Reading mode: Light Dark

A smaller, less bulky FX DSLR in the future?

Go to last post
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...
No, you'd have to give up a few things, ergonomic features, handling for one. Go mirrorless, and you give up good viewfinder, autofocus, battery life etc.

Point is, you can always get a smaller camera, only it will be vastly inferior. M9 is your best bet, it has little to no features, it is smaller (but not small) and it does have a full frame sensor.
 
RaptorUK said:
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
Click to expand...
Agree...buy a compact camera if your too weak to carry a DSLR and don't care about the things a DSLR does better, end of.
 
FX lenses (you know, good ones) are big and heavy. If they aren't - usually you've bought a slow kit lens zoom or something. If you are using FX IMO you are pretty stupid to not use the great glass...great glass has usually got a weight and a bulk associated with it. That's why this request for this little compact FX camera you are dreaming up makes no sense whatsoever! Sorry, had to be said.

Buy a compact camera or stay DX if it bothers you so much. When I shoot on my full frame camera my main concern is quality of the image...that has to be first, if it's not then why did I spend the money on FX?

Smaller and light just means less room for the buttons and poorer ergonomics. I don't want to be diving into menus. It's the reason I shoot with a DSLR. I actually dislike the smaller entry level DSLRs for that reasons, too small in the hands.
 
Lets make some comparisons . . .

Olympus PEN E-P1

121 x 70 x 36 mm 355 g

Olympus OM-1

136mm x 83mm x 50mm 510g

Nikon D700

147 x 123 x 77 mm 1074g

How can Nikon turn a D700 into a E-P1 ? they can't . . the depth is constrained by the F Mount Flange focal distance of 46mm, add to that the sensor substrate, PCB, LCD and LCD cover, Nikon have done well to package that into 20mm (77mm is the depth to the front of the prism/flash, it overhangs the mount)

Nikon can't even turn the D700 into a OM-1 in terms of depth.

What about the height ? well the battery, EN-EL3e measures 53 x 38 x 20mm, below it is the battery door, above it are the command dials, shutter release and LCD. The 123mm dimension is not just the height of the body where the battery goes, it is the height to the top of the prism where the hot shoe is . . to turn a D700 into an OM-1 would allow for 30mm of height in addition to the battery . . . that isn't possible IMO.

The width is the closest dimension between the D700 an OM-1 . . that could probably be trimmed.

In summary, why can't the D700 be the same size as an OM-1:

the OM-1 is a manual camera, it uses 2 button cells and a manually cocked shutter, mirror and aperture.

the D700 has a large battery, AF, electrically actuated shutter, mirror and aperture and can shoot at 5fps.

the D700 has a pop-up flash on top of it's prism

the D700 has a large LCD (61 x 46mm) behind it's sensor

can it be made 20% lighter and 20% smaller ? yes it can . . . but that will probably add 50% to it's price, not reduce it.

I guess we will see in due course, lets see if Nikon make a fool out of me . . :D
PerL said:
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.
Click to expand...
PerL said:
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.
Click to expand...
--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com
 
RaptorUK said:
Lets make some comparisons . . .

Olympus PEN E-P1

121 x 70 x 36 mm 355 g

Olympus OM-1

136mm x 83mm x 50mm 510g

Nikon D700

147 x 123 x 77 mm 1074g

How can Nikon turn a D700 into a E-P1 ? they can't . . the depth is constrained by the F Mount Flange focal distance of 46mm, add to that the sensor substrate, PCB, LCD and LCD cover, Nikon have done well to package that into 20mm (77mm is the depth to the front of the prism/flash, it overhangs the mount)

Nikon can't even turn the D700 into a OM-1 in terms of depth.

What about the height ? well the battery, EN-EL3e measures 53 x 38 x 20mm, below it is the battery door, above it are the command dials, shutter release and LCD. The 123mm dimension is not just the height of the body where the battery goes, it is the height to the top of the prism where the hot shoe is . . to turn a D700 into an OM-1 would allow for 30mm of height in addition to the battery . . . that isn't possible IMO.

The width is the closest dimension between the D700 an OM-1 . . that could probably be trimmed.

In summary, why can't the D700 be the same size as an OM-1:

the OM-1 is a manual camera, it uses 2 button cells and a manually cocked shutter, mirror and aperture.

the D700 has a large battery, AF, electrically actuated shutter, mirror and aperture and can shoot at 5fps.

the D700 has a pop-up flash on top of it's prism

the D700 has a large LCD (61 x 46mm) behind it's sensor

can it be made 20% lighter and 20% smaller ? yes it can . . . but that will probably add 50% to it's price, not reduce it.
Click to expand...
How dare you write the post I just wanted to write myself? ;)

And you know, Nikon could make the body smaller by leaving out the AF motor (and the flash) or by reducing the battery capacity or by shaving off the handgrip (aka soapbar, like a Canon S95). I am sure all those things would be highly welcomed.
 
yep, they've already done it. Its called the D7000. Its DX though. High ISO is about 1 stop behind the amazingly good D700, controls and speed equally as good. DX lenses are smaller/lighter too.

