A Simple Nikon camera - If you build it I will come!

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>How many of this mythical camera would Nikon sell? Answer? Not enough to be worth it.</p>

<p>And manufacturing a camera with a mount specifically designed to accept Leica lenses? Companies like Canon and Nikon will never do that.</p>

<p>Sorry, but imho, you are going to either get with what is out now, or get left behind with your F4.</p>

[alberto_c]

<p>I'm with you, Charles. Wanting a plain FE (a Contax 139Q for me would be ideal, but I would sign for a K1000D or a OM1-D too) with a sensor, a back screen and three buttons to select, review and delete images, everything else unchanged.<br>

I don't feel such thing coming in my lifetime, though.</p>

[ty_mickan]

I don't think for a minute that Nikon will make such a camera, nor do I expect them to. I thought that this was a

hypothetical question......a bit of fun.

 

But I am curious to know why you think somebody shooting with an F4 would get left behind.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The reason the three digital M mount RF cameras are so expensive is that the production volumes are so low.<br /> The prices HAVE to be high since the tooling a development costs are high per unit sold.<br>

<br /> A low end Canon dlsr is often sold in Office Depot; Staples and even at some Walmarts. The low end Nikon or Canon dlsr is sold in the millions; while a digital RF is sold in the thousands.<br>

<br /> A simple Nikon F mount digital that folks want here would have a low production volume; just like a Leica 8/9 or Epson RD-1/s. A million dollars worth of costs in one area spread over on millon units means one has a dollar per unit cost added. For the short run case of on thousand cameras; it tacks on 1000 bucks per unit. This should not be so hard to understand.<br>

<br /> There is abit of a slacker attitude of wanting something for nothing; or maybe it is some skipped gradeschool math? :)A sane rational maker of a consumer item has to price the item to make a profit.<br /> Probably the best that will happen is a dumbed down menu for a dlsr that makes the unit more like the old days. Adding switches and a new chassis and layout means a totally new camera; thus a big tooling and development cost.<br>

<br /> One Leica boards/forums dreamers have complained about the price of the Epson RD-1; and Leica M8/9 camera bodies many many thousands of times. A typical post compares just the megapixel level of the digital RF body to a Walmart 600 buck Canon dlsr body.<br>

<br /> Dreamers/slackers *always* like to ignore the production volume; thus they get confused why one costs more. Maybe few have actually worked in manufacturing; and most work for the government and thus there is this ignore reality mindset.<br>

<br /> One can go back 10000 years ago and find spears if made in volume cost less than making a few freak ones. Today it is cheaper to print 1000 8x10's of one image than 10 8x10's of one hundred images. Get a basic book on business that covers setup cost and labor costs. The setup cost is higher per unit with low volumes. This applies to driving to the grocery store; it is cheaper to buy 10 cans of soup at one store than 1 can at ten stores; if one wants to include gasoline and ones time.<br>

<br /> It is NOT that the camera you want cannot be made; it that YOU will not pay for its radically higher price.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Kelly,</p>

<p>WELL SAID!</p>

<p>Tom, I mean "left behind" in the sense this...</p>

<p>eventually film and processing will be so expensive that you can't afford it or just don't shoot anymore that much,</p>

<p>eventually all the parts needed to repair and maintain your camera will be gone and you won't find another that behaves exactly the same,</p>

<p>and in the meantime, there are many (not saying you) who would rather belly-ache that they "don't make 'em like they used to" than learn how to use stuff the way it's made now.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>A simple variant using the same chassis and sensor is a possiblity; but that is not going to shrink the camera. Making it just like a Nikon FM means a total ground up new design; thus these costs will make the cameras price soar. Few on this thread really will put their money where their moth is; and pay 2 to 4 times more for a body that is simpler. Now add this to a poor economy where profits are hard to find; and one has no extra cash to support a boondoggle camera.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>Why don't you just get a Leica M9?<br /> <br /> Or get a FM3A and scan your film. I had an FM3A for a little while, but I had to sell it. Wonderful camera.<br /> <br /> I really doubt that Nikon would ever build a manual style digital. If they did, the cost would be astronomical due to the low volume.....then people would complain about the price. I really think you best bet is an M9.</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>As others have suggested, FE2 + scanner. I liked the simplicity and viewfinder of the FE2 so much, plus the ability to use fast prime lenses, that I'm sending it in for a CLA and it will work along side the D80 when I travel north next spring to photograph waterfalls in the Appalachians.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Kelly, I'm not sure who your comments are directed towards....I think we all know why Nikon won't do it. After all, Nikon didn't get out of film cameras and into digital for any other reason than to make more money. i don't blame them, they have shareholders to satisfy like any other big business.<br>

