the shoes....

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (6 months ago)

This would be a good price for it if the sensor was medium format form factor. Just not otherwise. Wow, 3000 big ones for a camera that cannot even do video? In the year 2013 A.D. -- what was Nikon thinking?

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (6 months ago)

For the hundredth time...
The $3000 rumor has been discredited by Nikon Rumors

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

@Bamboojled - it wasn't really the price that was discredited. It was really the details that it would be a "D4H".

At any rate, I doubt this is going to be a "value" oriented camera (i.e. having a low price tag). It's clearly being marketed as a boutique-type camera for a niche market of "purist" photographers. Or the kind of people who drive $90K Range Rovers to get to the Scottish Highlands while wearing a $1300 Burberry Trenchcoat. Such cameras typically come with a premium price because their target market isn't so price sensitive. In fact, a more premium price will actually make this camera *more* desirable to its target market, the premium market.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (6 months ago)

T3, Nope it's for those who can actually think for themselves and don't need a built in computer to tell them how to do it.
It's also for those who know what the controls are there for and what they do.
Most DSLR users set their cameras on 'Auto' and leave it at that.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Most DSLR users never change their lenses. Most DSLR users never use video. Most DSLR users... oh come on, how idiotic argumentation is that? Kinda like dPreview guy arguing in AF test that it's fine to have miscalibrated AF because "most DSLR users don't use AF adjustments" even if camera is completely off with focusing.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

@Antony John - So you're saying that people who use today's DSLRs can't actually think for themselves? Or that they don't know what the controls are there for? LOL. Did you just crawl out of a cave or something? Yeah, all those people who use those Canon 1DX's and Nikon D4's, they *clearly* need those "computer" cameras because they don't know how to think for themselves or know what the controls are for!

Or maybe these users simply want cameras that can take them and their shooting beyond the limitations of an all-manual camera? Maybe these users want tools that can allow them to handle any situation...situations where shooting with an all-manual camera would either leave them flatfooted or missing out on shots.

Your comment is really narrow-minded, inflammatory, ignorant, and embarrassing.

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (5 months ago)

Yes, most DSLR users are not Canon 1DX and Nikon D4 owners but entry-level DSLR owners. Yes, most of the entry-level DSLR users set their camera on full-auto mode most of the time, and yes, a lot of them bought one just because the seller told them it is better than a P&S camera and use nothing else than the 18-55mm kit lens. Going out of the full-auto mode is complicated for many "average" camera users, because most of them are not aware of the impact of aperture and shutter speed on image quality, sharpness, DOF, etc... Most of the people I know among relatives and friends use their camera in full-auto mode only and I have sometimes hard times explaining the benefits of using manual settings. Enthousiast and professional shooters using mid-level or high-end DSLRs are a "niche" compared to the users of entry-level DSLRs.

0 upvotes
Easycass
By Easycass (6 months ago)

To comment... I always shake my head and smile when I read the negative comments thrown about on DPreview.

When I studied photography, all those photographers around me were such enthusiastic and positive people, eager to embrace all that was thrown our way. Even for me, I thought I would never give up film, but soon came to appreciate the benefits of digital.

While this camera, what ever form it comes in, will not suit every photographer, I am sure there will be some, perhaps, yes, the older types, but also perhaps some enlightened younger generation, who would at least welcome the chance to hold something that had the technology of a D4, but the photographic handling of an F4; a photographic hybrid.

I think if such a creature was made, there would be many who would feel again the real 'love' of having something that melted into ones hand, looked purposeful, was able to record excellent imge quality, and became, as we used to believe we had, something we could never be without...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

"many who would feel again the real 'love' of having something that melted into ones hand, looked purposeful, was able to record excellent imge quality, and became, as we used to believe we had, something we could never be without..."

Romantically, I think these words are a classic case of "everything was better in the past" syndrome. Or conversely, it's the notion that everything that has been introduced since days "past" has been progressively worse than what was in "the past".

I expect this new Nikon to be a nice, simple, manual-control camera, but I don't think it's going to "melt into ones hand" or look more "purposeful" than any other camera of recent times. Frankly, I think Nikon's ergonomic design has evolved and improved since the 1988 introduction of the F4, which had the ergonomic elegance of a Soviet tank.

I loved my old cameras from two decades ago just as much as anyone. But I don't see them in the same "melt in your hand" rose-colored glasses as you do.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

I'm just saying, let's look at these cameras a bit more objectively. But clearly, Nikon's mystery ads for this camera wants us to romanticize this camera...which is the opposite of sober objectivity. Objectively, I think it will be a nice, simple camera with nice, simple physical knobs and dials to control your camera settings. It'll probably require a bit more hand movement to change your settings, and it'll give nice, audible "click-clack" mechanical feedback with every dial movement you make. And it'll probably slow down your shooting a bit because you need to take a bit more time to change your settings. Nothing wrong with this. It certainly has its appeal. But I would merely say that is is *different* than today's "less hand movement is better" ergonomy designs, not more "enlightened" or "melt into ones hand" or whatever.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (6 months ago)

@T3,
I agree to your comment, but for one thing:
"..since the 1988 introduction of the F4, which had the ergonomic elegance of a Soviet tank."
That "Soviet Tank" gave the starting shot for a long line of professional camera bodies, and you will still find that style in the modern flagships of Cannon and Nikon Full Frame pro models. The F4 was built to fit a man's hand like a glove.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

"The F4 was built to fit a man's hand like a glove."

More accurately, I would say that it was an early attempt at it...an early iteration of modern ergonomic design. Clearly, cameras have evolved, improved, and have come to fit even better over the years, as every subsequent iteration has brought about refinements. I certainly wouldn't hold the F4 up as a paragon of superior design, the *ne plus ultra* upon which no other improvements could be achieved. I would merely cite it as a starting point, and a fairly primitive one.

