Any good reasons why Nikon couldn't make a small, lightweight full frame DSLR?

<p>I like small, light cameras and for the 25+ years that I used film I had a pair of Nikon FE2s - still have them in fact. My first DSLR was a D40x which I upgraded last year to a D3100. I would have liked to have the additional features that the D7000 offers but at 235gms more than the D3100 it felt just that bit too heavy when I tried it out at the store. <br /> What I would really like is a full frame DSLR (my old manual primes are resting in the cupboard waiting for the day that one appears!) but at 995gm a D700 is out of the question. So are there any good technical reasons why Nikon couldn't make an FX camera of a similar size and weight (550gm) to the FE2?</p>

<p>Because Nikon is like every other camera company. You can't put 50 pounds of mud into a five pound sack. The electronics, mirror assembly, sensor requires room.</p>

<p>There is no technical reason keeping Nikon from manufacturing the type of camera you want.<br>

The problem is Nikon thinks serious photographers want large heavy cameras with large heavy lenses. Nikon obviously doesn't think they would sell a lot of cameras like you describe.</p>

<p>William have you opened up a full frame camera? What could they eliminate?</p>

<p>Robin, you'll know why if you ever get a chance to see a typical dSLR disassembled compared to an FE2. In fact, you'll probably be amazed and begin to appreciate how they can stuff so many things in such a small package. </p>

<p>Here's a disassembly video of a D7000 - jump toward the final 1/3 to see its components:<br>

<a href="

<p>Large scale integration of electronics and miniaturization should make cameras smaller and lighter in the future, but like cars where materials keep getting lighter through design, they keep getting heavier because features are constantly being added. </p>

<p>The D3100 (DX format) is already bigger than an FM2:</p>

<p>D3100 = 124mm x 96mm x 74.5mm = 886..8 cc <br /> FM2 = 142.5mm x 90mm x 60mm = 769.5 cc</p>

<p>Yes I would like something smaller and lighter than my D700. I put my name in for a 16 ounce DX Fujifilm x100 to hike with after going out for 2 weeks to see what I could do with just a 35mm focal length in FX. Apples and oranges I know and the weight difference is dramatic at over 2 pounds lighter. Smaller is nice but to small doesn't do much for me. It really should be possible but it depends on Nikon's marketing radar not what I want.</p>

<p>I'm just the opposite, I bought two D300s bodies to replace D70s bodies because after comparing the size of the D7000, which is sightly smaller than the D70s, I wanted something that fit my hand well (plus other demands), the D300s was it. I've handled the D3000 and it felt like a toy in my hand, not that it is one, it's a plenty good camera, it just didn't fit me, and I'm not an especially big guy, 5'-10", 195 lbs, med/large glove.</p>

<p>Nikon could do it. Look at the Leica M9 full frame in a small package is possible. DX is even more possible look at the sony NEX cameras and the Samsung NX cameras.</p>

<p>There was a heated discussion if D7000 camera body is a metal body, and how that compares to solid metal frame bodies like D300, D200.</p>

<p>Even another picture showing some skeleton of metal shielding plates was produced, that clearly did not represent the D7000 camera, as shown contrary to this video.</p>

<p>If you intend to get the D7000 you should watch closely the video from link porovided by Michael.</p>

<p>Do you really need any lighter camera?</p>

<p>Stuart, remember that the M9 is a rangefinder. It doesn't require a mirror to flip up out of the light path when the shutter is fired. So there is a limit to just how small a DSLR can be made with that necessity in place. As wide-angle SLR lenses have been designed to take into account this extra required distance (that is what is meant by retrofocus), you can't put them closer to the sensor and have infinity focus still.</p>

<p>And even some Leicaphiles complain that the M9 is a little too large--it's a massive 3 extra millimeters in depth larger than an M7: 37 mm vs. 34 mm. Scandalous!</p>

<p>A small and lightweight full-frame true DSLR is probably not possible at this state of the art, but an EVF mirrorless camera could definitely be made smaller and lighter. However, it has to be remembered that any camera reliant on battery power is going to be heavier and bulkier than the old mechanical film cameras. Look at that doorstop the F4 for example, compared to the neat little F3 that it "replaced".</p>

<p>WRT the depth required to maintain the back-focus of Nikon lenses; if the sensor of an EVF camera was to be placed in the floor or roof of the camera and a 45 degree mirror used to deflect the light path, then the camera body could be made a little over 24mm deep and still use F mount lenses. Electronically reversing the digital image to compensate for the mirror would be trivial.</p>

<p>Welcome in the club Robin! Many people dream on such as possible camera from Nikon. If Nikon could produce it I'd be happy with less bells and whistles, like no pop-up flash, no focusing motor, 11p AF, 2...3 fps... but with a great viewfinder and a good build quality, not a cheap one. Nikon need to understand that we do not want a D3s in a small package... we just want a good FX sensor in a small package with every compromise necessary to build it. Period.</p>

<p>The video is most impressive. I am left with the thought that today's cameras are a long way from the Kodak Brownie introduced in the early 1900's or even the mechanical, meterless camera of the 60's and 70's.</p>

 

<p>It would seem then that there may be a few technical issues to address but I have no doubt that such a camera would prove to be popular (three of us on this thread would buy one for a start!) and not just with amateurs. The smallest and lightest film system was the Olympus OM and a lot of professionals chose to use that including, here in the UK, David Bailey and the late Patrick Lichfield.</p>

