Nikon Plans `New Concept' SLR Camera as Early as This Year

<p>The “new concept” model will probably have an enhanced function for video recording and may adopt the so-called mirrorless structure, Kimura said in an interview today in Tokyo. “It could be any time this fiscal year or the following year, as new models are starting to sell,” he said, declining to specify when the product will be available.<br>

..<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-08/nikon-plans-new-concept-slr-camera-as-early-as-this-year-kimura-says.html">. read more</a>.</p>

<p>I wonder if they are just jumping onto the Micro FourThird cameras and similar concepts or might there be yet another approach.</p>

<p>"a mirrorless" "single-lens reflex camera" to quote from the first two sentences. Definitely a "new concept" that I am afraid not even Nikon can pull off - unless there is a way to have a reflex camera without a conventional mirror in it that I am not aware of.</p>

i have seen somewhere yesterday that canon show a new video cam ( they should produce it in a near future) with only a

touch screen no physical button... where you can get a 8x10 photo quality by selecting the frame that you need... kind of a

RED camera but for the rest of us non millionaire : )

 

also, couple month ago i was talking with a senior nikon rep in a photo event and he said that nikon was on a way on

doing something big and new ... like 3d on a dslr...soon

<p>Isn't this "New Concept" pretty much a Point-and-Shoot with live-view and interchangeable lenses?<br>

All the same, the mirror and shutter mechanisms in general are definitely the Achilles' heels of current camera production. It's those <em>mechanical</em> parts that wear out. I can't remember any time that the "electronic" parts of a machine have failed on me (except maybe the first time you turn it on).</p>

<p>SLRs, by definition, has a mirror to reflect the image to the viewfinder. Those "mirrorless" cameras are not SLRs.</p>

<p>Shun forgive me if I am incorrect but I don't think the mirror itself is necessary for a camera to be considered an SLR I think the defining point of an SLR is that the camera user is looking through the photo capturing lens when framing and viewing what they are going to photograph.</p>

<p>Not sure if I used the correct terminology but does that make sense?</p>

<p>I have no idea what they do have planned but they might have made a camera with no mirror that still has a single lens and an eyepiece that the user looks through that shows them exactly what is through the lens by some means.</p>

<p>Again, the R in SLR stands for reflect, no mirror, no reflect. The "mirrorless" cameras are single-lens but they are not reflect; they provide a new way to compose that was not possible with old-fashioned film photography.</p>

<p>Anyway, terminology is merely a side discussion.</p>

<p>Actually Shun the R in SLR stands for Reflex not Reflect. I think it refers to the action of an element flipping up or flipping down to move the light from going to the eyepiece to going to the exposing surface (sensor or film) so I am still not 100% convinced that a mirror is necessary in an SLR.</p>

<p>Reflex refers to what happens in the prism.<br>

Looking at a little video screen viewfinder, you'd still be viewing what will be recorded (without parallax error) just like an SLR, so the difference is semantic.</p>

<p>If the camera is SLR, it must have a mirror.</p>

<p>Word "reflex" in human body does not mean reflection of light, but we are here about the photography subject and any camera reflexes or movements - if slow or fast mirror action, is not the reflex originally named in SLR.</p>

<p>What is the purpose of this discussion ?</p>

<p>Sorry Kyle, I meant reflex, but the reason remains the same. And it merely refers to the existance of a mirror, as TLRs (twin lens) have mirrors that do not move inside the camera.</p>

<p>Without the mirror, it is not an SLR and your lens design is no longer restricted by the presence of the mirror. Therefore, mirrorless cameras are closer to rangefinders with interchangeable lenses such as the Leica M and Contax G, and you can use a totally different set of lenses, but mirrorless cameras are single lens so that your compose from the same lens as you capture, which traditional range finders are not.</p>

<p>If Nikon gets into the mirrorless space, it'll be interesting to see whether they maintain compatibility with their traditional F lenses, which are designed for SLRs instead of rangefinders/mirrorless or they introduce a new set of lenses. If it is the latter, whether they will provide an adapter to mount F lenses. Part of the appeal of mirrorless cameras is their small size; using F lenses will compromises that big advantage to a large degree.</p>

<p> I think they just used the term SLR incorrectly and they are coming out with a camera to compete with the micro 4/3rds and Sony Evil type camera's. Maybe it will have an electronic viewfinder along with live view. Sounds like it will have a good video feature on it. Probably will be popular with many consumers. I am curious if it will be a new lens line up or if they plan on using the same lenses that are already available..</p>