Again, I think the "everything was better in the past" syndrome is in full force here.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
1 upvote
babalu
By babalu (6 months ago)

Well... treating the prototype of modern ergonomics , which is what the F4 was and is, like a piece of soviet tank crap is a bit off the mark for me. Surely there is progress, and I don't say that modern camera bodies aren't better than the F4, but hey, they would not be here if the F4 had not made its debut in the first place, it was at its time a pace-setter, surpassed by none. And, yes, "everything will be better in the future" .

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

"modern camera bodies aren't better than the F4, but hey, they would not be here if the F4 had not made its debut in the first place"

Not really. By the time the F4 was introduced, the science of ergonomic design was well on its way, and modern ergonomic "fit like a glove" cameras had already been introduced. Look at the Canon T90, predating the F4 by two years (1986 vs 1988) with its much more ergonomically sculpted body and grip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_T90
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T90front.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T90nolens.jpg

In other words, the F4 was *not* the prototype of modern ergonomics! You're giving the F4 too much credit, especially when you say that modern camera bodies wouldn't be here in the first place if it hadn't been for the F4! And sitting next to the Canon T90, the F4 does look like a Soviet tank! The year after the F4 when Canon introduced the EOS 1 (1989), it made the F4 look even more like a Soviet tank.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (6 months ago)

Yes, I concede that the T90 was before there- did not think of it, since I am a Nikon user . But I still like the button in the front of the F4 to display the real DOF ! :-))

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

You like the F4 because it had a DOF preview button?!? That certainly was not unique to the F4. Heck, even the first Nikon F (1959) had the same button, in the same place. Most cameras of that era offered a DOF preview button on the front of the camera. The T90 was no exception. It's that little slider button on the left of the lens mount, meant to be depressed by your left thumb. In subsequent Canon bodies, the DOF button was moved to the right side of the lens mount.

0 upvotes
Easycass
By Easycass (6 months ago)

I would have to agree the 'sentiment' with which I have phrased my like for such a hybrid concept is rather romantic. It is a funny thing, but although I moved to the F5 at the time, I still found myself picking up the F4 first. It wasn't because older was 'better' by any stretch of the imagination, just the feel of the thing, that Soviet tank. That is what romance is I guess, a desire to choose something that may be flawed in both function and ergonomics, yet still feels good to hold and use. We do the same with people, boats and cars all the time...

But enough of all that poetic stuff. I agree with you in terms of improvements we have seen over the years. I just think it is a good thing that manufacturers provide a choice of user interface, one for those that love menus and touch screens, and ones that prefer discrete exterior controls that both show a setting and allow its adjustment directly. One way is not better than the other; it is to have the choice that is important.

1 upvote
ASD
By ASD (6 months ago)

I just talked to Nikon Canada last week and told them they should do a survey on how many Nikon users use video with their dslr. I would think maybe 5%. I said that Nikon should produce a camera that had NO video as there are many photographers are just that photographers not videographers. Canon seems to have done a good job with the video dslr, so let them have it. A new dslr no video, 14 mg, high iso very clean, good dynamic range 8fps, crop mode,full frame, 1.5 crop dual sd cards 100% view finder, AF ON button, illuminated dials, pop up flash. For 3K I would buy one to replace my trusty D700, the last of the dslr None video camera.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

@ASD - as much as some might think that the $3K non-video DSLR category might be a big success for Nikon, I don't think it will go beyond being a niche. After all, most photographers who don't like video simply just ignore it as if it doesn't exist. How many photographers out there would really be willing to pay *extra* for the luxury of it to *really* not exist-- as opposed to simply just ignoring it? Probably not as many as you think. Just a small niche.

But I'm sure Nikon would love that arrangement. They simply disable video in the firmware, remove the video button from the body, then charge extra for this "non-video" DSLR!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Why you assume that people will pay extra for not having a video? Camera is made only for recording or not a video? Last time I checked it got plenty of other features - important for... photography - features that people would pay for.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (6 months ago)

Is this the camera where Nikon will put all the excess D600 shutters that never saw the assembly line?

The retro look to take us back to: :"The smell of an oily rag" generation...

.

5 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (6 months ago)

Why couldn't Nikon , in its next iteration come 2014, throw in a camera with the ergonomics of a D7100, but FF, with an F- mount compatible front, fully movable LCD, WITHOUT a mirror, but with a tiltable EVF that beats the viewing experience of today's best OVFs , at a price point of the D800 ? That would certainly bring them back up front, and buyers would flock galore. I know, "keep dreaming" ... but it's feasible !

0 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (6 months ago)

They will. But they first want to sell this thingo.

0 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (6 months ago)

Berk .....

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (6 months ago)

"a camera with the ergonomics of a D7100, but FF" - that part sounds like the D600/D610

2 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (6 months ago)

Knowing Nikon's output as of late it will:

1. Feature a long and convoluted menu system where one has to jump through hoops to enable mirror lock up.
2. Include at least 3 unlabelled buttons, including another one hidden inside a rotating switch.
3. Have a focusing screen suitable for AF and not MF.
4. Spell another change in their lens design so these new lenses are not fully compatible with certain bodies.
5. Create a furor among the public because of price/performance aspect. Will become best selling camera of the year when it goes on fire sale at a loss.
6. Come with some simple design fault that causes major problems. This will be swept under the rug when a year later the model is replaced with the same thing slightly redesigned.

Honestly, if you want pure simplicity with photography then just shoot film with an old camera.

2 upvotes
Clean
By Clean (6 months ago)

I think if you check your history book you'll find that Nikon lenses pretty much fit the D4 from the past few decades. Not so bad.

