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

[rhlpetrus]

Nikon probably has in their hands the two best sensor/ADC systems in 135 (FF) format. Maybe they will also develop a video dedicated sensor at 22MP, if that's really relevant, or the next action dedicated sensor could be like that.

Think of 3 FF bodies, suggested prices (maybe not realistic, some may know more about that):

• B1 A relatively basic body, no frills, no tough sealing, about size of D7000, 1,000USD
• B2 D800 level, 2,000 USD
• B3 D4 level, 4,800 USD

Each would take the sensor/toppings/ADC modules, all at about 1,800USD:

• M1 Present D800's 36MP s/t/ADC,
• M2 Present D800E's 36MP s/t/ADC, possibly with a stronger CFA and base ISo at 50.
• M3 Present D4's 16MP s/t/ADC
• M4 Possibly a 22MP s/t/ADC dedicated to video.

Buying separately, prices above. Kits, progressive discounts, like:

B1+M4 = 2,500
B1+M2+M3 = 4,000

B2+M2 = 3,500
B2+M2+M3 = 5,000

B3+M3= 6,300
B3+M2+M4= 7,800

Modules updtaed every 2 years (minor, major, alternatively), bodies every 4 years.

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

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

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[u007]

I think it would increase the cost, decrease the reliability of everything and make things too confusing. Not to mention how many different firmwares you would need for different plugins. You'd probably need a full operating system on the camera to manage it all.

You can imagine the problems about certain components not working with combinations of others.

 

[rhlpetrus]

I think it would increase the cost, decrease the reliability of everything and make things too confusing. Not to mention how many different firmwares you would need for different plugins. You'd probably need a full operating system on the camera to manage it all.

Don't think so, most of the configuration would be in the modules actually.

You can imagine the problems about certain components not working with combinations of others.

It's just 3x4=12 possible configurations, not that many. They could start more slowly, with just 2 bodies and 2 modules.

Now think about the versatility of such a system. You have your pro system and a nice lighter D7k's level body for famly vacation, just plug in the desired module. And how easy for Nikon to just add or update one of the items, w/o need of a big overhaul.

It has to be well-done from the start, maybe they already have it, just waiting for the right moment.

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

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[u007]

Honestly, it sounds like a nice idea. I just don't see much incentive for manufacturers to implement it.

12 firmwares is a lot more than one firmware per model. And even with the current system you always get glitches and bugs and need updates. And that's when every single camera is identical, controlled and quality tested for months before release. There are always bugs. when new cameras are released.

 

[Leif Goodwin]

I think it would increase the cost, decrease the reliability of everything and make things too confusing. Not to mention how many different firmwares you would need for different plugins. You'd probably need a full operating system on the camera to manage it all.

You can imagine the problems about certain components not working with combinations of others.

That is my feeling too. I know Thom Hogan pushes modular cameras, but they would be bigger because of having mating components, and having to have extra strengthening, and they would be more expensive. And compatibility issues could well be a problem were something they had not thought of appear. New firmware might need new buttons. New hardware might allow more compact cameras, but if you go modular, you are frozen at yesterday's size (and I say yesterday because when a camera appears, is uses technology from a year or so ago). Mind you, I'm only a keen amateur, and I do not know if there is a market for this.

 

[BoyOhBoy]

I think it would increase the cost, decrease the reliability of everything and make things too confusing. Not to mention how many different firmwares you would need for different plugins. You'd probably need a full operating system on the camera to manage it all.

You can imagine the problems about certain components not working with combinations of others.

In addition to all the reasons posted above, this would not work very well for the same reason it does not work well with computers.

As sensor resolution, image acquisition speed, file size, bit depth, etc increases the "busses" that connect the modules will be come obsolete. Ever tried to pop out a processor from a computer and try to pop in a new one from a newer generation. This does not work most of the time with the next gen processor, and never works with 2 gen out. Memory needs will grow both in terms of speed and and size, the firmware to keep it all talking to one another and synced will grow, etc.

I see this as a complete non-starter that provides the vast majority of users with no benefit.
--
My display of mediocrity
http://groovygeek.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[J Mankila]

Honestly, it sounds like a nice idea. I just don't see much incentive for manufacturers to implement it.

