Reading mode: Light Dark

A smaller, less bulky FX DSLR in the future?

Go to last post
D

david nix

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
307
Reaction score
15
Location
Bismarck/Mandan, ND, US
My ONLY compliant is that after a day of shooitng with my D700 and a wide angle lens for landscapes my arms and hands are tired; I'm approaching 70.

Do you think that it will be technologically possible to reduce the size and weight in a FX DSLR and retain the 12 mp and other wonerful capabilities of the D700?
I, for one, sure hope so!!
 
david nix said:
My ONLY compliant is that after a day of shooitng with my D700 and a wide angle lens for landscapes my arms and hands are tired; I'm approaching 70.

Do you think that it will be technologically possible to reduce the size and weight in a FX DSLR and retain the 12 mp and other wonerful capabilities of the D700?
I, for one, sure hope so!!
Click to expand...
I hope so, too! I feel the same way about my D3 and lust for a D700 :)

Something a tad smaller and even lighter (in full-frame) would be ideal.

--
John Walker
http://jhwalker.smugmug.com/
 
I really hope so, too. I believe there is a chance that either Canon or Nikon come out with sort of an 'entry level' FX camera.

They wouldn't make much money with it, but sure would sell a lot of them which then leads to many lens sales. FX lenses are a very profitable thing.

--
-------David-------
 
david nix said:
Do you think that it will be technologically possible to reduce the size and weight in a FX DSLR and retain the 12 mp and other wonerful capabilities of the D700?
Click to expand...
Of course. Question is whether Nikon will do it. But there were small "FX" film SLRs, and getting the sensor into such a body should not be a technical problem.
 
Boy, I hope you guys are right on this. I have a 17-35mm Nikon lens on the D700 body and that adds a lot of weight as well as bulk to the combination.

Looks like I'm going to have to be pateint and wait 2 or 3 years before we get to the point of light and streamline with an FX sensor. I surely do NOT want to step down to a smaller camera but loose the resolution and high ISO capabilities of the D700.
 
Do you want a battery in your camera or will a "wind up to charge" one be OK ?

Are you happy to **** the shutter with a lever also or do you still want 5fps ?

Everyone complaining about weight should try 2 days of an airshow with a D3, 1.4TC and 200-400VR all handheld . . .

I know it's all relative but a D700 with ANY WA lens is not heavy . . .
jwalker019 said:
I hope so, too! I feel the same way about my D3 and lust for a D700 :)

Something a tad smaller and even lighter (in full-frame) would be ideal.
Click to expand...
--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com
 
GoldRingNikkor said:
Of course. Question is whether Nikon will do it. But there were small "FX" film SLRs, and getting the sensor into such a body should not be a technical problem.
Click to expand...
The sensor isn't the problem, it's the whole electronics shebang that go with the sensor that brings the weight. Film SLRs were almost empty boxes with shutter, prism and mirror mechanisms. Modern DSLRs are effectively pentium computers or Playstation 3's wrapped up in a portable magnesium box for taking pictures..

Plus, there's no guarantee that a loss leader like a D7000FX or similar would lead to new lens sales, unless it was crippled without a focus motor etc etc.

Plastic bodies would go some way to losing the weight, but the price cannot be lower than £1000 or thereabouts because that's the going supply price for 24*36mm optoelectronically perfect silicon wafers at the present time! The law of exponential silicon yield Is dictated by mother Earth, not Nikon.

I love the idea, but I don't see it happening, I'm afraid.. Maybe I'll happily be proven wrong one day.
 
daniel broad said:
Modern DSLRs are effectively pentium computers or Playstation 3's wrapped up in a portable magnesium box for taking pictures..
Click to expand...
Exactly, and there are so many buttons and levers, how many buttons we needed for manual film SLR's ? Anyway, I will love a smaller lighter FX camera.
 