2 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (6 months ago)

Just because they mount doesn't mean they are fully compatible. Many Nikkor lenses lose metering and AF on particular Nikon bodies.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Well, according to the rumors - with this body they won't loose metering. So... what's the problem?

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (6 months ago)

Plastek, I'm speculating about the new lenses not the body.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

I read posts here and there and have an impression
that DF will be a rebadged K-01 ?
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxk01 (still handson preview)

1 upvote
Eridan_Fetahagic
By Eridan_Fetahagic (6 months ago)

Who cares?

1 upvote
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (6 months ago)

Apparently you do, enough to comment on it.

3 upvotes
Kumara
By Kumara (6 months ago)

Much Ado About Nothing.
So after all these years in digital photography even at nikon they're finally recalling whence they came from: photographic cameras, and not video cameras like the ones produced by their partners in crime at sony.

Nothing new really: Leitz is still producing a photo camera with dials and manual focus called Leica M, though admittedly you don‘t have to chocke the shutter mechanically.

Never the less I wish nikon will succeed to bring back the cameras to their proper design, with less marketing fuss and the proper functins for shoting photos, and not videos, recording audio, a million af points, making coffee... and for that only it would cost a normal price and won't get obsolete in six months.

I'd like to see a mechanical and manual focus camera that will use the battery just for the shutter, exposimeter and sensor: who cares about af, lcd screen, tens of menus and all the stuff you can get in asmart phone?

2 upvotes
AlanG
By AlanG (6 months ago)

The Leica M can shoot video and also has a clip on EVF for eye level live view shooting. The S has auto focus. So Leica is trying to move away from what you refer to as "proper functions."

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (6 months ago)

The Leica M-E doesn't have video or an EVF option. Leica isn't trying to move away from anything. They are offering two different M cameras for two different types of shooters.

1 upvote
EGouws
By EGouws (6 months ago)

I'm happy with my Leica M3 and cron... No one will ever recreate the masterpiece.

1 upvote
88SAL
By 88SAL (6 months ago)

If they take a leaf from Epson-Cosina-Voigtlander with the RD-1 - that is pure romantic photography. Having to manually cock the shutter, and you could ofcourse get a motor drive/battery grip combo that would compliment it nicely if you needed to go more "pro".

For enjoyment of your photography, to slow things down, this could be a nice little winner. At worst it will be Nikons OMD.

3 upvotes
OldZorki
By OldZorki (6 months ago)

They also should limit SD card to hold only 36 images.

2 upvotes
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (6 months ago)

I must say Nikon had been blind to their own for a long time. Even eay back, Nikon's core business is with photo enthusiast. The Nikon FM series never one for consumer but more for dedicated enthusiast, hobbyist and the more discriminating amateurs.

The Sony A7 really tell how compact we can have FF, and if we just tag on that a mirror housing and the pentaprizm we pretty much can tell that even a FF DSLR can be just as compact as old days better film bodies.

This one is a throw back to the basics but leave with it all the virtue of the technological knowhow of the current. Perosnally I really like it. Its only the price that will prevent Nikon from doing a great homerun.

1 upvote
Nelson Tan
By Nelson Tan (6 months ago)

I've enhanced the image from the teaser video to draw out more details. What do you think it looks like?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=416008548524759&set=a.337640929694855.1073741826.337632906362324&type=1&theater

0 upvotes
AlanG
By AlanG (6 months ago)

This seems pointless to me. Why not go all of the way and make a digital Nikon SP?

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (6 months ago)

Many more people have F-mount lenses

1 upvote
AlanG
By AlanG (6 months ago)

Screw em and make them buy some new MF small rangefinder coupled glass. I use F mount lenses on my 5DIII and Nex 6. No problem. Nikon doesn't have to compete with Canon and Sony when it comes to using old Nikon glass.

While they are at it make them take the camera off the tripod and need to remove the back to change a card or battery.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
EcoPix
By EcoPix (6 months ago)

A Nikon OMD, I take it, along with Sony's just-announced OMD; so Olympus is confirmed as a pathfinder yet again, taking chances and pushing boundaries for all the others to benefit from more safely. Well, I hope this Nikon OMD me-too is better designed than its PEN me-too.

It could be seriously good, if it takes the best of Nikon's various technologies, gives high IQ, has a high definition screen that allows manual focussing on the fly (the Nikon 1 is close, and a bigger format must help), takes all F lenses seamlessly, has good processing speed, handles well (nothing weird or fiddly), and is compact, sturdy and affordable.

But don't give us another slug. What many photographers remember fondly in the old cameras was that everything happened immediately. One never had to wait for an FM2, except for the final images!

3 upvotes
EcoPix
By EcoPix (6 months ago)

As for retro, I earned my living with a basic Hasselblad 500cm and two FM2s for ten years, and really only embraced the electronic camera when I had to, with digital. I still enjoy using those manual cameras.

But as a working photographer I agree with those chastising Nikon for ginning around with toy cameras when the need for a D400 is becoming a pressure cooker. Nikon, please study the recent history of Kodak, lest you forget to listen to your customers.

As for a mechanical DSLR, don't they know that there are many pro photographers making good money with mechanical DSLRs everyday already? Rather than reinventing the wheel or dreaming up a retro show-pony for the rich and idle (hopefully they haven't), why can't they or someone come up with a $3000 digital back for my 500cm that rocks like a D800?

4 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

"But don't give us another slug. What many photographers remember fondly in the old cameras was that everything happened immediately. One never had to wait for an FM2, except for the final images!"

Which of today's DSLRs are sluggish? I can't think of any. Which of them do you have to "wait" for to do anything?

