Can Nikon produce a mirrorless camera for SLR lenses

[keith_bintley]

<p>I realise this is speculation and I don't want to waste anybody's time, but... I travel quite a bit with business and have a pocket Canon IXUS and a Nikon D700, neither of which are ideal for me. The Canon is good but suffers from the inevitable weaknesses of a small sensor, the Nikon is great but a brick for travel. No DSLR is small enough. I've been very impressed by the new Panasonic GF1 which seems to offer something in the middle. However I don't really want the expense of buying the new camera and set of lenses. My ideal would be for Nikon to do something similar so I could use my Nikon primes on a much smaller, mirrorless, body. Is this optically possible, and, more speculatively has anyone heard anything from Nikon?</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Can Nikon produce a mirrorless camera for SLR lenses? YES! I am sure any maker can do that depending on the patents that Panasonic has on the system. <br>

Has anyone heard about Nikon going this way/ I am sure not and even if anyone knows they won't talk about it.<br>

What about compromising? A small used D50/40/60 would be very compact when used with primes. </p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Micro 4/3 has a very short lens mount to sensor distance. Because of that adapters have been made for almost every lens mount including Nikon F lenses.<br>

http://www.cameraquest.com/adp_micro_43.htm</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>You can use your Nikon lenses on a current micro-4/3 camera with the appropriate adapater.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>You can adapt your Nikon F mount lenses onto micro 4/3 cameras, but the lenses will still be relatively big.</p>

<p>Would you consider getting a D3000 or D5000 type body? They are small but not tiny. Maybe that can be your solution. (One problem is that currently [at least in the US] you cannot buy a D3000 new, body only. It always comes with the 18-55 VR zoom.)</p>

[keith_bintley]

<p>I didn't know about the adaptor and that's really helpful, thanks. I presume the focal length will simply double with a full frame lens. Will a DX lens such as the 18-70 be something different (maths is not my strong point!) One appeal of the GF1 is it so flat so can be put in a brief case etc but also, presumably, has that nice metal feel.</p>

[phototransformations]

<p>Any lens will "double" on the GF1. SLR lenses are designated by focal length, regardless of whether they are DX or FX. The main difference between DX and FX lenses is the size of the image circle. The DX lenses should more than cover the sensor of the GF1. I came really close to buying a GF1 because of its cool rangefinder-like body but pulled the plug at the last minute because the G1 seemed to offer significantly more features in an only slightly-larger form factor. One consideration was using my Nikon lenses. I can't see putting a heavy lens on a camera and then holding it at arm's length to take a picture. I'd need an eye-level viewfinder for stability. So I opted for the G1. The GH1 is a better choice for movies than the GF1, so if that's important to you, consider the GH1, too.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>I'd get a D50 and move on. These are very capable (6MP) machines IMHO. They weigh about half of what a D700 does. D50=540 gms. D700's=995 gms.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Focal length never changes but the 4/3 sensor size has a crop factor of 2X in comparison to 35mm film. The 18-70 lens on a Nikon DX body gives the same angle of view that a 29-105 lens would on film/FX. On a 4/3 camera it would give the same angle of view as a 36-140 lens. The image circle of a DX lens is larger than the 4/3 sensor but I don't think you should do that because the 18-70 is a G lens. The Nikon F adapter for Micro 4/3 has no way to control the aperture for G lenses so you will be stuck at the min aperture (f22?) unless you jam some cardboard or something into the aperture lever.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Olympus has a new little camera that takes lenses. It looks like a mini-rangefinder. I think Nikon has its hands full creating product as it is. I think the best current Nikon camera for travel is the D5000.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>The Olympus EP-1, Panasonic G1/GH1, and GF1 are all Micro 4/3 cameras. They can all use each others lenses with full functionality as well as tons of other brand lenses with the right adapters but you will lose AF, VR, etc.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I think most people can understand about losing AF and VR, but if you also lose the control of the aperture or you have to use an older Nikon lens with an aperture ring, the limitation becomes pretty serious. Moreover, the crop factor for 4/3 is 2x, your wide angle becomes a serious problem and most FX zoom ranges don't make much sense any more.</p>

<p>Again, if your lenses are not all that small, it pretty much negates all the advantages of having a tiny camera body. In fact, you'll end up with a front heavy, very imbalanced set up.</p>

<p>So regardless of whether the bodies are made by Olympus/Panasonic or by Nikon, reusing existing interchangable lenses from the 35mm era will be problematic.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Keith, like the GF1 but better IQ, you could also consider the tiny new <strong><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Leica-X1-pre.shtml">Leica X1</a></strong>; the APS sized sensor of the LEICA X1 is the <strong>biggest</strong> sensor ever put in a point-and-shoot digital camera. The 24mm lens gives an angle of view similar to what a 35mm lens would see on a full frame equivalent. (Favorite focal length of many photojournalist from the past.) Additionally, this "prime" little jewel lens should out perform any of the G class Nikkor zooms.</p>