<p>IMHO Mihai has it but more focused on weight than size. Size and weight are to different parameters. I considered a D7000 even though it is a bit small for me, but it is not light enough for me to consider as a light weight camera to pair to my D700. Hopefully the x100 will be. I am willing to give up extra's, even lens so that I will at least have a camera with me. Leica's are small but far to heavy and far to expensive to be considered. I have used the M3 and M6 when I shot film. I will not give up a good viewfinder, I tried :~(</p>

<p>Yep but the basic body part of the M9 is the near same size as an FM2 without the prism and lens throat. A Digital FM2 could be made the same size as a film FM2 or near enough.</p>

It's not gonna happen, because it makes no economic sense for Nikon to cater to neoluddites like me who live in a

digital world and have made peace with it but who vastly prefer using the analog cameras of yore, but I would be very

happy if they could graft a full-frame digital sensor into a body identical in size, appearance and features to, say, an

FM3a. I think they should even leave in the wind-on lever for cocking the shutter - no motors anywhere.

 

And please, God, no electronic viewfinders either. Oh, how I do hate those things.

<p>If you want a small camera, buy a DX DSLR or one of those small mirrorless cameras; it does not have to be a Nikon. Forget about those old AI/AI-S lenses on your shelf; they will not perform well on your high-end DSLRs.</p>

<p>Forcing an FX sensor into a body that has no AF motor, dual memory card slots, weather sealing, a large back LCD for image review, a large, durable battery ... makes little sense. The entire FX format DSLRs is somewhat a niche market to begin with. Canon only has two current FX models: the 1Ds III is over 4 years old and the 5D II is over 3. Sony effectively has only one, the A900; they added an almost identical A850 as an economy model and then discontinued it. It is not even clear whether Sony will remain in the full frame market. Nikon has 3 current models: D3X, D700, and D3S. The D3S is the "latest" model introduced 2 years ago in October, 2009.</p>

<p>The current estimate is that only 5% of Nikon DSLRs is FX. Their focus is clearly in consumer DX-format DSLRs and mirrorless cameras with 2.7x sensors. There is simply no way that Nikon will further carve out a tiny niche market out of the current FX niche to meet the demand of a small number of people.</p>

<p>A few months ago, Thom Hogan wrote in his blog that he proposed something along the line of a digital FM3A to the CEO of Nikon. The CEO asked Hogan how many of those he personally would buy because Nikon couldn't sell that to a whole lot of other people. IMO, Nikon's CEO is right on; that is why he is the CEO of a successful camera company while Hogan is not.</p>

<p>The video was interesting, Michael, but for me it was a little like looking at the interior of some video players years ago. One is amazed by the mass of cables connecting parts that could surely be combined into much smaller integrated circuits.<br>

However, the point holds true. I suspect that the market, though it seems huge to us, is probably too small to justify the design of more integrated components, though.</p>

<p>Why would one need "FF" anyhow? If you want a smaller camera form, why not accept the smaller sensors too?</p>

<p>Shun Cheung, I hope you were kidding when you said "Forget about those old AI/AI-S lenses on your shelf; they will not perform well on your high-end DSLRs." You do know you just opened a can of worms. Your statement is not true at all and there are numerous examples that counter your statement.<br>

Back to the original topic. I'd take a Nikon FE size full-frame camera any day. The D700 is just too darn heavy and big to take everywhere. I don't want a DX camera and I don't want the tiny mirrorless. I do want a full-frame sensor but without the weight and size. Unfortuantely that's not offered.</p>

<p>How many lens nikon would sell with that camera? Granted, second hand AI/AIS are cheap and high quality but Nikon would earn no money with that. The manual focus lens catalogue is small nowadays.</p>

<p>Many people asked for a small, well built body that would take manual focus lens. Somehow that has showed up in the shape of the D7000.</p>

 

<p>To answer the original question, I don't think there is any good technical reason, just marketing reasons. Nikon's expensive cameras have always been big and heavy, and right now FX is a premium feature that they only put in expensive cameras. We know that full frame film SLRs can be made very small (never mind the FM2, how about the Pentax ME?), so it's not just the constraints on the mirror box and prism that makes the D700 as large as it is compared to the low-end DX models - the D700 (like the almost equally big DX D300) is a 'digital F100', not a 'digital F65', with a similar form factor targeted to much the same group of users. We also know, as Stuart points out, that a full-frame digital Leica isn't much bigger than a film Leica. The major dSLR (and rangefinder!) companies are busy making digital models that are close in size to the film cameras they were making a decade ago for each segment of the market. They've found a size/feature formula that works for them and they're not about to change.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun Cheung, I hope you were kidding when you said "Forget about those old AI/AI-S lenses on your shelf; they will not perform well on your high-end DSLRs." You do know you just opened a can of worms. Your statement is not true at all and there are numerous examples that counter your statement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nathan, I meant exactly what I wrote. Lens design has changed drastically since the AI/AI-S era 20, 30 years ago. Today, plenty of modern mid-price lenses take advantage of aspheric elements, ED elements, super integrated coating, nano coating, etc. etc. They are much much better than those old lenses designed for the less-demanding film several decades ago.</p>

<p>For example, I still own the 35mm/f1.4 AI-S I bought back in 1987. That is among the best AI-S lenses and yet, its chromatic aberration is as poor as the consumer-grade $199 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S. That is why I have been advising those who spend $2500 to $5000 on D700 to D3S to reserve some money on newer, better lenses, although plenty of people seem to be unable to tell the difference between good and bad lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you think the D7000 is Heavy, you need to start lifting weights and eating Wheaties.</p>