<p>Or maybe they have come up with a new design that is completely unique and has no mirror but still has the camera user looking through the lens so instead of being like a TLR or a rangefinder where parallax is an issue this new design wouldn't suffer from that issue.</p>

<p>I understand reflex refers to the mirror in that way now. I just was offering up maybe an explanation as to why they used the term SLR. It was just a thought anyway.</p>

<p>Considering the gaps in Nikon's lens line up and the fact that the update of quite few older lenses is long overdue, I'd be pretty annoyed if Nikon now chooses to spend their apparently meager and insufficient resources on the development and production of a new line of lenses for a new type of camera. Not that I mind them exploring new revenue streams - but not at the expense of neglecting already existing product lines.<br>

Then again, something updated along the lines of the Sony DSC-R1 might not be a bad idea - the camera has a couple of nice features already. Fervent hope is for a DX size sensor and not a 4/3.</p>

<p>Damon, you are incorrect.<br>

My Nikon F3, Pentax Lx, and two Bronica ETR-Si's all have removable prisms, and they do not cease to be SLR's with their prisms removed. Many medium format SLR's, such as Hasselblads and Mamiya RB/RZ 67's, are very commonly used a with waist-level finder, which has no prism.</p>

<p>"Reflex" refers to the use of a mirror to reflect light coming through a lens, either the taking lens or one like the taking lens, which is used for viewing.<br>

A Rolleiflex is a TLR, a twin-lens reflex. A fixed mirror reflects the image coming through the upper lens onto a focusing screen.<br>

A camera cannot be a reflex camera without a mirror. And reflex has nothing to do with a mirror moving.</p>

<p>Two things come to mind, the pellicle mirror used in cameras like the Canon Eos RT, and the beam splitter prism used instead of a mirror in the Olymous E10.</p>

<p>The pellicle mirror being fixed and semi transparent allowed continuous viewing, though it seems to have had some disadvantages like difficulty in low light situations. Perhaps there's an improvement on that ? But not really mirrorless.</p>

<p>I don't really understand how a prism works, but they alter the light path, so I suppose can be used in place of a mirror - the clever part to me is how it passes light through to the sensor and up to the viewfinder at the same time. But according to photo.net <a href="../equipment/olympus/e-10">http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/e-10</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>unlike the typical SLR, the Olympus does not have a mirror that flips up and out of the way during exposure. A permanent beam-splitting prism is in the imaging path</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even so it I expect what they really mean is, they have an EVIL model on the way.<br>

But that wouldn't be an SLR, and it wouldn't fulfill the same function unless there was a massive improvement in EVF technology. It might still sell though.</p>

 

<p>I await this development with interest. In my opinion the concept of using a conventional mirror and shutter is outdated and I am sure the technical issues have been resolved a while ago. Live view is just one step towards this. I have been surprised how useful this is on D300S . I'll not be giving up the real finder as sticking the fixed live view screen on the back is ergonomically poor. The video camera model of design is much more appropriate as still and video cameras will become inseparable in the not to distant future. <br /> There are two barriers to the adoption of the mirror-less camera. Consumer resistance and the resolution of electronic viewfinders. If a camera manufacture could come up with a camera which has high resolution, low noise,dynamic range equivalent to human vision and HD Video, I'd happily accept the limitations of an EVF.</p>

<p>There are more things against moving out of the mirror paradigm than just "consumer resistance" (actually looking at the kind of SLR viewfinders that consumers put up with you'd think they'd be dying to get rid of the mirror and optical viewfinder as they are implemented in consumer DSLRs). The phase-detect AF also depends on mirrors. If you want to get rid of the mirrors in a DSLR you need to base autofocus on the main sensor data and at least Nikon doesn't know how to do this properly (ever tried live view AF? It is really quite terrible.) Panasonic seems to be able to do it better but they use smaller sensors with inherently (slightly) greater depth of field. Anyway, without doubt Nikon will enter this mirrorless interchangeable lens digital camera market as this allows smaller cameras and that's what consumers want. The good AF and the good optical viewfinders that give DSLRs their motivation of existence are available only in the higher end models, anyway (D300s and up) so I'd expect the low end DSLRs to lose their mirrors very soon in those brands which haven't done so yet (of course, they won't be DSLRs any more since most of the acronym is about how many main mirrors there are.) The question is how does Nikon gain access to fluidly working AF algorithms that are based on the main sensor data (the problem is, I believe, the amount of data that needs to be processed, and the lack of directional information "which way to turn"). While I think optical viewfinders will exist in the higher end camera bodies for at least a decade more, I do think for the consumer models the time of the mirror is up since the pressure is to make the cameras smaller.</p>

