Nikon's Best Strategy for Micro DX market?

Most users would agree that the D3/D700 are great cameras. However, without a doubt, we are all waiting for a lighter backup “micro” camera, that we can carry everywhere without breaking our backs.

If you were running Nikon, what strategy would you use to enter/compete in the micro four-thirds market? For example:

a) Create a mirror-less camera that can utilize existing micro four-thirds lenses,
while creating your own micro four-thirds lens offerings.

The advantages of this approach would be that Nikon would not have to
invest, as much in ensuring a full lens lineup, while maintaining and updating
DX/FX lenses.

b) Create a mirror-less micro DX camera, with adapters that would (hopefully)
allow full auto-focus and compatibility with existing DX and FX lenses.

c) Create a mirror-less DX camera (a smaller DX camera), and sell slightly better
picture quality, over the benefits of a smaller “micro camera” body.

Nikon could even considering using DNG format files, as Leica is currently
using. (Software has never been Nikon’s strong point.)

Other ideas?
What would you like to see Nikon offer in a “micro” camera?

My understanding is that Nikon and Canon decided not to participate in the Four Thirds consortium. If that understanding is correct, I don't think either Nikon or Canon has the option of entering that market at all--which means that the only way to compete would be to come up with something competitive.

I've heard that Fuji will be entering the micro four-thirds market.

If this is the case, maybe (hopefully) Nikon can enter the
four-thirds consortium, after the fact?

From a consumer viewpoint, this approach seems like it has some promise.
It would be great to be able to cherry pick from the best lenses from
Olympus, Panasonic, and Nikon...

Especially if Nikon does not wish to sink too much money
into this new platform.

• On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy with a super compact Leica

"x1" type camera, as long as it has the right compromises.

Optimus47 said:

Most users would agree that the D3/D700 are great cameras. However, without a doubt, we are all waiting for a lighter backup “micro” camera, that we can carry everywhere without breaking our backs.

If you were running Nikon, what strategy would you use to enter/compete in the micro four-thirds market? For example:

a) Create a mirror-less camera that can utilize existing micro four-thirds lenses,
while creating your own micro four-thirds lens offerings.

The advantages of this approach would be that Nikon would not have to
invest, as much in ensuring a full lens lineup, while maintaining and updating
DX/FX lenses.

b) Create a mirror-less micro DX camera, with adapters that would (hopefully)
allow full auto-focus and compatibility with existing DX and FX lenses.

c) Create a mirror-less DX camera (a smaller DX camera), and sell slightly better
picture quality, over the benefits of a smaller “micro camera” body.

Nikon could even considering using DNG format files, as Leica is currently
using. (Software has never been Nikon’s strong point.)

Other ideas?
What would you like to see Nikon offer in a “micro” camera?

Click to expand...

--

Risking the wrath of those who know what 'we' all want, I would comment:

Not ALL want a much lighter camera/lens (or at least understand the ramifications of that lightness when it comes time to take the picture) as we understand the realtionship and effects of mass and inertia on the steadiness of the camera when taking the picture. This is especially true as we get older and WANT a lighter load but have a less steady hand/body. Same holds true with SIZE. An instrument CAN BE too small and too light for effective use by those employing it.

I am NOT saying the camera/lens should be heavier, only that some of us (while we don't relish carrying the additional weight) see an unacceptable tradeoff of too little (size and weight)... This holds true in many fields for different reasons such as laptops which may not never be too light but they certainly can be too small to effectively interact with (with the current modes of input, etc.).

Ric

IMHO Nikon would have to deliver 'optimum image quality' to satisfy most DSLR photographers who want top IQ in a lighter body weight with the compactness in the body and the lenses.

I personally would not be satisfied, unless it was a small DSLR but with a 'full frame' sensor.

The Leica M9 is the nearest I have seen that fulfils the dream but it is so expensive, its quite heavy and I would rather have a DSLR!