<p>As to your original question of anybody hearing anything from Nikon, <strong>no</strong>. With the exception of the recent <strong>remake</strong> of the (old rangefinder model) Nikon SP, Nikon hasn't concentrated on rangefinder cameras & lenses. Because of this, they aren't able to make a body without having to produce a new line of small lenses. Mounting your current aperture settable, SLR design lenses to a new RF style body would look akward and might just be laughable.</p>

<p>There is obvious demand for the question you pose Keith; many are in the same delema:</p>

<p>With Leica hanging in with their RF system, they finally produced the astonishing full frame <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/m9-first.shtml"><strong>Leica M9</strong></a>. Believe it or not, many in Europe are trading in their Canon and Nikon Pro gear for this M9<strong> !</strong> See this <a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_M9_Photographers_ditch_DSLR_cameras_news_289093.html12"><strong>link</strong></a> to an article about this strange trade activity...</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>You could buy the Sigma DP-2. No interchangeable lenses, but large sensor. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/cameras/dp2.asp</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>With Leica hanging in with their RF system, they finally produced the astonishing full frame <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/m9-first.shtml" target="_blank"><strong>Leica M9</strong></a>. Believe it or not, many in Europe are trading in their Canon and Nikon Pro gear for this M9<strong> !</strong> See this <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_M9_Photographers_ditch_DSLR_cameras_news_289093.html12" target="_blank"><strong>link</strong></a> to an article about this strange trade activity...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gus, do you believe that article?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm a bit in the same boat. I had an Ixus but lost it (it's too small, I guess), so I'm looking for replacement since a D300 is not always practical, just like the D700 isn't. Some compacts can deliver really quite nice results, but deep down I know whichever I choose, it will disappoint.</p>

<p>So the micro-4/3 seems nice, but not at these prices.... They're not exactly cheap bodies to start with. Even if I can re-use my Nikon lenses, I'll still need something to cover the wide angle, so it will always turn out to be a rather significant investment. And to me, micro-4/3 is still a compromise, maybe the one with the best IQ, but also an ultimately expensive one.<br>

So to me, I'll either get the least disappointing compact (shortlist for now the Fuji F200EXR or Panasonic LX3) or a D40/D3000. Now if Nikon would come up with an micro-APS-C body thing, that would make the choice easy, but since there isn't such a thing, it's still a difficult choice to make.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Shun, you're right that putting a big lens on a small body will make for a hard to use combo. Even if you use a smaller wide angle prime like a 20mm or 35mm you still have the added depth of the adapter which is shifting the bulk of the weight forward.</p>

<p>I think the Nikon adapter would work better on the G1/GH1 which looks like an SLR with a built in grip.</p>

<p>I have read many comments from Leica rangefinder users that enjoy using their Leica M lenses on the EP-1 and GF1. Those are much smaller lenses with smaller adapters so the balance will be better.</p>

[richard_driscoll]

<p>My D40 is still very, very much bigger than my Ixus 870! It will be interesting to see what the new Canon S90 is like when it arrives.<br>

A small new Nikon non-reflex with adaptor might not be much smaller than a D40 anyway.</p>

 

[cc_chang2]

<p>I am a Nikon shooter for more than 30 years. My first camera was a FM2N. Beside this forum, I now frequent those that discuss the m3/4 systems. In fact, I bought a Panny G1 and later sold it when I learned that GH1 was coming out. For those of you who are not familiar with the m3/4 system, you should really take a look at these systems, especially the GH1 b/c it most resembles the dSLRs but with numerous innovations that would be nice to have in our dSLRs.</p>

<p>The innovation of these systems comes in several folds: first is the mirror less design which removes the bulky mirror and prism, thus allowing the design of a much smaller (narrower) camera. Since the distance from the mount to the sensor is shorter, the lens is also much smaller. To send images to the view finder, it uses a state of the art electronic view finder which gives 100% view and the images are very bright and clear. Bc it is electronic, this VF can display ALL the camera status. Grid line, ISO, of course, a piece of cake. Remarkably, it can display histogram LIVE, imagine to have that with your dSLRs to help exposure adjustment. It can also preview the effect of shutter and DOF, and preview the pictures that you just take. You can do all of that without ever taking your eyes off the VF. For those who love to use MF, with Panny m3/4 lenses, the camera will automatically enlarge the view in the VF when it detects turning of the focusing ring to allow very precise focusing. The G(H)1 also has a variangle LCD to make it easy to shoot from odd angles.</p>