When people see that they don't have to upgrade from the D800/D4 generation, there will be incentives in abundance.

The idea of the body, along with the AF modules, metering and processors being fairly constant is a sound one, to me. Although the notion of megapixels killing high ISO performance has been busted to a certain degree, and the need for changing between sensors of the same generation will be limited, I can certainly understand the need to upgrade the sensor without needing to change the body.

The only fly in the ointment that I can foresee is the fact that major technological changes are more than likely. For example, the AF module could very well one day be found on the sensor itself - where would that leave the off-sensor module, I don't know. The necessities posed by film are being forgotten and new approaches, more suitable to digital sensor tech, are being used.

12 firmwares is a lot more than one firmware per model. And even with the current system you always get glitches and bugs and need updates.....

This seems like a case of change resistance more than reasoned expectations. The amount of people allocated to firmware updates would need to be increased, but that is it.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

 

[J Mankila]

As sensor resolution, image acquisition speed, file size, bit depth, etc increases the "busses" that connect the modules will be come obsolete. Ever tried to pop out a processor from a computer and try to pop in a new one from a newer generation. This does not work most of the time with the next gen processor, and never works with 2 gen out. Memory needs will grow both in terms of speed and and size, the firmware to keep it all talking to one another and synced will grow, etc.

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...

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?

I see this as a complete non-starter that provides the vast majority of users with no benefit.

I started a thread about electronic displays one day taking over the prints. 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?

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

 

[Luke Kaven]

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.

If we could design a power/control interface for these drop-in sensor boards, with their different read-out technologies and different clock and voltage requirements, then we are still concerned with price incentive.

Sell your D4 after two years, and collect $4500. For the $1500 (possibly too low) you would use to buy a replacement sensor, you can have a new $6000 camera, with more feature upgrades.

But in spite of all these things, the idea is tempting.

 

[rhlpetrus]

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.

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.

If we could design a power/control interface for these drop-in sensor boards, with their different read-out technologies and different clock and voltage requirements, then we are still concerned with price incentive.

Sell your D4 after two years, and collect $4500. For the $1500 (possibly too low) you would use to buy a replacement sensor, you can have a new $6000 camera, with more feature upgrades.

But in spite of all these things, the idea is tempting.

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

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[rhlpetrus]

Honestly, it sounds like a nice idea. I just don't see much incentive for manufacturers to implement it.

When people see that they don't have to upgrade from the D800/D4 generation, there will be incentives in abundance.

The idea of the body, along with the AF modules, metering and processors being fairly constant is a sound one, to me. Although the notion of megapixels killing high ISO performance has been busted to a certain degree, and the need for changing between sensors of the same generation will be limited, I can certainly understand the need to upgrade the sensor without needing to change the body.

Observe Nikon is already doing that. Even though D800/E and D4 have different sensors, the AF includes the metering module and it's exactly the same on both cameras. Much like they did with D300 and D3 before. So, they are very close to it, even the D800 and D800E, they kept the AA system, only changed one of the filters so that they could keep same microlenses, etc. They said so.

The only fly in the ointment that I can foresee is the fact that major technological changes are more than likely. For example, the AF module could very well one day be found on the sensor itself - where would that leave the off-sensor module, I don't know. The necessities posed by film are being forgotten and new approaches, more suitable to digital sensor tech, are being used.

No problem, you have it moved there, then body would change if no mirror necessary. Of course, that'd be a new line, and that's coming at some point. But Nikon could still be producing updated modules for the old mirrorbox designs, with the sensor AF used for LV. That's good for those that would still be carrying their mirrorbox bodies around.

One problem solved (no need to updtae the mirrorbox bodies forever once ML becomes the best option with the new tech).

PS: are you going with the D800/E? I'm finally going FF .
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[Jeff Klofft]

If you go the modular route you will have choices, but there will be some strange bugs in certain configurations, just like hardware drivers on Windows. The current system is more like Mac (or even iPad). It's a complete solution and it is what it is, but that limitation has meant things can be more tightly integrated and tested. For me, I'll take the latter.

--
Jeff

 

[tarnish]

There would be double walls between modules where there are none today, so size and weight could do nothing but increase.

