Isn't it time for Nikon to go modular in FF?

J Mankila said:

The increase in resolution will probably be slowing down - or at least with 36MP we're so close to the practical limits of what's needed that it ought to. This will slow down the need for new processors. The framerates have practical limits as well, so there you go...

Click to expand...

Sure, but in your desire to focus on the positives you are ignoring the stuff that is likely to continue changing fast... What about metering? The D4/D800 drastically increase the metering capability. On-sensor metering and focus sensors? AF? Off-sensor processor? All this stuff is likely to continue evolving rapidly with sockets and connectivity changing faster than the expected lifetime of a long-lived body.

J Mankila said:

Would you not think of it as a success if Nikon succeeded in making bodies that lasted, say, for two or three sensor generations? Would that not be a good product?

Click to expand...

That would be a wonderful product if it adds value to the end user and not the manufacturer. What would be value to the end user? Reduced size/weight, reduced cost, better functionality. Size/weight of a modular body is going to be worse, there is a reason Apple solders everything on the motherboard of their products. New failure points are going to be introduced. New software messes and potential for incompatibilities will be introduced. Let's not forget that the modular model has existed in PCs for 30 years, and very, very few people take advantage of it, and Apple has demonstrated that as far as the end user is concerned the modular approach is nothing less than a dead end. Sure, there have always been a handful of hardware nuts ("enthusiasts" is the politically correct term) who have done it and loved it, but for the majority of the market it is a don't care.

J Mankila said:

. Many of the people responding only looked for the possibilities for something to go wrong and ignored the benefits. As if it's their job to design and engineer the product in thirty seconds, and if they fail to create a perfect concept in that time, the idea is rotten.

I hope you can see why this is the wrong approach?

Click to expand...

And I hope you see what is wrong with focusing on the possibilities without recognizing downsides? A successful product requires enthusiasm for the former with cold-heart evaluation of the latter. Anything else turns into vaporware.

--
My display of mediocrity
http://groovygeek.deviantart.com/gallery/

rhlpetrus said:

Luke Kaven said:

A few possible issues.

The D3/s-D4 type sensor is much different from the Exmor D3x/D800 sensor. The D3 sensor uses a lot of outboard electronics for amplification and A-D. The Exmor does most of that on chip.

Click to expand...

But it's not the sensor in the module, only. ADC is integral part of that. Think of body as in film days, sensor as film. BTW, observe that actually Nikon is already doing it. The AF in both is exactly same, including the metering sensor, which uses same module in D800 and D4. And even for D800E, they even kept the AA system, only changing how the second filter works, so that they would not need to change the microlenses, etc.

Click to expand...

I would think that two sensor boards might have completely different pin-outs and rail voltages. They might have different heat-dissipation or signal-routing characteristics that dictate placement.

For example, I'm sure that those Analog Devices ICs on the D3/4 sensor boards are power hungry and generate heat requiring special considerations. I don't think that the Exmor requires the same kind of power distribution. And I suspect the readout methods are different for each of these two designs.

Seems like a tough nut. I'd rather trade in my D4 for a D4/s/x in two years and take the $1500 hit, but get a new camera with a few bugs fixed as well in the trade.

BoyOhBoy said:

Sure, but in your desire to focus on the positives you are ignoring the stuff that is likely to continue changing fast... What about metering? The D4/D800 drastically increase the metering capability. On-sensor metering and focus sensors? AF? Off-sensor processor? All this stuff is likely to continue evolving rapidly with sockets and connectivity changing faster than the expected lifetime of a long-lived body.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned in another post in this thread, yes, I see the old fashioned mirror assembly, viewfinder, metering and auto focusing as something that should be tackled first. I hope - or actually envision - that one day we'll see fully mirrorless DSLRs where all the aformentioned auxiliary functions are being handled by the sensor. And that's when they should introduce modularity. After that they should design the shutter - if still necessary - to be easily replaced, and there you'd have it, the 2020 Nikon M1.

BoyOhBoy said:

BoyOhBoy said:

Would you not think of it as a success if Nikon succeeded in making bodies that lasted, say, for two or three sensor generations? Would that not be a good product?

Click to expand...

That would be a wonderful product if it adds value to the end user and not the manufacturer. What would be value to the end user? Reduced size/weight, reduced cost, better functionality.....

Click to expand...

Lower cost of upgrading and better functionality. Longer product lifetime, better resale value and less landfill for the mountains of electrical waste somewhere where you normally won't see pictures of (see this if you'd like to - it's actually world class photography by Ed Burtynsky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_Landscapes ).

BoyOhBoy said:

..... and Apple has demonstrated that as far as the end user is concerned the modular approach is nothing less than a dead end.....

Click to expand...

For a mass market product, yes. Is DSLR market comparable in size to smart phones, music players and tablet computers, I don't know...