As for the notion that "everything happened immediately" with old cameras, I think you are suffering from a case of "everything was better in the past" syndrome. Film advance, film rewind, lens focusing, seeing the image you just shot...did any of these things "happen immediately"? No, the reality is that all of these things were more "sluggish" than today's cameras. But "sluggishness" is actually going to be the appeal of this camera: you'll manually set everything, and it will slow you down, or force you to slow down. You'll take 1 or 2 pictures with it, whereas with another camera you might have taken 10+. I think that's what they mean by "pure photography."

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Revup
By Revup (6 months ago)

Please, please, please nikon make it look (ish) and handle like my FM3A, with full frame digital capture, optical viewfinder, and at a price significantly less than a Leica, and you can have my money.

The one thing that has prevented me going to Sony/Fuji/olympus and the others for a smaller scale camera, is the fact that I have Nikon lenses.

A small F mount camera, would make an excellent back up to a DSLR, and a carry everywhere camera. I'd love it!

The Rev

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

I hope you'll have to pop open the entire back of the camera in order to load your memory card, like you had to do when you loaded film. Kind of like how you still have to remove the baseplate of Leica M8/M9's to get to the memory card and battery. This retro craze opens up a lot of fun nostalgia potential.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Kelvin L
By Kelvin L (6 months ago)

I would argue that these kinds of hype-based marketing strategies for products aimed towards niche enthusiast markets are of limited benefit to manufacturers. They could even be counterproductive when the product doesn't meet expectations when the hype gets out of control. Look at the Leica X Vario for a case example. A simple press release is probably sufficient and will generate its own inertia amongst the blogosphere based on its own merits, e.g. Fujifilm and Sony.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
EcoPix
By EcoPix (6 months ago)

It's probably market research, and we're providing the answers.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

But it can also be rather economical. They can take an existing camera, strip it down and dumb it down, stick it into a retro body, jack up the price, and sell it for a healthy profit. All the while, its fans will praise it for its simplicity.

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (6 months ago)

@T3

This is exactly what Nikon will be doing and Nikon romantic fools will fall for it.

"Pure photography" become "Pure foolishness"

1 upvote
EcoPix
By EcoPix (6 months ago)

I don't mean it's the camera they're researching. If they're announcing in a month, it's already in production.

What they're testing is how much they can price gouge on launch, softening us up. Everyone who posts 'yeah,yeah, I'd pay three grand for that, woof woof, wag wag, pant pant is contributing to the self-fulfilling prophecy. Then the web sites rescind the rumour, surprise, surprise.

Then out comes the camera for less than rumoured - a bargain. Then, when everyone realises it's an overpriced mediocre camera, the price drops and soon a good revised version appears, at a premium.

And we jump again. Sound familiar?

Maybe the web sites are in collusion on this - 'We know nudthink, nudthink!' Maybe they're even paid by the subcontract consultants.

If you don't like it, just concentrate on your photography. There are 3 types of photography – gear-driven, ego-driven and subject-driven. Subject-driven photography is not only cheaper but probably much the more relevant as well.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
ABM Barry
By ABM Barry (6 months ago)

Aie, I see this clearly.
It’s the furst Scottish Nikon camera; ah ken that noo.

It’ll no be black or sulver, it’ll be clothed in the Clan Tartan of yer choice.

No need fur a camera bag, just pit in in yer spurn on yer kilt. (Matching tartan of course)

The hand-grip will hold 4oz of the finest Scottish whiskey for those special moments.

It’ll have a wee hole on the side ta pit yer head phone plug in ta listen to the latest bagpipe tunes and a 50mm f1.8 lens.

Whit else kid ye ask fir?
Hairy MacBaz

11 upvotes
Esoz
By Esoz (6 months ago)

LOL I read this first thing in the morning. Made my day! :D

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (6 months ago)

Scottish Nikon - a no-frills Presbyterian camera?

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Tim the Grey
By Tim the Grey (6 months ago)

Intriguing...

1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (6 months ago)

i made a quick 3d rendering what i want nikon to make :)

https://scontent-a-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1377072_607965739261686_674925515_n.jpg

at least if they decide to spare the mirror and make it evf only

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
EcoPix
By EcoPix (6 months ago)

Very good, thanks for the trouble.
Presumably the pentaprism will be huge, oddly shaped, silver, and with a big F on its front...

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (6 months ago)

i will add that :)

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (6 months ago)

Let's hope it doesn't have a wooden handle...... :)

1 upvote
ABM Barry
By ABM Barry (6 months ago)

Yup! Wooden handle, ..... Wooden work!

1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (6 months ago)

i would pay twice at much if certain features are in like weathersealing, a 30x30mm square format sensor, no back LCD

if its really a digital f3 with different pentaprisms and stuff i will save and buy it no matter what

at 3k i guess its just a classical styled d700 with evf and no mirror, and a bck LCD.

so i will buy one used when my d700 dies in a few years

in the meantime i will buy a V1 with FT1 to use my 50 1.4 as a 135 :)

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (6 months ago)

Price must be high otherwise the people who are emotionally interested in such things would not buy it. "Quality is proportional to the price."

1 upvote
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

Much like when a lens who's name starts with a "Z" doesn't perform as well as a cheaper priced optic, people resort to un-quantifiable metrics to validate the expense. "It has a look that others don't" never mind that any quantifiable evidence suggests its no better than others. Those are the demographic that nikon is targeting provided this articles assertions come true.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (6 months ago)

THere is a venerable company and line of cameras based on that. It used to be the foremost professional 35mm maker, actually its inventor ... Hope Nikon stays the course, no problem with an update of a classic, which was what expected that venerable (L) company to do with its classic design. It chose to make it in leather, Bulgari style.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (6 months ago)

This is definitely an emotional buy (i.e. tugging at people's nostalgia), not really a practical buy (i.e. "let me get the most bang, features, specs, and capabilities for my dollar"), so they are right to price it high. In the world of fashion and style, people are more willing to pay more for a product that fits their look. A low price simply cheapens the product in the mind of the buyer, and leaves money on the table.