(ex D700 shooter, now shoots with a D7000)

--
My Gear: DeeSevenThousand + SixteenThirtyFive + SixtyMicroG
The FiveFifties: OnePointTwoAIS + OnePointFourD/G + OnePointEightD/G

blog: http://lenslineup.net/b/
flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcapfoto (old stuff)
twitter: http://twitter.com/LensLineup
 
Looking at the differences between the D7000, D300 and D700 we have (in mm and grams):
D700: 132*105*77 mm, 780g.
D300: 147*114*74 mm, 918g.
D700: 147*123*77 mm, 1074 g.

So this suggests that a D7000FX could weigh in at 132*114*77 mm, 936g.

A reduction in size of 10-15 percent. Surely this must be doable without additional cost?
 
RaptorUK said:
Lets make some comparisons . . .

Olympus PEN E-P1

121 x 70 x 36 mm 355 g

Olympus OM-1

136mm x 83mm x 50mm 510g
Click to expand...
Seeing is believing. As for the difference between the fullframe OM-1 vs Oly PEN:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82805045@N00/3843210630/
RaptorUK said:
Nikon D700

147 x 123 x 77 mm 1074g

How can Nikon turn a D700 into a E-P1 ? they can't . . the depth is constrained by the F Mount Flange focal distance of 46mm, add to that the sensor substrate, PCB, LCD and LCD cover, Nikon have done well to package that into 20mm (77mm is the depth to the front of the prism/flash, it overhangs the mount)

Nikon can't even turn the D700 into a OM-1 in terms of depth.
Click to expand...
I never said that Nikon could turn a D700 into an OM-1 size wise, I just mentioned it to show that mirror/shutter dont have to be very big on a FF.

I do believe they easily could make a FF the size of a D7000 with a larger prism.
RaptorUK said:
What about the height ? well the battery, EN-EL3e measures 53 x 38 x 20mm, below it is the battery door, above it are the command dials, shutter release and LCD. The 123mm dimension is not just the height of the body where the battery goes, it is the height to the top of the prism where the hot shoe is . . to turn a D700 into an OM-1 would allow for 30mm of height in addition to the battery . . . that isn't possible IMO.

The width is the closest dimension between the D700 an OM-1 . . that could probably be trimmed.

In summary, why can't the D700 be the same size as an OM-1:

the OM-1 is a manual camera, it uses 2 button cells and a manually cocked shutter, mirror and aperture.

the D700 has a large battery, AF, electrically actuated shutter, mirror and aperture and can shoot at 5fps.

the D700 has a pop-up flash on top of it's prism

the D700 has a large LCD (61 x 46mm) behind it's sensor

can it be made 20% lighter and 20% smaller ? yes it can . . . but that will probably add 50% to it's price, not reduce it.
Click to expand...
I think that Nikon has found an excellent compromise in "good enough" build/features in the D7000, and I hope that is the basis for a smaller and cheaper FF.

I cant see why a D7000 style build instead of a D300/D700 style would add to the costs.
RaptorUK said:
I guess we will see in due course, lets see if Nikon make a fool out of me . . :D
Click to expand...
Or me... If the size will be the same as D700 I will get one anyway, but I hope for smaller. I think it would be a hit similar to the FM/FE that were very popular among pros despite that the F2/F3 models also were available.
RaptorUK said:
PerL said:
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.
Click to expand...
RaptorUK said:
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.
Click to expand...
--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
perhort said:
Looking at the differences between the D7000, D300 and D700 we have (in mm and grams):
D700: 132*105*77 mm, 780g.
D300: 147*114*74 mm, 918g.
D700: 147*123*77 mm, 1074 g.

So this suggests that a D7000FX could weigh in at 132*114*77 mm, 936g.

A reduction in size of 10-15 percent. Surely this must be doable without additional cost?
Click to expand...
LOL your joking right? You are going to notice a 10 percent reduction in weight? Then there's your lens, most of which (FX) wise are over 1kg...
 
No joke at all. Put a 85/1.8 on a D7000 and you have the perfekt street camera. Now, if it was only possible to do this with a full frame viewfinder...
 
260684 said:
perhort said:
Looking at the differences between the D7000, D300 and D700 we have (in mm and grams):
D700: 132*105*77 mm, 780g.
D300: 147*114*74 mm, 918g.
D700: 147*123*77 mm, 1074 g.