BoyOhBoy said:

BoyOhBoy said:

I hope you can see why this is the wrong approach?

Click to expand...

And I hope you see what is wrong with focusing on the possibilities without recognizing downsides?

Click to expand...

The only downsides worth taking into account are those on a macro level.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

J Mankila said:

As I mentioned in another post in this thread, yes, I see the old fashioned mirror assembly, viewfinder, metering and auto focusing as something that should be tackled first.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Take out the mechanical components, pentaprism, viewfinder and the body size can be brought down dramatically. Global electronic shutter is a known technology. Throw in metering and fast AF and you are there. This is what mirrorless is today, they just need to put a large sensor on it.... but then you are back to big lenses, and unfortunately lens size is directly tied to sensor size. So you end up with a small body attached to a 300/2.8

J Mankila said:

I hope - or actually envision - that one day we'll see fully mirrorless DSLRs where all the aformentioned auxiliary functions are being handled by the sensor.

Click to expand...

Ain't gonna happen. DSLRs have mirrors and pentaprisms in them by definition. I know, I know, I am just nitpicking

J Mankila said:

And that's when they should introduce modularity.

Click to expand...

Let's walk through a mental exercise. You want a new sensor. By then the sensor module also includes the meter, AF, and EXPEED. This is easily 75% of the total body cost. But a sensor replacement will NEVER be user-serviceable module. The tolerances of placement and alignment are simply prohibitive without specialized equipment. So you send it to Nikon. $80 later for shipping cost and $200+ in labor costs you have the same body and a new sensor. If you started out with a $2000 body the math goes something like this:

Sensor + meter + AF = $1500 (75%)
Shipping = $80
Labor = $200
-----------
Total = $1780
vs.
New body = $2000

The math gets slightly more beneficial with higher end bodies, but then you amortize the engineering cost over smaller numbers, so the cost of the modular body grows fast.

In any case, we probably should agree to disagree

After that they should design the shutter - if still necessary - to be easily replaced, and there you'd have it, the 2020 Nikon M1.

J Mankila said:

J Mankila said:

J Mankila said:

Would you not think of it as a success if Nikon succeeded in making bodies that lasted, say, for two or three sensor generations? Would that not be a good product?

Click to expand...

That would be a wonderful product if it adds value to the end user and not the manufacturer. What would be value to the end user? Reduced size/weight, reduced cost, better functionality.....

Click to expand...

Lower cost of upgrading and better functionality. Longer product lifetime, better resale value and less landfill for the mountains of electrical waste somewhere where you normally won't see pictures of (see this if you'd like to - it's actually world class photography by Ed Burtynsky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_Landscapes ).

J Mankila said:

..... and Apple has demonstrated that as far as the end user is concerned the modular approach is nothing less than a dead end.....

Click to expand...

For a mass market product, yes. Is DSLR market comparable in size to smart phones, music players and tablet computers, I don't know...

J Mankila said:

J Mankila said:

I hope you can see why this is the wrong approach?

Click to expand...

And I hope you see what is wrong with focusing on the possibilities without recognizing downsides?

Click to expand...

The only downsides worth taking into account are those on a macro level.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

Click to expand...

--
My display of mediocrity
http://groovygeek.deviantart.com/gallery/

BoyOhBoy said:

Absolutely. Take out the mechanical components, pentaprism, viewfinder and the body size can be brought down dramatically. Global electronic shutter is a known technology. Throw in metering and fast AF and you are there. This is what mirrorless is today, they just need to put a large sensor on it.... but then you are back to big lenses, and unfortunately lens size is directly tied to sensor size. So you end up with a small body attached to a 300/2.8

Click to expand...

Yes, it is the mirrorless design DSLRs should go towards. I wrote a list of the potential (read: obvious) benefits of an electronic viewfinder in the end of 2011:

"" But, certainly, delay free viewfinder image in a mirrorless camera is simply a matter of time. And the obvious benefits from the efficient sensors of tomorrow would translate to brighter EVF, which would allow the photographer to "see in the dark".

There is no boundary for the resolution of the digital viewfinder image - apart from the sensor's own resolution, of course.

Also, and this is probably my main argument for mirrorless cameras, the image in the viewfinder would be the exact same image falling onto the sensor. In concert with sensor based phase detection AF this would mean:

A) entirely truthful DOF preview at larger apertures,
B) automatic and manual focusing with highest possible accuracy,
C) absolutely no misalignments with mirrors and focusing screens,
... while also making several other "handy" features possible, such as:
D) manual focusing aids such as partial enlargements possible
E) on-demand, real-time warnings for clipped highlights and blocked shadows""

And so on. The list could be as long as one is prepared to imagine.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40029201

BoyOhBoy said:

Total = $1780
vs.
New body = $2000

The math gets slightly more beneficial with higher end bodies, but then you amortize the engineering cost over smaller numbers, so the cost of the modular body grows fast.