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (6 months ago)

I got it, so no rear screen, no AF, can only take up to a maximum of 32 or so shots, fixed ASA/ISO value and cannot go past 3200, RAW only.
And maybe, just maybe, like as if film was expired, didn't load properly or the shutter was screwed up, you may end up with all blank shots.

Now THAT is a 3000 dream camera I want, all reminiscent of the the good 'ol days of film :)

5 upvotes
EcoPix
By EcoPix (6 months ago)

That's why it can only be used in the Scottish Highlands - if it gets too hot the shadows will go green like film. The world's first digital camera that you have to keep in an icebox in summer.
Come to think of it, Nikon already make that - it's called a V1. Get it too hot and it just stops - at least film cameras kept shooting!

3 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (6 months ago)

Most film cameras didn't rely on batteries for operation either

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (5 months ago)

@ Nishi Drew,
"Most film cameras didn't rely on batteries for operation either"

Only the old MF ones. All the AF ones, that also no longer rely on a cocking lever for film advance but a motor, NEED a battery to operate.

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (6 months ago)

They need to dumb down the sensor and cut the price by 1/3 or even 1/4. This is crazy

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

the price has nothing to do with the cost.
it's just a test how stupid buyers can be.

8 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

yabokkie - you seriously believe that? What next - you gonna tell me that price of FF sensor is equal to price of APS-C and calibrating viewfinder with 100% coverage is equal to the one with 98% coverage? And so on and so on?
Jeez, man, you keep on amazing me.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

let's say a full-frame sensor costs many times as APS-C,
so what?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (6 months ago)

so what what?

2 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (6 months ago)

Why would it be crazy or stupid? If it is a tool that makes excellent quality pictures, then it is a good tool for at least some photographers.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (6 months ago)

all metal, no AF, no rear LED, that would be great, add 4G and it would be perfect

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

an all metal lens sound a good idea for no color aberrations.

2 upvotes
benben1999
By benben1999 (6 months ago)

What if this camera comes with detachable sensor/LCD module for future upgrade, has no AF module to save space and reduce power consumption? Its simplified design and functions may enable it to last for decades like the original FE, FM or F2. All you have to do is to upgrade/replace the sensor/LCD module to catch up with the MP race. This kind of replacement should be much cheaper than buying a new camera. Would it be a camera that you want to buy? Just my 2 cents.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (6 months ago)

It seems that Nikon has lost its lead in making the best cutting edge digital cameras and is now resorting to make stripped down antique looking cameras to attract die-hard fans of yesteryears.

Do they really think that there are people willing to pay up to $3,000 for a body with basic 70s camera technology which is purposely downgraded not to be able to take videos? Will it have a manual focusing screen for the authentic manual focus similar to the FM2?

I would probably be interested if they would sell such a full frame DSLR for below $1,000 (since it will have very basic function).

3 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (6 months ago)

Which maker makes a better camera than a D4, or than a D800E?

5 upvotes
RadPhoto
By RadPhoto (6 months ago)

@rhlpetrus I agree. I own a D800E and it's AMAZING!

0 upvotes
atamola
By atamola (6 months ago)

It seems that I'm in the slow group... because for the speculation so far -aside from the reduced size- I don't quite see how this camera is any better than the D700/D800.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (6 months ago)

It's not, it is different. Why everything needs to be better than everything else? What's the problem with the D700 or the D800?

3 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (6 months ago)

Why should its price surprise anyone? A D600 FF with its rather cheap D7000-ish body is $2000 or so, so for an intricate 1970's style body, $3000 sounds like what it should cost.

1 upvote
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

You can but refurb d600 for less than $1400 right now. Probably a good deal if someone is in the market for one

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Well, D600 is half-plastic camera with plenty of compromises and shortcuts to lower the price. Swap it with full metal body, great viewfinder, more advanced controls and price goes up very quickly.

Still though IMHO 3000$ is bit over the board. It should be closer to D800, if not in between D800 and D600.

2 upvotes
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

Isn't a d800 basically $3000 anyway? And personally I would welcome a camera with good internals with less extravagant body. Digital cameras are disposable in their current state. At least until the point that the tech isn't changing so fast. So I have no intention of paying a ton of money for a camera body built to last decades when the innards that it protects will be obsolete in 5yrs. Look at the canon 5d, the original. Great camera still but simply outdated by almost any modern camera. Its 8yrs old or there about, so I don't want a body that is meant to last 20-30yrs. Film cameras were different. Thats my issue with these kinds of niche cameras. Its different for those who need the weatherproofing--I do realize some do. But I get bummed at the fact that basically all higher spec cameras have this extra cost that I don't need nor want.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (6 months ago)

The fact that a D600, refurb, costs below 1,500 means what? The new D610 is 2,000, the 6D, even worse body, about same. A metal chassis with a great OVF would certainly cost more to make. The electronics that may be missing (and we actually don't know if there's anything missing, are the cheaper part of a camera.

1 upvote
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

Well, since I was replying to a poster talking about a D600, (note it didn't say D610) I mean that a D600 doesn't cost $2000. Simple really. Also he said it should be priced closer to the D800 rather than $3000, in which case a D800 pretty much will run you $3000 anywhere you buy one. Now, neither of us ever mentioned a 6D, so Ill ask you: What does that mean?

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (6 months ago)

electronic cameras are very disposable no matter how perfectly they are built.

ever heard of RoHS ? ;)

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (6 months ago)

I'm honestly surprised "refub" or other used D600's aren't yet at the $1000 mark, given its "soiled" reputation.

