Nikon management says "no plan for mirror-less system"

A Nikon executive was interviewed by DC Watch website in Japan, where he mentioned that Nikon is interested in mirror-less system (like that of Panasonic G1), but they do not have any in development, nor do they feel the need to develop one right now.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/trend/2009/03/13/10427.html

I was interested in what Nikon was going to offer us in this new genre, but looks like we will have to wait a while for them to produce one.

Atu

PS: sorry if this was not the right forum to post this.

Then it's not going to be an SLR anymore.
Or more like a a P&S, bridge, or rangefinder with interchangeable lens.

--
just me
Teddy

--
Cliff

didnt they once said there would be no fullframe dslr from nikon a few years before?

If that is what Nikon management is thinking, the competition will 'decide' for them.

Once Samsung releases its NX camera, everyone will have to follow the
technology, almost immediately, to keep up.

If Nikon ignores this innovation they will place themselves in a similiar position they were in for many years ( behind Canon).

Some companies will think 'This will hurt our DSLR sales'.
It sure will. All IMHO.

Very, very, exciting for us photogs.

Teddy said:

Then it's not going to be an SLR anymore.

Click to expand...

Single-lens reflex by definiton says you have only one lens through which you take the photo and get the VF image - a single optical path. With this deifnition those EVF cameras are SLRs - and actually all "P&S" camreras having the LCD as VF fit into this definition as well. in EVF cameras you just the the "VF reflextion" via an electronic path - but still exactly the same image you photo as distinction to the P&S, rangefinder etc cameras having totally separate optical path for the VF image.

But then in common terminology the SLR has become the synonym of an interchangeable lens system cameras with optical VF through the mirror.

I see a "terminology war" in the horizon.

Teddy said:

Or more like a a P&S, bridge, or rangefinder with interchangeable lens.

Click to expand...

Why should Nikon go this way anyway? Just cos of Samsung´s NX-System? (which i - btw - appriciate to see soon). Just to bring another "me too"-product to the market that only proofs that Nikon can do it but others do much better? Do we really like to see the same thing Nikon does in the P&S market? I personally don´t like that idea and hope Nikon stay´s with what they can do best - deliver highly capable DSLR´s.

Sometimes it´s better (and i hope Nikon does listen to me) to stay with your core competence and leave other aspects of a market to others who do better in this field.

--
Cheers
Virgil
My snapshots: http://www.photoforum.ru/12675
Member of NPS

Nikonworks said:

If that is what Nikon management is thinking, the competition will
'decide' for them.

Click to expand...

Yep. However, I'll point out that both Samsung and Nikon use customer marketing research surveys to "figure out what the customer wants." Personally, every one of those surveys I've seen is actually more verification for what the company wants to do or what the customer thinks might be good and doesn't get to actually what makes a better camera. In the end, I believe better products have a better chance of winning.

To cite one example I've seen: some of the compact camera surveys ask what change would you make to the camera to make it better? And the number one answer is often "more focal range." Anyone note the P90's main difference to the P80? Yet, by my judgment, it's a WORSE camera.

However, back to the main point: buying dollars are usually a good indication of what the public wants. To wit:

Nikonworks said:

Once Samsung releases its NX camera, everyone will have to follow the
technology, almost immediately, to keep up.

Click to expand...

If indeed the G1 and its successor, plus the Olympus version, plus the Samsung NX, all sell well enough to start displacing some low-end DSLRs, Nikon (and Canon) have no choice but to respond. But the response can be one of two: (1) create your own miniDX or miniAPS, or (2) make the current DSLRs better, smaller, and lower cost.

Nikonworks said:

If Nikon ignores this innovation they will place themselves in a
similiar position they were in for many years ( behind Canon).

Click to expand...

Let me change your wording: "If Nikon ignores any success of the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILCs), the low-end of Nikon's DSLR lineup will be compromised."

What scares me more than the threat of MILCs for Nikon is what Nikon has already done in the Coolpix realm: they've given up quality, technology, and innovation leads to simply be a commodity low-price leader. In other words, as other compacts got better and more competitors entered the market, Nikon did not stay on top of the Coolpix market, it went for quantity with mediocre and me-too models. This does not bode well for the bottom of the DSLR range (or the top of the compact range, for that matter).

Nikonworks said:

Some companies will think 'This will hurt our DSLR sales'.
It sure will. All IMHO.