In any case, we probably should agree to disagree

Click to expand...

Yes, let's do that. It was a nice exchange, thanks.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

Luke Kaven said:

rhlpetrus said:

Luke Kaven said:

A few possible issues.

The D3/s-D4 type sensor is much different from the Exmor D3x/D800 sensor. The D3 sensor uses a lot of outboard electronics for amplification and A-D. The Exmor does most of that on chip.

Click to expand...

But it's not the sensor in the module, only. ADC is integral part of that. Think of body as in film days, sensor as film. BTW, observe that actually Nikon is already doing it. The AF in both is exactly same, including the metering sensor, which uses same module in D800 and D4. And even for D800E, they even kept the AA system, only changing how the second filter works, so that they would not need to change the microlenses, etc.

Click to expand...

I would think that two sensor boards might have completely different pin-outs and rail voltages. They might have different heat-dissipation or signal-routing characteristics that dictate placement.

For example, I'm sure that those Analog Devices ICs on the D3/4 sensor boards are power hungry and generate heat requiring special considerations. I don't think that the Exmor requires the same kind of power distribution. And I suspect the readout methods are different for each of these two designs.

Click to expand...

A job for Nikon's engineers! They have proven to be quite capable recently .

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

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

mfbernstein said:

rhlpetrus said:

Nikon would seel a lot of modules, maybe less bodies at each iteration, but many more lenses.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but the added complexity makes it hardly worthwhile. The cameras would have to be bigger to accommodate modules. The tolerances would make alignment a serious issue. There'd be many more combinations to test than currently.

Click to expand...

I think it can be done w/o adding much bulk, maybe a little.

mfbernstein said:

Also, I tend to doubt that it would be financially attractive. Why sell 1 body and 2 modules when you can sell 2 full bodies? It also makes it hard to add features that depend on both body and sensor module cooperation.

Click to expand...

Well, they'd probably sell more stuff overall. I will likely never get two FF bodies, but would get one D800 + two modules, definitely.

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

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

The reality is that significant portion of the diehard SLR base want an OVF until the day they literally die. Unfortunately they're often the people willing to pay for these anachronisms (like the ones who WANT the D4 sensor despite its disadvantages).

If any such system is possible, or even meaningful, it's not going to come from nikon at the higher end anyway. Sony seems to be at the vanguard for actually pushing SLR level camera technology.

J Mankila said:

BoyOhBoy said:

Absolutely. Take out the mechanical components, pentaprism, viewfinder and the body size can be brought down dramatically. Global electronic shutter is a known technology. Throw in metering and fast AF and you are there. This is what mirrorless is today, they just need to put a large sensor on it.... but then you are back to big lenses, and unfortunately lens size is directly tied to sensor size. So you end up with a small body attached to a 300/2.8

Click to expand...

Yes, it is the mirrorless design DSLRs should go towards. I wrote a list of the potential (read: obvious) benefits of an electronic viewfinder in the end of 2011:

"" But, certainly, delay free viewfinder image in a mirrorless camera is simply a matter of time. And the obvious benefits from the efficient sensors of tomorrow would translate to brighter EVF, which would allow the photographer to "see in the dark".

There is no boundary for the resolution of the digital viewfinder image - apart from the sensor's own resolution, of course.

Also, and this is probably my main argument for mirrorless cameras, the image in the viewfinder would be the exact same image falling onto the sensor. In concert with sensor based phase detection AF this would mean:

A) entirely truthful DOF preview at larger apertures,
B) automatic and manual focusing with highest possible accuracy,
C) absolutely no misalignments with mirrors and focusing screens,
... while also making several other "handy" features possible, such as:
D) manual focusing aids such as partial enlargements possible
E) on-demand, real-time warnings for clipped highlights and blocked shadows""

And so on. The list could be as long as one is prepared to imagine.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40029201

J Mankila said:

Total = $1780
vs.
New body = $2000

The math gets slightly more beneficial with higher end bodies, but then you amortize the engineering cost over smaller numbers, so the cost of the modular body grows fast.

In any case, we probably should agree to disagree

Click to expand...

Yes, let's do that. It was a nice exchange, thanks.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

Click to expand...

AgentHEX said:

The reality is that significant portion of the diehard SLR base want an OVF until the day they literally die. Unfortunately they're often the people willing to pay for these anachronisms (like the ones who WANT the D4 sensor despite its disadvantages).

If any such system is possible, or even meaningful, it's not going to come from nikon at the higher end anyway. Sony seems to be at the vanguard for actually pushing SLR level camera technology.

Click to expand...