<p>I remembered in a google search, I found someone posted a link to a patent filed by Nikon on some kind of mirror-less design. Whether this is true or not, it does not really matter. However when you see what Panny has done with the GH1, if you are a smart dSLR maker, you should take notes and begin to find ways to transfer these facinating and very useful features into the current dSLR.</p>

<p>One can indeed use adapters to mount Nikon or any lenses to these cameras, if you just want to have a back up/travel system that use all the Nikon lenses. Despite this, most Nikon dSLR lenses are way too big and it is strange to mount them on a tiny and light body. Another issues is the lack of aperture ring for the G-lenses. This issue can be addressed by an adapter made by Novoflex, which is now available from B&H for preorder. It is not cheap at $300. The bottom line is that it is about time for Nikon to lose some weight. To me, the D300 appears to occupy the same spot that used to be occupied by the F100, a system of the past, but the two have nearly identical dimension and weight. If the advance of technology has helped to shrink the size of the music players (iPod!), phone (cell phone), and computer (laptop), it is about time that the same can happen to digital camera. C'mon Nikon and Canon, do something!</p>

[epp_b]

<p>Can you imagine mounting a big lens on camera with a compact-camera-sized sensor where the FOV multiplier is ~5x?</p>

<p>The humble 55-200 VR becomes a 275-1000. The 600mm f/4 becomes a 3000mm lens :)</p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>'With Leica hanging in with their RF system, they finally produced the astonishing full frame <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/m9-first.shtml" target="_blank"><strong>Leica M9</strong> </a> . Believe it or not, many in Europe are trading in their Canon and Nikon Pro gear for this M9<strong> !</strong> See this <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_M9_Photographers_ditch_DSLR_cameras_news_289093.html12" target="_blank"><strong>link</strong> </a> to an article about this strange trade activity...'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>'Gus, do you believe that article?'</p>

<p>Shun, you're not suggesting that anecdotal evidence from 3 specialist London Leica dealers with a tiny inventory of available cameras (one mentions having 8) is somehow unrepresentative of what 'many' Europeans are doing? :-)</p>

 

[walterh]

<p>Richard to be able to predict worldwide effects you really need at least a sample of 9 :-)<br>

Anyway I prefer a FF Leica any time over a G1 except so far I am still looking to find someone who pays for it ^^.</p>

<p> </p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>with a compact-camera-sized sensor where the FOV multiplier is ~5x?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Which camera are you referring to? The m3/4 cameras have a crop factor of 2, so the 55-200 will become a 110-400 mm lens. However since it is a G-lens, you would need a special (=expensive) adapter to allow for aperture control.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I don't understand all this whining and hand wringing over the size of a DSLR body. I don't have particularly large hands, but a D40 or D5000 is too small for me to hold comfortably with anything but the smallest lenses. A D200 or D300 is fine with wide-angle and normal zooms - as soon as I put on a 80-200/2.8 or similar, the grip is needed for comfortable and stable holding. I have a Leica M6 and M5 - the M6 is fine with a small lens like the 35/2 ASPH - but no longer with a 90/2 which feels much more comfortable on the larger M5. Many people choose an aftermarket grip for their Leica body - I don't shoot enough with it to really need it. I also have a Lumix DMC-FZ50 (similar in size to the above mentioned G1 but with a tiny sensor) and Sony DSC-R1 (1.67x crop factor, body similar size to an DSLR) - both cameras with an electronic viewfinder - and both viewfinders suck! The R1 makes up for it with a unconventional but quite usable placement of the LCD on top of the camera. I can't imagine putting a SLR lens on one of these m4/3 cameras and then hold it at arms length to compose the image on the rear LCD. I hope that Nikon and Canon will keep developing the digital camera - but miniaturization better not be part of it.<br /> To all those people ditching their DSLR in favor of the M9 - I hope none of you is one of those that keep complaining about the 98% viewfinder of the D700 - you'd be happy to get framing anywhere close to accurate view a rangefinder.<br>

The FZ50 has a lens which goes out to 480mm film-equivalent FOV - even with IS, it is very hard to hold that light and small camera stable.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand all this whining and hand wringing over the size of a DSLR body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I may not be able to directly answer your questions but just try to imagine that you told people the following 10 years ago:</p>

<p>you carried your phone with you every where you go,<br>

you carry all your song AND video collections with you, where ever you go,<br>

you could surf the internet every where you go,</p>

<p>Now imagine 10 years from now you tell people that we used to use a device that weighs more than one lb just to take pictures. </p>

<p>It seems that to assume that "good" cameras have to heavier is to assume that the only way to make safe cars is to make them larger and heavier.</p>

<p>Have you seen or used the EVF on the G1? Do you remember how the LCD panel first appeared on the back of the dSLR?</p>