<p>Canon <strong>had</strong> a film EOS RT camera body. The mirror dimmed the viewfinder a bit, but *ala carte* in function, no mirror flap. The semi-transparent mirror design worked fine. I do not know who owns the patent on it, but the concept should work for a D-SLR body.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>AF speed is certainly an issue as Ilkka points out. Nikon's AF speed in the live view mode is currently a joke; indoors somethings it takes 2, 3 seconds for a simple 50mm lens to get in focus. But I am sure that is a problem they can eventually overcome.</p>

<p>Another issue is that while LCD technology has improved a lot, IMO using the LCD to compose is still not sufficient for serious photography. Live view is good for shooting news or a party when you hold the camera overhead and have a crude composition. Otherwise, I still by far prefer an optical viewfinder. Again, that also may change over time as electronic viewfinders improve further.</p>

<p>Finally, holding a camera a few inches in front of your eyes to compose is a lot more unstable than pressing the camera against your face for hand held shooting, especially if you have a bigger lens in front, something like a 70-200mm/f2.8.</p>

<p>Therefore, to me, at this point mirrorless camera are mainly those smaller ones for consumers, in the sense that they are improved digicams that give you higher-quality interchangeable lenses. For more serious photography, I would prefer an SLR for many years to come. In other words, the main advantage for mirrorless is small size. Therefore, it probably does not make a whole lot of sense for Nikon (or anybody else) to maintain compatibility with those traditional F-mount SLR lenses, which are much larger. But regardless of which way Nikon chooses, I am sure there will be a lot of complaints about compatibility with the past or the lack of it.</p>

<p>Yeah, despite all the obfuscation and overcomplication, <em>reflex</em> here does indicate a mirror. I'd suggest TTL for a mirrorless-through-the-lens camera, except that is already used for something else. How about TTLV (through the lens viewfinder) or just TLV ?</p>

<p>The Canon pellicle stationary mirror had certain advantages, but the Nikon concept sounds more like an EVF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Another model was added to the EOS-1N line, "EOS-1N RS." The camera has a stationary pellicle mirror that ensures capturing that illusive (sic) moment because there is no viewfinder black-out at shutter release. and the fixed mirror also gives high-speed continuous shooting at the speed of 10 frames per second. [<a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/history/canon_story/1992_1996/1992_1996.html">ca. 1994--from Canon Camera Story</a>] {punctuation and spelling as in original}</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"What is the purpose of this discussion ?"<br>

To remove those little bits of annoying fluff that collect in the belly button. Actually, the purpose was to report a statement made by Nikon regarding a future product. Unfortunately it is rather vague. Best wait and see.</p>

<p>These kinds of cameras are a significant part of the future of cameras.</p>

<p>I've handled and used one of the new Olympus mirrorless cameras and it is MARVELOUS to use.</p>

<p>I don't think DSLRs will go away, but this new class will take over the higher end of P&S cameras, the lower end of DSLRs (that Olympus blows away anything at the bottom of the line of Sony, Pentax, Nikon, Canon, et al for many "serious casual" purposes), AND these will eat into some camcorder sales, too.</p>

<p>This point of intersection between entry level DSLRs and fixed lens digital cameras has been brewing for some time. I thought about it when I got my first DSLR a few months ago. There is not that much difference in price between the Pentax K-x I got and a Canon G11. The Pentax is larger and somewhat heavier but it is much more versatile. I have K mount film cameras and lenses so the K-x lets me use the lenses. Once small digital cameras with rear displays instead of viewfinders appeared and once enough manual control was available, some interesting macro work could be done by just putting close-up lenses or reversed camera lenses in front of them. The market has a big mix of camera users. Some people buy an entry level DSLR with a kit lens and only use that lens. Others may buy an EVIL and/or MILC camera and want more lenses. If the MILC cameras using an APS-C size sensor allow for better high ISO IQ then that's an advantage which is worthwhile even if the camera or lens has IS. If high ISO performance is not so important then 4/3 MILC cameras already have high enough IQ for the size print most people will make. <br>

The entry level DSLRs are larger than MILCs but they aren't very heavy. A Canon F-1 or Nikon F2 or Nikkormat will be a lot heavier than most entry level DSLRs. Apart from the novelty factor of the smaller MILCs I don't know how many buyers will really want that many extra lenses. The person who wants or needs extra lenses will probably use a DSLR. </p>

 

<p>I'll take my Nikon F and use it to crush those EVF wannabe cameras...</p>