Nikon - a Digital FM3a please (oh and make sure it can utilise Leica M lenses)

make that a mikro FX nt

Optimus47 said:

If this is the case, maybe (hopefully) Nikon can enter the
four-thirds consortium, after the fact?

Click to expand...

Why should they? They won't make money selling Nikon-branded lenses and would have to design a bunch of stuff. Your comment about cherry-picking from multiple companies for the lenses is exactly why they shouldn't enter the consortium.

Nope, their best strategy is to leapfrog the m4/3 market altogether and come up with a microDX camera (or if possible, a micro FX camera) that has superior noise and low-light capabilities, in addition to being smaller than a traditional SLR. Design a few basic lenses with a proprietary mount, and add an adapter to use Nikon DX/FX lenses (probably the AF-S versions).

Anthony

Some fine reply's here. I think they make a compact camera, it's the D40/D60/D3000! Just pop on a small zoom and away you go. (Compaired to my D700, grip and 24-70 that combo is a pocket camera.)

What I would really like to see from Nikon is a DX compact like the Oly Pen with a set of three minature lenses. a 16-70, 70-200 and a very compact 18-200 if possible. Make this a premium system and it might do well.

I feel the micro 4/3rds system is a major step back in a world where we covit full frame sensors.
--
Regards,

Jeff Morris / Homecinemaman

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Snoopy, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

I hunt, I peck, I squint, all on a Dell M1330 13' laptop. So don't laugh, I'm happy there aren't more typo's!

They should stick with the DX sensor.

Make a mirror less system of a size similar to that of the new Lecia X1. That camera uses a DX size sensor and is not much bigger than the Panny GF1.

I would be an entire new line of lenses to sell as well.
--
http://web.mac.com/daveburroughs/Site/Welcome.html

Beat Army!

I think Nikon will have a proprietary lens mount of its own if it decides to enter the market of big sensor compact cameras. Or it may do what Leica did and release a fixed lens compact like the Leica X-1.

Optimus47 said:

Most users would agree that the D3/D700 are great cameras. However, without a doubt, we are all waiting for a lighter backup “micro” camera, that we can carry everywhere without breaking our backs.

If you were running Nikon, what strategy would you use to enter/compete in the micro four-thirds market? For example:

a) Create a mirror-less camera that can utilize existing micro four-thirds lenses,
while creating your own micro four-thirds lens offerings.

The advantages of this approach would be that Nikon would not have to
invest, as much in ensuring a full lens lineup, while maintaining and updating
DX/FX lenses.

b) Create a mirror-less micro DX camera, with adapters that would (hopefully)
allow full auto-focus and compatibility with existing DX and FX lenses.

c) Create a mirror-less DX camera (a smaller DX camera), and sell slightly better
picture quality, over the benefits of a smaller “micro camera” body.

Nikon could even considering using DNG format files, as Leica is currently
using. (Software has never been Nikon’s strong point.)

Other ideas?
What would you like to see Nikon offer in a “micro” camera?

Click to expand...

a) If I recall correctly Micro 4/3 is not an open standard like 4/3 so that could be an issue.

As for using 4/3 lenses they need an adapter to be far enough away, and their image circle is for a sensor smaller than DX so it wouldn't work.

b) That should be possible with whatever they use since the adapter just would need to transfer the signals.

C) This is a big issue, micro 4/3 is great because of it's tiny size and even with that and a collapsible lens the EP-1 is pretty big. While not the same size as my E-420 it was getting close. With the pancake the EP-1 fills a normal pocket while the 420 needs a big pocket or one from cargo pants.

If you go to DX the size will increase and then you are right next to the size of a traditional SLR. It could work if they focused on primes but that only serves a small segment of the population, people have come accustomed to zoom lenses.

As weird as this sounds since it is a new standard Nikon might be best to go slightly smaller then Olympus and 4/3. Looking at the new 7D from Canon the technology is getting great for tiny pixel densities and Nikon has the size to make a whole new line up a lot easier than anyone except Canon. Panasonic/Olympus did this to keep costs low since they share sensors for the most part but in this market size will be king.