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (6 months ago)

$3K for body only? Not a chance. Nikon is not that crazy. Nikon makes cameras, not jewelry. It will be around the price of D610 (or cheaper).

4 upvotes
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

Hope so. Seems rumors are rarely wrong anymore though.

3 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (6 months ago)

Why? Is the body going to be even lower level than a D610 or a 6D? Why? My bet is it's higher grade, more metal, better OVF, more external controls, so likely 2,500 or even higher.

1 upvote
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

A stripped down stills-only camera while it's probably going to be a good one, $3000.00 price??!? Seriously? Why bother unless all you care about is what your camera looks like? I've been wanting a no-video stills camera forever but I'm not going to spend twice what I can buy an a7 for because it says nikon and looks like an old camera. This must officially be the first camera designed explicitly for hipsters.
Hope that part of this rumor is wrong because if it isn't this is the worst camera intro in a long time

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (6 months ago)

You are absolutely right. Even the Leica M which still use its true rangefinder focus technology has to include video in it whether one is going to use it or not.

Such a stills only digital camera can never be sold for anywhere close to $3,000.

Maybe they might just introduce one which just shoot black and white to compete with the Leica M Monochrom.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

the whole still photo camera industry is built on movie film after Leica, where its value resides.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (6 months ago)

Why are non Nikon users so upset with a camera that hasn't been even released? Interesting.

1 upvote
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

Im not upset, maybe disappointed at the current rumor content of this article. I would love to be able to buy a camera made for taking pictures, without video, without 8 million buttons covering every square inch of it, without it being bigger for the sake of being bigger, without being made of expensive metals made to last decades when the electronic guts will be obsolete in 5yrs, without being water proof, and without being made to look like something it isn't just to please retro hungry hipsters who have never used a film slr body in their lives and want to pretend they are now.

0 upvotes
JMichaelsPhoto
By JMichaelsPhoto (6 months ago)

Personally, I'm hoping for an F3 form factor with modern guts and backward/forward compatibility with all of my lenses, AI-s to AFS. I see many comments from the peanut gallery about this being a Hipster's wet dream, they wish. Many of us started on cameras like the FE, FM, and F3 back in the 70's/80's, I've still got my FE2 and F3 and I loved both, to us this won't be some throw-back fad, it'll take us back to our roots. The possibilities are endless and whatever is revealed, I'll be ready and willing. This is the best news I've heard from Nikon in a while.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (6 months ago)

Nikon is desperately searching for a niche market: nostalgic people who are willing to pay more for less.

5 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (6 months ago)

Wrong. This camera is for photographers who have no need of useless gimmicks.

13 upvotes
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (6 months ago)

LOL.

Actually . . .IMHO I don't see why both of you can't be right and it still be a great camera. Let's just see the camera, what it can do, how it feels to use it. Let it be just a camera . . . <grin>

3 upvotes
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

At the price quoted here...it's for photographers who worry more about what their camera looks like than what their images look like.

3 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (6 months ago)

Less is more.

2 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (6 months ago)

"who worry more about what their camera looks like than what their images look like."
bingo!

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

tjwaggoner - and... how exactly did you figured out that this camera will create worse pictures than... say: D4 (which is more expensive) ?
You should find a job as a prophet. In circus.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
1 upvote
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

Did I say anything about the pictures the camera will make? Cameras don't take pictures anyway. Im talking about those who are obsessed with the look of their camera, with it being "cool" or "retro". Those who want to look like they are shooting a film body but don't want to really.
Anyone who would pay this amount for a stripped down version of a camera already on the market simply based on its outward appearance is one of those that I speak of.
Perhaps you should find, instead of a job, a lesson in reading comprehension.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (6 months ago)

From the reaction here it's looking like a real winner ;-) .

2 upvotes
olypan
By olypan (6 months ago)

Middle class Guardian readers then!

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (6 months ago)

Since photography is a visual art, it is not at all surprising if some photographers are interested in the looks of a camera.

2 upvotes
tissunique
By tissunique (6 months ago)

less is good but for $3000?

0 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (6 months ago)

Bring it on ! I still have my FM from 1979...and whilst your at it how about a FF rangefinder camera ? Oh sorry Sony already have one.....

5 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (6 months ago)

Yea Sony has a full frame, that has no lenses available for it and has come out with yet another mount...
I don't understand how anyone could seriously consider a Sony, considering that in the past 5 years they have had 3 different lens mounts, and all of their cameras have had woeful system development with lackluster lenses and huge gaps in the line-up.
This is just the next in the many, many camera models they have thrown at the wall to try and garner market share.

6 upvotes
ventur
By ventur (6 months ago)

3 diferent mounts? afaik Sony has 2 mounts, A-mount and E-mount, and each of them has 2 formats, APS-C and Full Frame

the same goes with any other brand, Canon and Nikon also have 2 mounts, one for SLR and other for mirrorless, the BIG diference is that Sony has a FF mirrorless and canikon dont ;)

and yes, there arent very lenses available, but the FF mirrorless system is one week old, so its not that bad, in 2014 there will be 10 lenses available. Can you tell me how many lenses have the EOS-M and CX mounts?

4 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Sony got 4 different formats it needs to work on, each one of them with different set of lenses.
Canon got 3.
Nikon got 3.
And fun fact: Both Nikon and Canon released more lenses per year than Sony almost every year since 2007. And both of these companies already have a great line-ups of lenses in their DSLR mounts.

So please... stop this blind propaganda on how Sony is great and how it's no worse than competition.