daniel broad said:
daniel broad said:
Of course. Question is whether Nikon will do it. But there were small "FX" film SLRs, and getting the sensor into such a body should not be a technical problem.
Click to expand...
The sensor isn't the problem, it's the whole electronics shebang that go with the sensor that brings the weight. Film SLRs were almost empty boxes with shutter, prism and mirror mechanisms. Modern DSLRs are effectively pentium computers or Playstation 3's wrapped up in a portable magnesium box for taking pictures.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but do you need more electronics to process a 12 MP FX image than a 16 MP DX image? Hardly. The only thing you can't make smaller is the sensor, and the sensor size is obviously not an issue.
daniel broad said:
Plus, there's no guarantee that a loss leader like a D7000FX or similar would lead to new lens sales, unless it was crippled without a focus motor etc etc.
Click to expand...
That's not a technical issue, is it?
daniel broad said:
Plastic bodies would go some way to losing the weight, but the price cannot be lower than £1000 or thereabouts because that's the going supply price for 24*36mm optoelectronically perfect silicon wafers at the present time! The law of exponential silicon yield Is dictated by mother Earth, not Nikon.
Click to expand...
Those come down, surely. DX will always be cheaper than FX, though.
daniel broad said:
I love the idea, but I don't see it happening, I'm afraid.. Maybe I'll happily be proven wrong one day.
Click to expand...
Back when the D200 was released, people were asking for more features. They were told that this would be a D2x at D200 price. "Not going to happen". Ya, until the D300 arrived...
 
Technologically it is perfectly feasible (the full-frame canon 5D body isn't that big and heavy either). A D3S sensor and associated electronics in a D7000 sized body is doable. If the frame rate is reduced to 3-4 fps max i bet the mirror assembly (outside of the mirror itself) can be made a tad smaller and less noisy as well. But the question is much rather whether Nikon see fit to introduce a more consumer oriiented FX body.

I would much rather want a more silent FX body (say D300/D7000 level of shutter noise) than one with high fps.

What about US$1999 for such a camera?
david nix said:
My ONLY compliant is that after a day of shooitng with my D700 and a wide angle lens for landscapes my arms and hands are tired; I'm approaching 70.

Do you think that it will be technologically possible to reduce the size and weight in a FX DSLR and retain the 12 mp and other wonerful capabilities of the D700?
I, for one, sure hope so!!
Click to expand...
 
I don't think Nikon will do it. If you want smaller, lighter, then you have to go DX.
--
Peter
Ontario, Canada
 
david nix said:
My ONLY compliant is that after a day of shooitng with my D700 and a wide angle lens for landscapes my arms and hands are tired; I'm approaching 70.

Do you think that it will be technologically possible to reduce the size and weight in a FX DSLR and retain the 12 mp and other wonerful capabilities of the D700?
I, for one, sure hope so!!
Click to expand...
..at least that is what I hope, and I cant see why not. The prism would of course be a bit larger, just as it is in D700 vs D300.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
GoldRingNikkor said:
Yeah, but do you need more electronics to process a 12 MP FX image than a 16 MP DX image? Hardly. The only thing you can't make smaller is the sensor, and the sensor size is obviously not an issue.
Click to expand...
That comment related to the weight of digital SLRs compared to their film counterparts. Per se, the electronics weigh little difference from DX to FX, but there is still larger prisms, and fundamentally heavier lenses required to consider: lenses which project to the larger image circle.
GoldRingNikkor said:
That's not a technical issue, is it?
Click to expand...
No, but it is an economic issue. I take your point though.
GoldRingNikkor said:
GoldRingNikkor said:
Plastic bodies would go some way to losing the weight, but the price cannot be lower than £1000 or thereabouts because that's the going supply price for 24*36mm optoelectronically perfect silicon wafers at the present time! The law of exponential silicon yield Is dictated by mother Earth, not Nikon.
Click to expand...
Those come down, surely. DX will always be cheaper than FX, though.
Click to expand...
For every FX sensor, there are probably 100 sensors which are useable in DX cameras, and 1000 useable for compacts. Plus, the Market for silicon is pulled by the chip manufacturers for every other silicon based electronics component. Mining and refining techniques get better but the stuff still has to be gotten out of the ground, and as a finite resource it will never be worthless. The price of silicon has more to do with the futures Market and speculators than the raw processing price. Oil and Diamonds are two very good examples of similar markets.
GoldRingNikkor said:
GoldRingNikkor said:
I love the idea, but I don't see it happening, I'm afraid.. Maybe I'll happily be proven wrong one day.
Click to expand...
Back when the D200 was released, people were asking for more features. They were told that this would be a D2x at D200 price. "Not going to happen". Ya, until the D300 arrived...
Click to expand...
FX sensors still cost the majority of the camera manufacturing price. Putting a plastic body around it will get you down to the 5d's weight.