CBR1100XX said:

As weird as this sounds since it is a new standard Nikon might be best to go slightly smaller then Olympus and 4/3. Looking at the new 7D from Canon the technology is getting great for tiny pixel densities and Nikon has the size to make a whole new line up a lot easier than anyone except Canon. Panasonic/Olympus did this to keep costs low since they share sensors for the most part but in this market size will be king.

Click to expand...

In September Nikonrumors.com spotted a new Nikon lens patent, filed at the US Patent & Trademark Office on September 10th, which describes a 1.4/18mm lens with an image circle of 17mm and an angle of view of 50 degrees:

That would equal about a 45mm lens on an FX camera and mean a crop factor of about 2.5.

Maybe that indicates Nikon's answer to Micro Four Thirds? An even smaller sensor, resulting in an even more compact camera system? It would make sense for me, because in this market segment small size is indeed paramount.

Of course, not all patents end up in products eventually.

First they will bring a fixed lens APS-C, hopefully with a good zoom. Later an entry-level mirror-less APS-C (F mount though). I don't see Nikon worrying about a micro-F mount. The F-mount is small enough that the camera, w/o the mirror, will be small, they only need to design a few special lenses with shorter flange distance. The present lens line will need a distance adapter, but no need to actually change mount IMO.

Optimus47 said:

Most users would agree that the D3/D700 are great cameras. However, without a doubt, we are all waiting for a lighter backup “micro” camera, that we can carry everywhere without breaking our backs.

If you were running Nikon, what strategy would you use to enter/compete in the micro four-thirds market? For example:

a) Create a mirror-less camera that can utilize existing micro four-thirds lenses,
while creating your own micro four-thirds lens offerings.

The advantages of this approach would be that Nikon would not have to
invest, as much in ensuring a full lens lineup, while maintaining and updating
DX/FX lenses.

b) Create a mirror-less micro DX camera, with adapters that would (hopefully)
allow full auto-focus and compatibility with existing DX and FX lenses.

c) Create a mirror-less DX camera (a smaller DX camera), and sell slightly better
picture quality, over the benefits of a smaller “micro camera” body.

Nikon could even considering using DNG format files, as Leica is currently
using. (Software has never been Nikon’s strong point.)

Other ideas?
What would you like to see Nikon offer in a “micro” camera?

Click to expand...

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Optimus47 said:

Most users would agree that the D3/D700 are great cameras. However, without a doubt, we are all waiting for a lighter backup “micro” camera, that we can carry everywhere without breaking our backs.

If you were running Nikon, what strategy would you use to enter/compete in the micro four-thirds market? For example:

a) Create a mirror-less camera that can utilize existing micro four-thirds lenses,
while creating your own micro four-thirds lens offerings.

The advantages of this approach would be that Nikon would not have to
invest, as much in ensuring a full lens lineup, while maintaining and updating
DX/FX lenses.

b) Create a mirror-less micro DX camera, with adapters that would (hopefully)
allow full auto-focus and compatibility with existing DX and FX lenses.

c) Create a mirror-less DX camera (a smaller DX camera), and sell slightly better
picture quality, over the benefits of a smaller “micro camera” body.

Nikon could even considering using DNG format files, as Leica is currently
using. (Software has never been Nikon’s strong point.)

Other ideas?
What would you like to see Nikon offer in a “micro” camera?

Click to expand...

Everybody is talking about getting rid of mirrors and optical viewfinders, replacing them with LCDs and EVFs. But the electronic viewfinder solutions are really the weak point of the m4/3 cameras. And there are no cost advantages either, judging by prices. A compact Nikon micro DX should obviously not have a mirror, but I really hope they will have a built in optical viewfinder besides the LCD.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

Posted by CBR1100XX [PROFILE]

CBR1100XX wrote:

C) This is a big issue, micro 4/3 is great because of it's tiny size and even with that and a collapsible lens the EP-1 is pretty big. While not the same size as my E-420 it was getting close. With the pancake the EP-1 fills a normal pocket while the 420 needs a big pocket or one from cargo pants.