Very, very, exciting for us photogs.

Click to expand...

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (18 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

Why can't "they" leave well enough alone? IMO, an EVF can NEVER replace an optical viewfinder. The day Nikon abandons an optical viewfinder on anything other than an entry-level DSLR is a day of doom.

Do you techies out there really believe an EVF can substitute for the "real thing"? Are you all real photographers or just tech junkies? (Sorry, let the flames begin). I want to see, with my own eye, every detail of what I am looking at, undisturbed by any electronic gizmo.

Please don't say, "well if we had it your way, we'd still have cranks to start the engines in our cars". I'm all for advancements which create an improvement. I just don't see how an EVF is a benefit over an optical VF.

Thom

wouldn't Nikon be better off developing a coolpix with a dx sensor rather than a different interchangeable system? as a Nikon user why would I want a G1 sized body? I may as well get a d40/d60 with the kit lens and still be able to use my existing lenses when needed

Don't get me wrong I can see where the likes of Panasonic or Samsung are coming from they don't have a big investment in a system.

I would have thought that a G10 sized body with such a sensor would be very popular something smaller like a P6000 or lx3 body should be a hot item or am i missing something? For the likes of Nikon and Canon such a camera would seem to make sense. If I'm photographing wildlife a aps camera in a pocket would be really handy.

menameisatsushi said:

A Nikon executive was interviewed by DC Watch website in Japan, where
he mentioned that Nikon is interested in mirror-less system (like
that of Panasonic G1), but they do not have any in development, nor
do they feel the need to develop one right now.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/trend/2009/03/13/10427.html

I was interested in what Nikon was going to offer us in this new
genre, but looks like we will have to wait a while for them to
produce one.

Atu

PS: sorry if this was not the right forum to post this.

Click to expand...

Just like they don't need live view, sensor cleaning, video modes, etc. Nothing like being adamantly myopic, or, like Nikon usually is, they won't say anything about a product that is in the concept stage.

thequacksoflife said:

wouldn't Nikon be better off developing a coolpix with a dx sensor
rather than a different interchangeable system?

Click to expand...

Personally, that would be the choice I'd make as a designer for Nikon right now. For quite a few reasons. The prime reason is that Nikon wants to be perceived as a technology leader, not a follower.

thequacksoflife said:

as a Nikon user why would I want a G1 sized body?

Click to expand...

Well, this is one of the issues you face with doing consumer surveys. They will pretty much all say they'd like a smaller, lighter camera. Then, when they try to hold it, they won't like it.

thequacksoflife said:

I may as well get a d40/d60 with the
kit lens and still be able to use my existing lenses when needed

Click to expand...

There's nothing particularly wrong with the D60. Indeed, put a 12mp sensor in it, take out the novice handholding stuff, and let it use non-CPU lenses for exposure, and you'd have a best seller: the digital FM. Try putting a Voightlander 40mm on it and you'll see what I mean.

thequacksoflife said:

I would have thought that a G10 sized body with such a sensor would
be very popular something smaller like a P6000 or lx3 body should be
a hot item or am i missing something?

Click to expand...

No, you're not missing anything. The camera companies are. As much as they like to say they're innovative and forward thinking, they're actually very conservative and take lots of baby steps instead of big ones.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (19 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

ohyva said:

Teddy said:

Then it's not going to be an SLR anymore.

Click to expand...

Single-lens reflex by definiton says you have only one lens through
which you take the photo and get the VF image - a single optical
path. With this deifnition those EVF cameras are SLRs - and actually
all "P&S" camreras having the LCD as VF fit into this definition as
well. in EVF cameras you just the the "VF reflextion" via an
electronic path - but still exactly the same image you photo as
distinction to the P&S, rangefinder etc cameras having totally
separate optical path for the VF image.

But then in common terminology the SLR has become the synonym of an
interchangeable lens system cameras with optical VF through the
mirror.

Click to expand...

I think you've got it backwards. The original definition of SLR refers to the mirror. The looser definition of SLR ignores the mirror aspect.

The "reflex" in SLR refers to the image being reflected via a mirror to the viewfinder. The reflex aspect of the name doesn't refer to the number of optical paths. That's why there's TLR (twin lens reflex) and SLR. The "twin lens" and "single lens" refer to the number of optical paths, no the "reflex" portion of the name.