No argument from me, I'd love to see it, but then: if it's still over £1000, and my lenses are still as heavy, and all I saved from plastic body was 300 grams and £500, its a far tougher sell than I think any manufacturer would take. Just my 2 pence on this, don't take it to heart.
 
RaptorUK said:
Do you want a battery in your camera or will a "wind up to charge" one be OK ?

Are you happy to **** the shutter with a lever also or do you still want 5fps ?

Everyone complaining about weight should try 2 days of an airshow with a D3, 1.4TC and 200-400VR all handheld . . .

I know it's all relative but a D700 with ANY WA lens is not heavy . . .
Click to expand...
Agree 100%... Try a D3 with 500mm F4 , and D3 with 300mm F2.8
All hand held as well.
--
Regards Peter
 
I wonder what the prism is made from . . . probably something not very dense like foam . . .

Would the mirror have to be larger ? maybe it can be smaller or made of foam too . . .

What about the shutter ? could that be D7000 size also ?
PerL said:
david nix wrote:

..at least that is what I hope, and I cant see why not. The prism would of course be a bit larger, just as it is in D700 vs D300.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Click to expand...
--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com
 
I'm fully aware that the 3 series nikons are even heavier than the D700; it was that and price that prohibited my purchase of one of these cameras.

Maybe the physics of what I want in a FX camera is simply not possibly with today's technology, and I will not purchase a D700 replacement since weight and bulk will not be reduced.
 
RaptorUK said:
I wonder what the prism is made from . . . probably something not very dense like foam . . .

Would the mirror have to be larger ? maybe it can be smaller or made of foam too . . .

What about the shutter ? could that be D7000 size also ?
Click to expand...
Shurely a D700 is not the smallest body size possible for a FF. The reason I speculate in a D7000 sized body (with a larger prism) is because of the MB-D11battery grip that seems to be to expensive and well built for the price range of the D7000 if it was meant only for that camera. It was the same with the batterygrip for D300 that gave a hint about the D700.

I also think Nikon notices that trend now goes toward smaller cams except for the pro models. Also the 50 1.8G and the 28-300G hints that Nikon may introduce a cheaper FF.

As for the shutter/mirror size I am sure you know that we had FF film SLRs in the size of todays m43 cameras (An Olympus OM-1 is as small as todays Oly m43 models). Note also that D300 has exactly the same form/size, except for the prism, as the D700 despite the difference in shutter/mirror size.

So my prediction/hope - a 20 percent smaller, 20 percent lighter and 20 percent cheaper FF than the current D700. The body of the D200/D300/D700 is now six years old, so I bet on the form factor of the D7000.
RaptorUK said:
PerL said:
david nix wrote:

..at least that is what I hope, and I cant see why not. The prism would of course be a bit larger, just as it is in D700 vs D300.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Click to expand...
--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
I like big cameras....the D3X is my kind of camera.

Probably comes from a background of using a RZ67 with metered finder and 75mm shift lens, add a 12 lb tripod and 2 lb head and we are talking serious weight. After using that even a 4x5 is light and my D700 is like a pocket camera.

I like lots of room for buttons and controls. The bigger the better!
 
I hope so, in two weeks we'll see what's new with Nikon-Nikkor.
david nix said:
My ONLY compliant is that after a day of shooitng with my D700 and a wide angle lens for landscapes my arms and hands are tired; I'm approaching 70.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not everyone has the youth of those who have two superteles coupled to two D3s five hours in their hands / shoulders / airshows.
david nix said:
Do you think that it will be technologically possible to reduce the size and weight in a FX DSLR and retain the 12 mp and other wonerful capabilities of the D700?
I, for one, sure hope so!!
Click to expand...
I'm waiting for mirrorless system news... in two weeks w'll see it... or a revolutionary coolpix (there are more "years old" after the seventy, the eighty, the ninety...)
--
Un saludo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top