=> Agreed! I must admit that it looks pretty funny when attaching a relatively big lens
(e.g. 45-200) to a tiny camera body (GF-1 or EP-1).

Who knows? Maybe some clever designer will create a camera, which is all lens,
attached to a sensor with a grip (a gun type camera)...

Nah! Too radical looking!

Smaller and cool "retro looking" is still the way to go, from a marketibility standpoint.
Or at least collapsible/compact.
It would be great if they could keep the existing F mount.

I'm just curious which design choices would be the best bang for the buck for both Nikon and the consumer...

Optical view finder is very expensive when you add live view feature and video capability. There is no sense to keep Optical view finder when users demand pocketable size and live view. It is main reason Olympus answers the question by dropping the prism and mirror. It is big revolution for DSLR camera. We will see more products coming from Nikon, Canon and Sony with Sony R1 image quality product mirrorless. I am still using my loved R1 because my D80 just doesn't perform as equal.

Sumins said:

Optical view finder is very expensive when you add live view feature and video capability. There is no sense to keep Optical view finder when users demand pocketable size and live view. It is main reason Olympus answers the question by dropping the prism and mirror. It is big revolution for DSLR camera. We will see more products coming from Nikon, Canon and Sony with Sony R1 image quality product mirrorless. I am still using my loved R1 because my D80 just doesn't perform as equal.

Click to expand...

For any kind of action shooting optical viewfinders are best. I dont buy the cost issue. You could buy a DSLR with prism, mirror and live view for far less money than the recent m 4/3 cameras.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

I bought an optical view finder for my LX3. They are not that expensive and can be made an accessory.

The Lecia X1 is not larger than the Panny GF1, nor the Olympus. See the review on this site.

The DX formate has built in advantages in cost (readily available) and in larger pixels.

A smaller formate than the 4/3rds is not a bad idea, but the DX formate has a lot of advantages based around the idea that it and it's technology is here now.
--
http://web.mac.com/daveburroughs/Site/Welcome.html

Beat Army!

Andrew Koenig said:

My understanding is that Nikon and Canon decided not to participate in the Four Thirds consortium. If that understanding is correct,

Click to expand...

It isn't.

There was never a four thirds consortium for Nikon or Canon to participate in. Four thirds is literally patented, trademarked, and copyrighted by Olympus. Kodak was a sensor supplier to Olympus, Fuji an alternate supplier, Sanyo a body mechanism supplier . The only time anyone ever "joins" four thirds is as a supplier (Panasonic replaced Kodak as a sensor supplier). That, and Sigma, who had Oly by the short hairs. "Give us the spec, or we'll simply reverse engineer it like we did Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta, and we'll tell the world we had to do that because you don't let anyone see the 'open spec' you keep talking about".

They got a Kodak manager to stand up beside an Oly manager and say "this is a partnership" because they were buying 50,000 sensors from Kodak, about $5M/year. To get a sale like that, Kodak would have a manager come to your press conference and say pretty much anything you want them to, even if it's something like "our sensors outperform other sensors because we have Colonel Sanders deep fry them with the chicken and the 7 secret herbs and spices".

Andrew Koenig said:

I don't think either Nikon or Canon has the option of entering that market at all--which means that the only way to compete would be to come up with something competitive.

Click to expand...

I like that statement: "the only way to compete would be to come up with something competitive."

I'm still expecting a Kodak DX EVIL any day now. My sources say it, Thom's sources say it (and we have different sources).

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

I say make a full framed all manual camera. Utilizing only the ultra-bare basics. Manual focus, manual shutter ****, maybe even go as far as making it RAW only! Everything possible to make it the smallest, least expensive camera possible without sacrificing build quality and image quality.