5 upvotes
ventur
By ventur (6 months ago)

it´s not propaganda, its a clarification, it seems that there is alot of confused people out there...

and you have to do your math again... do you know how many lenses released Sony in 2012/13? hint: more then Canon and Nikon ;)

and by the way, Nikon has another mount you forgot, you cant forget to split the CX mount in 2, CX and CX-AW, cause you only have a waterproof body if you have waterproof lenses.

and just to finish, i'm not doing blind propaganda, Sony
has released a great line of mirroless APS-C cameras and lenses, and now it steped up and made it full frame to, it made the smallest/cheapest/lightest fullframe camera ever, with excellent Zeiss optics, and thas a good thing in my book ;), just dont know why it bothers you!

3 upvotes
lecoupdejarnac
By lecoupdejarnac (6 months ago)

There a lots of lenses the can be used on the Sony A7/A7r if you have the right adapters:
- Leica M mount lenses (some great ones from Voigtlander too)
- Canon FD lenses
- Canon EF lenses (with AF if you use the Metabones adapter)
Nikon lenses can be adapter too but unfortunately there aren't any AF adapters yet.

4 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (6 months ago)

If you have to use other lenses with mounts from other manufacturers, what is the point of buying into that system, it's not like Sony has a better flash system, or a better focusing system, or anything else that makes it compelling does it?

It just blows me away how Sony users accept the lack of system depth, and the lack of Sony supplying any consistency within the system and then have the gall to defend it by saying you can use other brand's lenses.

News flash= if your using Nikon lenses on your Sony camera, thank Nikon for your great images!!!!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (6 months ago)

Stop quoting the $3K price!
That rumor along with the associated specifications have been debunked by NR. They are still standing by the original rumored specifications which make way more sense.

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

we hope so!
It's better to be positively surprised with lower price, than negatively with higher!

0 upvotes
viktoriskra
By viktoriskra (6 months ago)

Every posh hipster's wet dream :-)

That being said, if it cures mid-life crisis better than a chopper or an extramarital affair, its $3 grand price-tag seems like a bargain.

9 upvotes
ABM Barry
By ABM Barry (6 months ago)

Aaaah yes! a wise man with a good foundation.

I'm to believe that some extramarital affairs run into the Billions!

So therefore given this sound logic, I see no reason not to buy a few superb Primes as well.

I'm sure the wife will see the logic now.

Thank you viktoriskra.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
viktoriskra
By viktoriskra (6 months ago)

May your mid-life crisis last forever!

Happy snapping!

4 upvotes
mauricegold
By mauricegold (6 months ago)

I was under the impression that the Nikon F6 was still in production in japan, and was selling for the equivalent of US$2,500 or so. I may be mistaken in one or more of these facts.
But if the price was not far off, how come it would be so much more for a stripped down version?

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (6 months ago)

Nikon DaFuq?

0 upvotes
jkokich
By jkokich (6 months ago)

Striped down?! $3,000?!?! Who are they, Leica?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

You may want to look into the the new retail and used pricing of the Epson RD1 bodies.

0 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (6 months ago)

$3,000 for body only for a camera that does less then the others?!? o_O

4 upvotes
JMichaelsPhoto
By JMichaelsPhoto (6 months ago)

There's no reason to assume this new Nikon won't be at least as capable as the Alpha A7, and no more or less expensive.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

No reason to assume it won't be more expensive than an a7? The article says $3000-$3500 for this old-new nikon hipster bling. The a7 is on sale now for $1700.

3 upvotes
JMichaelsPhoto
By JMichaelsPhoto (6 months ago)

There's no official announcement, no confirmed price. 3K is one of many unsubstantiated rumors. "Hipster bling"? Jesus you people are ignorant.

6 upvotes
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

Then I'm ignorantly commenting on the article that's posted here. That says fairly clearly $3000.00 for the price. You're the one who says there's nothing that suggests its any more expensive than the $1700 a7. Who's ignorant here? I don't care how anyone spends their money. But it is what is. A mating call to those who care more about how their camera looks than their pictures

2 upvotes
JMichaelsPhoto
By JMichaelsPhoto (6 months ago)

And I quote, "Nikon Rumors has been reporting possible specifications all week."

Yeah, you're pretty ignorant, a lemming, following the will of the mob without knowing what you're talking about. This may well be a $3K camera, but don't pretend you know more than anyone else, which is nothing.

This is a reblog, nothing more. Follow the actual source
http://nikonrumors.com/

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

Not following any mob. And not crazy about your name calling. Maybe you're commenting on other articles, im not. This article that is posted above this comment section is what I was discussing. As such, I'm not the one pretending to know anything. I'm commenting my opinions on an article posted by dpreview. You're the one who's running around calling people names acting like your hair is on fire because some has some negative thoughts on this article. You are the only one acting like you know more than everyone else. First saying it won't be that expensive now saying it may be a $3000 camera. Who's pretending to know something. All I said was the rumored specs/price is ridiculous for the current camera market. And I stand by that opinion: at $3000 for this rumored camera it's nothing but a niche product designed to appeal to those willing to pay a premium for a "look".

4 upvotes
mholdef
By mholdef (6 months ago)

A7 body is less money, but as DPReview points out, the Sony 55/1.8 is an extra $1000..., whereas the Nikon may come at $3000 with a 50/1.8 included

2 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (6 months ago)

I've recently sold my FM3A and digital version would be welcome. Because still got 3 great F-mount lenses, that are waiting to be used. I could even live with 1 AF point (for focus conformation), single aperture priority mode, 720p 30fps video and that's it. Don't need any other unnecessary toys on the camera. But for $3000? No way.

0 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (6 months ago)

Over the rumor and the price, I hope it will NOT be a crippled camera. I mean, we are soon in 2014 with big firms around like Sony and the new 7 and 7r.