So this suggests that a D7000FX could weigh in at 132*114*77 mm, 936g.

A reduction in size of 10-15 percent. Surely this must be doable without additional cost?
Click to expand...
LOL your joking right? You are going to notice a 10 percent reduction in weight? Then there's your lens, most of which (FX) wise are over 1kg...
Click to expand...
Everybody dont need/want to use the big pro zooms. One could use primes, like the 50 1.8G - 185g, the 85 1.8 - 375 g, a small WA like the Voigtlander 20 3.5 - 205 g (although MF) or the Voigtlander 40 2.0 -200g (MF).
Or lighter zooms like the 70-300 - 745g, or the 28-300 - 800g.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
I shoot only with a small manual focus prime Nikkor AIS lens, so I turn off ALL of the auto-everything functions the pro FX bodies come with.

All this stuff adds bulk... so I'd go further, and ask for a fully manual FX camera , but I know it'll never happen.

The reason it'll never happen is that most photographers want the camera to do everything for them, so they want the auto-everything functions.

But, dear Nikon, I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised and to be proven wrong :) Please do it as a "halo" product... pretty please...

Peter.
http://www.prosophos.com

--
Peter | Prosophos
http://www.prosophos.com
http://www.zenfolio.com/prosophos
 
PerL said:
RaptorUK said:
Nikon can't even turn the D700 into a OM-1 in terms of depth.
Click to expand...
I never said that Nikon could turn a D700 into an OM-1 size wise, I just mentioned it to show that mirror/shutter dont have to be very big on a FF.

I do believe they easily could make a FF the size of a D7000 with a larger prism.
Click to expand...
I think that might be possible . . . any smaller and I think they would have to reduce the size of the LCD.

Out of interest, would you be willing to have a smaller LCD for the sake of a smaller camera ?

--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com
 
RaptorUK said:
PerL said:
RaptorUK said:
Nikon can't even turn the D700 into a OM-1 in terms of depth.
Click to expand...
I never said that Nikon could turn a D700 into an OM-1 size wise, I just mentioned it to show that mirror/shutter dont have to be very big on a FF.

I do believe they easily could make a FF the size of a D7000 with a larger prism.
Click to expand...
I think that might be possible . . . any smaller and I think they would have to reduce the size of the LCD.

Out of interest, would you be willing to have a smaller LCD for the sake of a smaller camera ?
Click to expand...
Absolutly. Give me the big sensor and a good OVF in a nice sized body and I dont care if the LCD gets smaller....
RaptorUK said:
--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
approaching 70 and you think you are old? I just cut down 3 big trees and hawled all the branches away and cut the truncks for winter...Guess what ? I will be 70 in less than one month.

I am shooting D3, D7000 + long lenses for birds but am thinking buying a Panasonic or a Canon power shooter (lens: 24-800) and feather weight.
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...
--
The Lightmagician
Sun is my eye
Winds my breaths
Sky my open Mind.
MTFBWY
http://www.lightmagical.com
 
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?
Click to expand...
It is technically quite feasible. If you look at a Pentax *ist for example (35mm film camera with AF and all that jazz), you'll see full-frame can be done in something marginally larger than a D3100. True, the digital cameras have more electronic components, but fundamentally the removal of the film spools leaves more than enough space in the design for the necessary bits.

The real problem is Nikon themselves. First, Nikon likes to economize on sensors. Meaning, they share between models. So unless they're keeping the 12MP FX sensor alive in another model as well, that sensor is likely off the table. Second, Nikon has tended to follow the model that higher end = bigger. So as long as FX cameras are higher-end than DX, I doubt a small-bodies FX is terribly likely.

Setting all that aside, if they could take a D7000 and modify it to use the 12MP FX sensor, and then sell it for $1500-$1700, I think they'd make a killing. There are an amazing number of folks with lots of old film lenses, and big 12MP FX sensor is just perfect for that glass.

Cheers,

MFBernstein
 
Octane said:
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-------
Click to expand...
I'm sure that D300s successor will be FX! Cheers Theodoros.
 
GoldRingNikkor said:
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.
Click to expand...
All evidence show that they will do so...

1. The camera names, it looks like Dxxxx goes for DX, Dxxx for FX, so D300 successor, goesFX!

2. The... motion picture enthusiast market! If there will be a DX flagship (which is better for video than FF) that will have 2 eyes on the video market and only one for photo, which will surely be. There is no room for another DX, hence D300s goes ...FX!

3. The new lenses, 24-120, 28-300.. will the D3 or D4 user buy those? I doubt it for D700 successor also...
Cheers, Theodoros http://www.fotometria.gr
 
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