Seriously folks, if Sony can...

[photo5]

<p>Leslie, good question! Leica is, to me, at this time in history, a niche camera. With prices for a new 35mm f2 lens at nearly $3k, I can't see why anyone would buy one. The M9 is their last gasp at trying to remain in the market, and I hope they succeed for all the Leica fans out there. You won't see my buying a Leica ever, though I do appreciate their cameras and lenses. I suppose if someone gave me one I'd use it, but I prefer the SLR. I wonder why Leica doesn't try to make a digital SLR?<br>

In any case, I would buy a digital Nikon F3HP. Or if they could fit a full frame sensor into a body with the exact same dimensions as the F100. That camera fits into my hands like a glove. The D700 sure didn't fit like a glove...</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I'm a dedicated Nikon user. Started with Nikon and stuck with Nikon. And I like it. The F mount, the ergonomic, the lenses, etc. But ! But, I inherited a Olympus system, OM-1 OM-2 four of them. The biggest view finder (look trough in a OM-1) and the smallest prism sticking out of the body, the smallest body, and very strong body, I like them very much all attached with the Motor-winder and still small, but solid enough to hold in my hand. So is the Nikon FM, FE and the FM3a witch I like them very mach. All with a motor drive and still a nice solid and manageable body. I also own a F, F2 & F3. . . . Digital? A D40, D300, and a D700. . . . Leica produced a DSLR body smaller then a Nikon D3 and almost double the sensor size then a FF D3. Why Nikon can't produce a smaller size body, including a full battery pack like D3, no need for a pop-up flash, and no need for a lots of pushbuttons like an organ? Please Nikon, create a smaller size FF camera, and I don't care if it is not a D40 price range. Or. If something professional it has to be big and heavy? I willing to pay the price.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<p>Leslie, the answer is quite straight forward.<br>

Nikon recognizes that professionals need fast AF, a high megapixel count, smart fast exposure modes, high ISO performance and advance flash capabilities. They build cameras to serve this need.<br>

Nikon also recognizes that most hobbyists love these professional spec'ed cameras- it makes the gear freak's skin prickle up, and sends shivers down his/her spine when he/she spend a fortune into these camera bodies.. almost every year. Nikon simply sells the illusion that better gear will make you a better photographer-- and Nikon does that very well. <br>

The above two reasons account for over 99.99% of Nikon earnings. That is the Nikon roadmap, and that is why, for example, Shun would rather have them continue in what they're doing. In a sense, it's a reasonable, rational way to run a business-- prolonging the life of any investment made in Nikon.<br>

And no, Nikon does not care about the retro/a'la'carte segment. The stopped that when they killed the Fm3a-- it's a shame, because they could introduce a Fm3(D?) to the Leica M8/9 crowd, and probably do well.</p>

<p> </p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>When electronic viewfinders are up to scratch, I'm sure we will see some pro orientated SLR 'style' bodies that are much smaller than todays offerings. Until that time, well, there are lots of choices at the moment that take great photos and are small, so not really much to worry about :)</p>

<p>Now, how long until we see a FF NEX? With a good electronic viewfinder attachment? ;P<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3561/4599219986_22ce1c3b22.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>I would buy a digital Nikon F3HP</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They already made it long time ago</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Personally I think an FX D40 for say $1000 would be great and I would be very tempted. I would also bet that it would sell well as many have the FX drool but can't justify the D700. The question is what would happen with Nikon's overall bottom line. Unfortunately if Nikon would make more money with an FX D40 we probably would have seen it already.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>fit an aps-c sensor into the Nex, why can't Nikon make a FF dslr the size of a FM3A? Or like the size of a d40?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought about this too. I thought the reason I did not get a D700, price aside, is because it is even larger and heavier than the D300s, which to me is too big for casual use. But then, I thought even if D700 is the size of D5000, I still won't buy it because I already invested in the DX only 17-50/2.8 and 12-24 lenses, and I do not want to get the 24-70, which is so much more bigger and expensive. I also don't think it is the price of the D700 that blocks many from getting a FF camera b/c Sony already makes inexpensive FF cameras but they did not take the market by storm. In short, overall, there is just not enough market demands to sell a camera based entirely on the fact that it has a FF sensor. The m4/3 and NEX cameras are selling very well because they give people the impression that they are almost as small as a P&S but its IQ is comparable to any APS-C dSLRs. For the great majority of the consumers, a lighter and smaller camera is highly desirable because they are more likely to carry it around to capture the moments.</p>