In common usage, people tend to be less sticky about the "reflex" aspect of the name and sometimes use SLR to describe cameras like the G1, or even cameras with EVFs but fixed lenses (eg: Minolta A1).

larsbc

--
best regards
Claus

Thom Hogan said:

There's nothing particularly wrong with the D60. Indeed, put a 12mp
sensor in it, take out the novice handholding stuff, and let it use
non-CPU lenses for exposure, and you'd have a best seller: the
digital FM. Try putting a Voightlander 40mm on it and you'll see what
I mean.

Click to expand...

That the Dxx range is unable to meter with non-CPU lenses makes Nikon look a little miserly. It probably makes business sense (upgrade to the D200/D300 and you make your money back with what you save on used lenses, perhaps, and Nikon gets to pocket a little extra in return) but it still seems a little ungenerous.

I hope they would too.

Mirror-less system with DX sensor will not be that small once you put a decent and fastish zoom on it.

I was a bit worried when I read the article for the first time, as I thought the guy meant to say they would not produce any non-SLR camera with DX sensor on it. But re-reading the article now, he did not mention anything about the DX sensor compact, so that could still happen reasonably quickly, I guess.

thequacksoflife said:

Thom

wouldn't Nikon be better off developing a coolpix with a dx sensor
rather than a different interchangeable system? as a Nikon user why
would I want a G1 sized body? I may as well get a d40/d60 with the
kit lens and still be able to use my existing lenses when needed

Don't get me wrong I can see where the likes of Panasonic or Samsung
are coming from they don't have a big investment in a system.

I would have thought that a G10 sized body with such a sensor would
be very popular something smaller like a P6000 or lx3 body should be
a hot item or am i missing something? For the likes of Nikon and
Canon such a camera would seem to make sense. If I'm photographing
wildlife a aps camera in a pocket would be really handy.

Click to expand...

Anyway this is a different outfit and so does not count....much like the analysis from some in this sub thread.

Mike

larsbc said:

ohyva said:

Teddy said:

Then it's not going to be an SLR anymore.

Click to expand...

Single-lens reflex by definiton says you have only one lens through
which you take the photo and get the VF image - a single optical
path. With this deifnition those EVF cameras are SLRs - and actually
all "P&S" camreras having the LCD as VF fit into this definition as
well. in EVF cameras you just the the "VF reflextion" via an
electronic path - but still exactly the same image you photo as
distinction to the P&S, rangefinder etc cameras having totally
separate optical path for the VF image.

But then in common terminology the SLR has become the synonym of an
interchangeable lens system cameras with optical VF through the
mirror.

Click to expand...

I think you've got it backwards. The original definition of SLR
refers to the mirror. The looser definition of SLR ignores the
mirror aspect.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but also that was I guess the only way to make the SLR type film cameras. Or then not as some of the oldest box cameras were made so that you first look through the lens to see what there and then place the film or actually the light sensitive plate in the camera to take the photo. There was a mirror also in some dual-lens cameras so mirror alone does not make the camera to be a SLR.

But I admit the SLR has today a specific interpretation, and perhaps it would be best and most clear to have some other name for the EVF based system cameras.

larsbc said:

The "reflex" in SLR refers to the image being reflected via a mirror
to the viewfinder. The reflex aspect of the name doesn't refer to
the number of optical paths. That's why there's TLR (twin lens
reflex) and SLR. The "twin lens" and "single lens" refer to the
number of optical paths, no the "reflex" portion of the name.

In common usage, people tend to be less sticky about the "reflex"
aspect of the name and sometimes use SLR to describe cameras like the
G1, or even cameras with EVFs but fixed lenses (eg: Minolta A1).

Click to expand...

Why do I think this will eventually end up being a downgrade of a D40-type camera and not a higher-end Coolpix?

--
Adrian

--

Personally, as someone who is now past retirement age and who does most of his photography while hiking in extremely rough and remote terrain, I would dearly love to see a G-1 style camera with a sensor similar to what Nikon has in the D3X. Half the weight and size sounds wonderful. More and more I find myself packing along my little Canon SX10IS for just that very reason - a backpack full of SLR gear is more than I want to haul around all day. As for the EVF - well, as bad as my eyes are any more, I don't know as I could tell the difference between a really high-quality EVF and a mirror. If Nikon were to produce something like that I would be first in line to place an order.