A simple camera ? Ok but do not make a sort of "regression".

Having a little 16 mp ff Nikon with enhanced manual control, maybe the choice to use the shutter in a mechanical or automatic way, a screen (who on hearth willing to build a digital camera without back screen ??? seriously ??), the possibility of video (not 4k, but just 1080), a good OVF ... I will be ok with that.

Taking away the video would be a real mistake, really, especially if there is the D4 sensor in it...

For the price, it might be not that expensive. We can be surprised.

For the purists ...(LoL) having the choice of video would not be a problem. In what sort of way this can be a problem ?? I have some difficulty to understand ...

I fear the deception about this marketing trick but I stay optimist. Wait and see.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
tjwaggoner
By tjwaggoner (6 months ago)

Well I for one do not want to pay for any video function. At. All. I have zero interest in shooting video so would love to be able to buy a modern camera that is made for stills photography with basic controls, good modern sensor and processing. No exotic metal bodies (digital cameras are disposable) no water proofing needed for me either. They can save money by putting a good evf in it too, or a good ovf is fine too though. But if they happen to produce something like this, they can't price it as high as a d800 or 5diii. That's simply preying on the vanity of hipsters

1 upvote
migus
By migus (6 months ago)

1) Shutter noise = NOISE, hence limiting my venues (no wildlife, no church, show, street, no sleeping babies ...etc.). Sonic signature aside, this is not the feedback i expect from a digital 2014 camera.

2) No video = No way. Though i love stills and landscapes, i expect 4K at 24, 25, 30fps... and above. How else can we acquire this skill? Why are we buying 4K monitors and PJs, if the content is not easily produced?

3) Price = 3K$ seems a 2x marketing experiment (read forae's reaction). Technology already allows for touching the 1K$ magical threshold, but it's likely Sony who must prove it.

I love my FM because it was smaller, lighter and still took my nikkors... can do the same now with Sony. Mitch

5 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

Did you seriously just complained about a shutter noise of camera that wasn't released yet?

SERIOUSLY?!

How old are you? (ps. small hint: Your Sony got louder shutter noise than pretty much every Nikon released during last 5 years)

4 upvotes
migus
By migus (6 months ago)

" seriously just complained about a shutter noise of camera that wasn't released yet? SERIOUSLY?! "

Yes: Based on the audio track, likely boosted by ?dB, this shutter exceeded my worst Nikon hammers of the 80s. None was usable in quiet locations. This is my feedback to Nikon.

Sony: Agreed! Currently the noisiest offenders in my bag are the NEX bodies; hence sometimes they must just stay there unused. However, their sensors and features are also more desirable to me than all the canikons gathering dust.

I can't wait to get rid of the mech shutter, which is going the way of the AA filter. Mitch

0 upvotes
fcimbar
By fcimbar (6 months ago)

As if Jack Shepard is on the island with an FM camera :)

1 upvote
dccdp
By dccdp (6 months ago)

$3000 camera helps Nikon revive after losing $100 compact market. Yeah, sure. Seems like some camera manufacturers are so desperate they think they can survive by milking that ever elusive class of form-over-function overly-rich glossy-eyed snobs...

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

rumor says an FX SLR with DX AF s/a D5200.

0 upvotes
Yanko Kitanov
By Yanko Kitanov (6 months ago)

If this F-type camera has a flange distance allowing the use of other lenses besides F-mount(without an optical converter needed) it will make a bestseller.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 55 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

F-mount with a 18mm flange-back (12mm back-focus?, DF = "decreased back-focus F-mount") sounds good.

F-mount got a smallest throat than all other SLR mounts on the market and this might have been a great design by Nikon more than half a century ago.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cabgeo
By cabgeo (6 months ago)

FF or APS-C? What ever it is, I hope it uses existing lens mounts and not some Nikon version of the E, EF or NX. I think MFT would have failed save for the open/shared system. All those clicking noises as he changes settings, those sounds and dials will come at a premium, it is not like the Coolpix A is this tremendous value.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

How about the Nikon SP mount from their film rangefinder, would that count as "existing"?

There was a limited release in 2005.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

no chance for fake Contax with a relatively longer flange-back than digital mirrorless (Sony or Canon).

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (6 months ago)

According to rumors it's FF camera using regular F-mount.

0 upvotes
Madaboutpix
By Madaboutpix (6 months ago)

There is an inherent attraction in nostalgia. But we shouldn't confuse it with meaningful progress. If there is one thing that has put photography "in my hands again", it's been going digital. Taping up my back LCD to "relearn" photography - why would I do that? It tells me right on the spot, if I have nailed a particular shot or not. I gives me access to all the major camera settings in one place. Don't get me wrong, I usually use my 100-percent-coverage OVF for framing.

And ergonomics do matter. Back in the film days, I sometimes played with my dad's FE-2 (handling-wise pretty similar to its fully mechanical FM-2 cousin). Well, compared to the Minolta X-700 I was shooting at the time, it handled like ... a brick, sorry. No moulded grip, no thumb rest, no nothing. I remember I felt the X-700 had a more contrasty viewfinder image, unobstructed by a needle, much as the FE-2 may have been the better camera in other ways. Try a recent Pentax K model, if you want excellent ergonomics ...

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

for faming, a wide-angle view well over 200% to 800% (area) should be great, like DX crop on an FX camera, because the left eye won't work well when using a long tele lens shooting fast moving subjects, football, birds, etc.

a first step to the solution can be found in Nokia 808.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
LiquidSilver
By LiquidSilver (6 months ago)

I wonder how much post-processing and color correction was done in the promo video.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

the camera cannot be used to shoot its own promotion video if no video feature and we should not care. the video may be shot with a 5D3.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 554
12345