<p>I started a thread a few days ago, not questioning whether Nikon should put a FF sensor in a smaller body, but whether Nikon is ready to re-think the design of their dSLRs, which appears unchanged from the film days. One critical lesson that one can learn from the NEX cameras is that in this digital age, the core components needed to capture, stored, and display an image can be packed in a very small camera body. With touch screen and properly designed on-screen menu, it is possible to remove nearly all the external buttons. While some of the m.43 cameras, the Gx series, maintain the body style of the dSLRs for better handling, they have cleverly designed dials/switches to eliminate the need for a second display window that currently sits on the right side of D90-and-up Nikon cameras. Thus fundamentally there is a lot of room for improvement in the design of the cameras, but Nikon may not want to do it as yet if this does not help to sell more cameras. In a recent interview, Nikon's CEO has indicated that they want to sell 40% more cameras. Clearly they need to come up with something really new and nice in order to accomplish that. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Leica produced a DSLR body smaller then a Nikon D3 and almost double the sensor size then a FF D3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To compare things on equal footing: a S2 with battery grip (needed for vertical release shutter etc) is about the same size as a D3. And the sensor is 56% larger (Leica's numbers), not 100%. In actual numbers, it's about 9mm longer and about 6 mm higher. I am certain that there would be enough space for such a sensor in a D3 - but the image circle of the current FX lenses wouldn't be large enough to cover it (and the F-mount might be a tad too small to accommodate lenses that would.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Made in 1991, Digital Nikon F3HP<br>

<img src="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/newleicaF3DigiB.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Well, I think if Nikon could make a digital FM3A it could be done relatively inexpensively because most if not all of the technologies exist - just re-cycle and pare down what they already have. They would not be taking away sales from their FX or DX line because the people that would buy such a thing would not be the D40/D3000/D5000 crowd anyways and the FX crowd would buy one IN ADDITION to their super duper D3, D3X, or D700.<br>

I have a D300 which I think is too large for many of my uses. I have not bought a D700 because it's that much larger (by a bit, but still larger). I'd love to keep my D300 AND have a FX-sensored FM3A-type body. They would potentially open up a new market that would not necessarily take sales from existing segments. This would help offset the high costs of the FX sensor.<br>

I think one of the barriers is manufacturing capacity - for sensors and bodies. Nikon may just not have more capacity to put towards such a thing.<br>

A DX-based mirror-less camera would also open up a new segment, although I suspect it would steal from the D40/D3000/D5000 and D300 crowds (though I'd get one in addition to my D300).<br>

John</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Oh, and regarding the Sony NEX bodies - yes they are pretty small. Put a very good EVF on one and it will get bigger for sure. <br>

I personally don't mind if the lenses are a bit larger than the body as long as the system as a whole is smaller. For such a body made by Nikon I wouldn't be mounting it on my 400mm lens anyways - I'd be more interested in the wide to short telephoto end of things - say the 16mm to 200mm range with a compact ultra-wide 12 or 14 mm/2.8 prime to go along with the zooms.<br>

A decent initial DX small mirror-less body lens line-up would be:<br>

12mm/2.8 (small/wide/fast prime)<br>

16-60/2.8-4 VR (decent on-the-camera-all-the-time zoom). 18mm is not wide enough for me on DX<br>

50-200/4 VR (decently fast tele zoom). 200mm is just fine for general purpose and can be made fairly small.</p>

<p>- John</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>Don't want to take the issue too far away from OP's. However, for a potential new mirror-less "small" camera, I would imagine that it is hard to make zoom lenses that are reasonably fast and still small enough to make sense. If fact, these small cameras are better matched with small primes. The Panasonic 20mm/f1.7 is an excellent lens, for example. Nikon has made many pancake lenses, as recent as the 45/2.8, and its E-series lenses are also very good values. With modern technology, software in-camera correction, some tolerance for corner softness, it is possible to build a small camera system that can deliver high IQ. It may not have the muscle of D300 and up for action photography, but it will be more than enough for the great majority of the people. I am always amazed that people can go vacation carrying a D300/D700 with two big zooms. In my case, my wife and I need all the help we can get to carry the strollers, diapers, food, and not to mention our active kids.</p>

<p>Before iPod came along, how many people can imagine a computer device with just a single button? There was a time, we spent thousands of dollars to get big speakers with the highest fidelity receiver, and CD players with ever greater sampling rates, but iPod changes all of that too. A simple and fun to use tool is always welcome, but the question is who can make it just right.</p>

[vahe_sahakian]

<p><em>“</em><em>Leica is, to me, at this time in history, a niche camera. With prices for a new 35mm f2 lens at nearly $3k, I can't see why anyone would buy one. The M9 is their last gasp at trying to remain in the market, and I hope they succeed for all the Leica fans out there. You won't see my buying a Leica ever, though I do appreciate their cameras and lenses. I suppose if someone gave me one I'd use it,”</em></p>