The firmware issue is certainly not going to be a technological barrier. Each module gets it's own firmware and the power and communication interfaces would be standardized. This should sound very familiar to everyone when you look at the current lineup of bodies, flashes, and lenses which already has some 15 years of track record. However with more firmware functionality to write and debug, and more interfaces to adhere to, this would be a burden on R&D. That would not be insurmountable if there was going to be large growth in the DSLR market but those days may be over.

This looks like one of those things that can be done but the balance is tipped in favor of not doing it.

 

[Leif Goodwin]

There would be double walls between modules where there are none today, so size and weight could do nothing but increase.

Yes, as I said earlier. And these days cameras are quite bulky due to the electronics. In future they may well shrink a fair bit. So by defining a modular standard, you lock out having a smaller body, and end up with a bigger one than is typical today.

This might suit some, but not the amateur like me who upgrades perhaps after 5 years. I think it is one of these ideas that sounds marvelous, until you work through all the details and consequences.

 

[rhlpetrus]

Mac user here. Nikon would be making the modules, so they'd be well tested and integrated, just like my MacAir integrates very well with the iMac, no need for cables for them to communicate. Or like all softs that Apple make work almost without glitches on their machines. Actually, even MS Office works better on a Mac ! So maybe even Sony could make a nice module . Or Sigma an their interesting sensor tech. Nikon only has to develop a flexible, well-thought protocol for integration.

If you go the modular route you will have choices, but there will be some strange bugs in certain configurations, just like hardware drivers on Windows. The current system is more like Mac (or even iPad). It's a complete solution and it is what it is, but that limitation has meant things can be more tightly integrated and tested. For me, I'll take the latter.

--
Jeff

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

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[Bill Fagan]

Modular only really works when the modules are less than one third of the total cost. New sensor modules would probably exceed 5/8 or more of the cost, especially if upgraded AF and metering are included.

 

[AgentHEX]

Nikon and other camera manufacturers are incredibly conservative, and even if they're going to take a risk, it's not going to be something that's known to be stupid like what ricoh is doing.

If they're going to invest somewhere, it should an actually advanced camera that overhauls the clunky AF/dof systems left from the mechanical film days instead of just selling the same archaic thing in pieces.

Nikon probably has in their hands the two best sensor/ADC systems in 135 (FF) format. Maybe they will also develop a video dedicated sensor at 22MP, if that's really relevant, or the next action dedicated sensor could be like that.

Think of 3 FF bodies, suggested prices (maybe not realistic, some may know more about that):

• B1 A relatively basic body, no frills, no tough sealing, about size of D7000, 1,000USD
• B2 D800 level, 2,000 USD
• B3 D4 level, 4,800 USD

Each would take the sensor/toppings/ADC modules, all at about 1,800USD:

• M1 Present D800's 36MP s/t/ADC,
• M2 Present D800E's 36MP s/t/ADC, possibly with a stronger CFA and base ISo at 50.
• M3 Present D4's 16MP s/t/ADC
• M4 Possibly a 22MP s/t/ADC dedicated to video.

Buying separately, prices above. Kits, progressive discounts, like:

B1+M4 = 2,500
B1+M2+M3 = 4,000

B2+M2 = 3,500
B2+M2+M3 = 5,000

B3+M3= 6,300
B3+M2+M4= 7,800

Modules updtaed every 2 years (minor, major, alternatively), bodies every 4 years.

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

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

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[mfbernstein]

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

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.

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.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[J Mankila]

..... Even though D800/E and D4 have different sensors, the AF includes the metering module and it's exactly the same on both cameras. Much like they did with D300 and D3 before. So, they are very close to it, even the D800 and D800E, they kept the AA system, only changed one of the filters so that they could keep same microlenses, etc. They said so.

Yes, in a way this is very much modular design. In many ways it's a sound business decision and will help both the manufacturer as well as the customers.

PS: are you going with the D800/E? I'm finally going FF .

Of course I am! That is, when I've graduated and found myself a job. So, I'm around 100% certain I will be getting a D800, but the exact time I can't say - but I don't mind, in the grand scheme of things, as I've waited for it for so long. For me, it's more important to know that it is exactly what I was hoping for when I decided to pass up the D700.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

 

[Leif Goodwin]

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

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.

But on the bright side we'd see lots of "Are my modules out of calibration" posts.