Peter, I'm not sure that film will be that expensive in the future (no one knows really). There are alot pros going back to film. Maybe not exclusively, but film offers advantages over digital and vice versa. In Japan, film sales are on the rise and they really embrace the medium. Leica are still in business and making mechanical m cameras, and they will be supported well into the future. <br>

i no longer shoot an f4 btw, but i still think that it is the best slr that nikon have even made. i have had an f3, f4, f5, d200, d2x, and d3. the d3x and d3s (and what ever camera nikon comes out with next week) are no different to the d3 or d2x.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Tom; my respone is directed the the many dozens of folks on Photo.net that seem not to grasp basic business; since these questions are so common. It really does not matter if a business is large or small; there has to be a profit to stay afloat; whether a lemonaid stand or giant company. Thre are many on photo.net that do not understand that a business has to make a profit on an item. I stay this because of the whining why a Leica M8/m9 or RD-1 costs. The whiners do not have the guts to place their life savings in a goofy camera venture that is only going to sell a few thousand units; they want the other guy/company to absorb these costs and sell their dream camera at a loss; a welfare camera body propped up paid with profits of other cameras. SANE businesses refrain from poor projects with a negative IRR; they want products that make a profit. Photo.net is alot about getting comments on folks images; ans way less about actual business. Witness the daily questions about "giving away CD's' and folks losing images the post on the web; and why doesnt a camera maker make a freak camera at a low sale price.<br>

In the USA film has been in a long decline for about 2 decades. Even consumer C41 that Joe Six pack uses is in a decline. Walmart had about 15 feet of wall space 10 years ago just for film; now it is about 2 feet. Ten years ago one could buy Kodachrome; 35mm Tri-x at Walmart; or a canon rebel or Nikon film slr; or zoom slr lenses too. Now their are jsut a few token film cameras in bubble packs. Small camera stores are mostly gone; E6 labs are dying out. Many of us can only buy film via mailorder any more; and all E6 is now mailorder too. At drug stores many have C41 labs that are closing; they farm it out to a bigger store. I always here folsk saying that film useage is rising; but no data is provided. It looks the other way here; so does Kodaks annual report data over the years.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I do not believe anyone actually thinks Nikon will make this camera and not a single thread that I read has indicated that they think it would be profitable for Nikon to make it. Some people including myself would be interested in the camera. No, I would not buy the camera because it would be to expensive for me, I am not going to purchase a current model either. I think the topic is just a wish list from people that would like to add something different to their camera bag. </p>

[charles_sharp2]

<p>As the original poster of the message let me say that first and foremost this is just for fun. Please don't take it too seriously.<br>

Do I wish Nikon would make such a camera? Of course! I would love to use a digital camera that was based on say... an FM3a. Do I think it is likely? No of course not. If they did it would sadly, probably, be more than I would be willing to pay. This is just an exercise to see if there are people out there like me who wish for a camera that the photgrapher is required to do 80% of the work to get an image because we enjoy that aspect of using the camera.<br>

Todays Nikon digital cameras are amazing picture takers and I would like to have one of them. They are so well designed that a person can switch everything to automatic and let the camera do 80% of the work if they choose (and probably get a better image than I could manually) or turn it all off and run it all manually. This is not a knock on the modern cameras of today but more a a bit of nostalgia for the cameras of the past that this old guy learned on.<br>

That being said occasionally Nikon does get a wild hair and make something to make a statement rather than a profit. Case in point are the Millinium S3 and the SP rangefinders. If I was advising them on how to make money, I certainly would not advise them to make a 1950's rangfinder (But I sure would like to have one).<br>

Charles</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I think Nikon will make a camera like this...just like they made the FM3a. </p>

<p>Nikon makes the bulk of their profit on consumer models. This won't change because they make an FMD, or whatever you want to label it. I bet their profit margin on the D700 & the D3 is almost non-exisitant...they sell a lot more D40s, 60s, 3000s, 5000s & D90s & D300s.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The comparison between an FM3a and a "FMD" is a great analogy. But think about it, folks.</p>