Quite right. We already saw this with mirrorless, where Nikon and Canon followed the others quite far behind. Having said that, I remember reading that the work on the 1 series was started quite early on, so to me it tells that Nikon is much more open to these developments than Canon, for example.

Besides, the DSLR acronym might just as well remain in use. In Japanese English it could refer to Digital Single Lens Raibubiibu.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

rhlpetrus said:

A job for Nikon's engineers! They have proven to be quite capable recently .

Click to expand...

Hear, hear!!

Modular cameras have been rumored out of Nikon since DSLRs have been around. I would not be tempted. I don't think any sports/outdorrs photographer would want one since they would be heavier, bulkier and less dust/water proof. The 35mm SLR ergodynamics has been reworked for 70 years and is pretty good.

Now that I've disted your idea...I would be interested in a larger format camera out of Nikon. I used to have a Bronica 6x6 film camera which was modular and it would be great to have a Nikon with a sensor about 3 times the size of full frame 35mm. Then you could back away from diffraction limiting and start with a 100m pixel sensor. Digital back MF cameras are currently available but way too costly. A modular system would allow some of us to enter this strata and work our way up in resolution, computation speed etc.
--
Ken Eis
http://keneis.zenfolio.com

I wont argue the camera size is dictated by the stuff inside, but I love the outside of DSLRs because they have enough surface to accomodate command buttons. P&S cameras are nice but most of their controls are buried in 2,3, or 4 deep menus which make them all slow to adjust. I think the D800 is as small a camera as I would ever want to use. Lighter would be fine...but not smaller.

Also we are always discounting the ergodynamics of the 35mm camera format. The SLR form has been around for many decades and fits the human hand nicely. We are down to moving buttons around for fine tuning. Remember we can radically change camera shape and size all we want but the human hand is constant.
--
Ken Eis
http://keneis.zenfolio.com

I don't think will necessarily be unattractive on 35mm FX, but I completely agree with you that it is way more interesting on larger formats. I'll exemplify, but speaking only for myself

A modular D800 could be something between a D800 and a D4, closer to the D800, and the heavier and bulkier D4 will be the action shooter's choice. The metering and AF in my D700 could work well for several years with the D800 sensor (but I want 100% VF), and the D800 system components will be even more long-lived, function-wise.

Furthermore, this is of course not only for selling more sensors, it's for selling bodies, too. If I had a modular D700-type body with the D3s sensor, I would probably have passed the D800 body at first, buying only the new sensor, but sooner or later, I would also have upgraded the body. For instance, to shoot video better. Different bodies could also have different optimizations. I think many D3X owners would have liked to put in both the D800 sensor and a D4 type sensor.

Modularity would also make room for specialities, like a 8MP super high-ISO sensor, and a 60MP sensor (possibly with multiple readout) that would mostly be usable @25-200 ISO. In fact, I could imagine myself using both.

This can also be applied to DX - think of a series 4 - 8 - 16 - 28 MP. Could be very interesting because of much lower module price.

hire some people from Oakley's RED - they have a modular scarlet

rhlpetrus said:

Luke Kaven said:

rhlpetrus said:

Luke Kaven said:

A few possible issues.

The D3/s-D4 type sensor is much different from the Exmor D3x/D800 sensor. The D3 sensor uses a lot of outboard electronics for amplification and A-D. The Exmor does most of that on chip.

Click to expand...

But it's not the sensor in the module, only. ADC is integral part of that. Think of body as in film days, sensor as film. BTW, observe that actually Nikon is already doing it. The AF in both is exactly same, including the metering sensor, which uses same module in D800 and D4. And even for D800E, they even kept the AA system, only changing how the second filter works, so that they would not need to change the microlenses, etc.

Click to expand...

I would think that two sensor boards might have completely different pin-outs and rail voltages. They might have different heat-dissipation or signal-routing characteristics that dictate placement.

For example, I'm sure that those Analog Devices ICs on the D3/4 sensor boards are power hungry and generate heat requiring special considerations. I don't think that the Exmor requires the same kind of power distribution. And I suspect the readout methods are different for each of these two designs.

Click to expand...

A job for Nikon's engineers! They have proven to be quite capable recently .

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

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Click to expand...

--
SJSU Spartan Pride! http://as.sjsu.edu/spartansquad/

Perhaps not modular in the sense that you suggested, - but

Panasonic: 'smart' camera is an 'option for the future' ( http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/panasonic-smart-camera-is-an-option-for-the-future--1070959 )

Samsung considering Android-based digital camera ( http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/14/samsung-researching-android-based-digital-camera/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter )

That could very well change the world of photography. It's looking very interesting.

Not Canon neither Nikon are first movers with things like this, - and especially not on the high-end DSLRs. But who knows. Perhaps one day?

What's a CFA?

Greg.