<p>The nature of film cameras is that the image quality is dependent on the film, hence the sensor does not become "obsolete." The FM3a is therefore a "collector's classic", because if they make better film, it improves the camera.</p>

<p>The nature of digital cameras is that the image quality is dependent on a critical part of the actual camera, the sensor, which will become obsolete. The mythical "FM-D" will become obsolete and therefore not a collector's piece. This will restrict even further the numbers of people who buy it.</p>

<p>Hence, Nikon will never make a camera like this one that you are dreaming of. So I'd suggest not waiting or hoping for it. Everybody watched Leica make a 5000 dollar rangefinder, the M8, which is now relegated to the shelf, and has dropped in value by half or more. Digital collectible classic? No such animal.</p>

<p>Rangefinder? Nikon knows that in the 21st century that's not their deal, and I bet they don't even have any R&D dreaming about it.</p>

<p>Our original poster says, two posts up here, "This is just an exercise to see if there are people out there like me who wish for a camera that the photgrapher is required to do 80% of the work to get an image because we enjoy that aspect of using the camera." Such a camera already exists. Every single DSLR Nikon has made allows you to shoot in full manual mode with AF off. He also used the word "nostalgia". I suspect, since they are not even producing any decent film cameras anymore, that Nikon does not want to be in the nostalgia business. (The FM10 is a Cosina product, and rumor has been floating around that there hasn't been a run of F6s in months or even years)</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>Problem with the aforementioned Canon G11 and most P&S cameras is the tiny sensor.<br>

Charles, would you like a Nikon version of the Panasonic Lumix GF1 with its much larger micro 4/3 sensor? Some think it is in the works.<br>

Or, how about a Nikon GF1-like camera with a DX size sensor? Sign me up!<br>

Interesting times.<br>

JW</p>

[sonja_greene]

<p>Wow, don't know why anyone would take this all serious, he was just curious about it. I don't think he meant he really wanted this to happen any more than I dreamed about a Pentax K1000 with a digital sensor. I'm in the market to buy me a new Nikon DSLR and that's the way it is. :-)</p>

[pictureted]

<p>For those nostalgic for the "simplicity" of film and older film cameras, remember the hassles of buying, storing (coolers for the desert) and knowing what film to load. Part used rolls, pushing film, black and white vs color, multiple camera bodies. Now the camera is pre-loaded with "film" and you have to choose settings as you would choose film. No wonder the manual is longer.</p>

<p>I shot with the F2 and liked it until the F3hp came out. Wow, smaller, lighter, faster, equally durable and it matched the needle for me much faster than I could adjust the aperture or shutter dial. I used three bodies (Kodachrome or Velvia, Faster color and Tri-X or T-Max), now with digital I can carry just one camera body. And do without my $15/day film habit.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Ted, I can hear you. I am still shooting film and there is some money involved in it. I have an order of film headed this way as we speak. A five pack of VC400 or 160 is $30.00. I never considered putting film in the cooler. I just carry it in my camera bag. I do not carry multiple camera's myself. On the 14th I am going to shoot a concert and will use film for it. I can go on stage also which is kind of cool. I do have a DSLR (D200) and it's pretty neat. Kind of like a giant point and shoot. Mine lacks live view so you still have to put your eyeball to the viewfinder. It is relaxing to not have to fuss around with film or worry about exposure. Just frame and fire. Excellent results are the norm. Perfect when you are going to shoot a lot.</p>

[sonja_greene]

<p>LOL, point missed, never mind. </p>

[charles_sharp2]

<p>Joe,<br>

Yes I would be interested in a Nikon 4/3rds. I am not sold on the ones that have been introduced so far but I like the concept. (See Tom Hogans recent article to what I mean). I would rather have a full frame, thats because of all of those old Nikkors I have. I would not turn up my nose at any of the cameras mentioned.<br>

Sonja, thanks for the comment! I am also suprised (and amused) at how seriously some of this has been taken. Like you, my next camera will be a Nikon DSLR.<br>

I still shoot film but that I would rather be shooting digital. The reason I have not made the jump is simply that I dont have the cash for the one I would like to get. (D700)</p>

<p> </p>