<p>I do not think that the M9 is Leica’s last gasp, for once leica is having trouble meeting demand, but unlike M8, the M9 did hit the sweet spot in what many folks really want in a FF digital, extremely compact, very basic, not loaded with everything known to mankind, and believe it or not no autofocus, and no need for those massive zooms.<br>

We all can dream about for a streamline Nikon DSLR, Nikon cares less for what you and I think, but I bet you that the success of M9 has not gone unnoticed by the big dogs at Nikon/Canon, you may one day thank Leica for having the balls to start a trend towards simpler, lighter, more compact super quality camera.<br>

And by the way, you can use any 60 year old Leica wide angle on M9 and still outperform others, no need to spend $3K if you can not afford it.</p>

<p>Vahe </p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>Besides, no one saw the NEX, a truely compact size aps-c sensor, coming. It literally will ruin the 4/3rds cams imho.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you need the review your history. In August 2008 Olympus and Panasonic anounced a new mirrorless standard based on the 4/3 standard called m4/3. In late 2008 Panasonic was selling the G1. Olympus started selling they E-P1 in July 2009. M4/3 camameras were selling very well and quickly other people started to ask is Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Sony were going to release a mirrorless camera. Sony announced plans for a mirrorless cameras in Feburary 2010 but didn't start selling the cameras untill about May this year. Samsung also also started selling a mirrorless APS-C camera a month or two earlier than Sony. Who saw a mirrorless APS-C camera comming? almost everyone. There are also no signs of the newcommers effecting the sales of m4/3 cameras</p>

<p>Will someone make a FF mirrorless cameras, eventully but I would not expect it to occur for several years (at least). For starters the market for FF cameras is rather small comare to the rest of the market because of the hgiher cost of making larger sensor and as a result only people with a serious interest in photography purchase them. Serious photogrphers also tend to look at all the lens and accessory list available, product reliability reports, and after purchase customer support before they make there purchase. Furthermore the slow screen update is not sutable for sports photographers So any company wiling to make a full frame cameras will find th market, at least initially smaller than the current full frame market.</p>

<p>so Canon, Nikon, or Sony are not likely to rush a mirroless full frame cameras to the market until they see clear evidence that it will give them a competative edge. Sony went APS-C in there next cameras because they felt thye could convince people the larger size would give people considerably better image quality over other small cameras on the market. They then dedicated engineering resources to designing the smallest possible APS-C camera. Unfortunately in my opinion the inface may put off a lot of people IMHO.</p>

<p>What the market really want right now is a small lght weight cameras with all the performacnce of a very good DSLR. Manufactures for the last decade have spent more time and effort into improving digital performance and developing new features to help there camersa stand out. However no one thought about making a cameras for those interested in smaller and lighter cameras until Olympus and Panasonic announced the m4/3 standart. The success of the m4/3 cameras has made it clear there is a need for smaller and lighter high performance cameras and now everyone is trying to catch up by making there own mirrorless design or by simply putting more effort into making there cameras smaller. Recently Canon announce they were goingt to work on a smaller lighter cameras. But they apparently arn't going mirrorless and they haven't said anything about the sensor size or cost.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon spokesman Masaya Maeda told Reuters: “It’s not a question of whether or not you have a mirror. There is a consumer need for good-quality cameras to be made smaller. We will meet this need.”</p>

 

</blockquote>

[craig_gillette]

<p>The D300s is $900 less than a D700. Are you going to convince enough soccer moms or basketball dads or nature shooters that a small Nikon "5D" is the camera for them? At $900 more than an entry level dslr?</p>

<p>It's not an engineering problem. It's selling enough of them to make a profit or at least not tank everything else as well. It should be apparent that even Canon isn't selling the 5D anymore. They have to sell enough that they recoup the investment in engineering, in production start up, in training the work force, in taking something else out of production, etc. And even then, the cost of suitable lenses is going to continue to bump the overall system price up as well.</p>

[photo5]

<p>John Tran,<br>

The digital F3HP I am talking about, that has not been made yet, is one that has equal image quality to the D3s, and retains the 100 percent viewfinder of the F3HP, and has no ugly appendage below the camera body. They could do it if they wanted to, the camera would have no AF motor, and no motor to wind the shutter, the shutter would still be manually wound with the film advance lever, now the shutter winding lever. I suppose the film rewind knob could be spun to reformat the card? The problem is, a camera like this would be a niche camera unto itself, and the body would be more than the D700 currently costs, so would probably not make money...</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>It should be apparent that even Canon isn't selling the 5D anymore. </p>

<p>Incorrect, They updated the camera a couple of years ago to the 5D MkII which is still selling well. </p>

</blockquote>

[rossb]

<p>I would be happy if they would just come out with another 35mm model myself. I would not buy it buy it but it would be fun thinking about it. But the same is true for the digital models. I figure they will be bringing out some new stuff soon and I plan on not buying any of it. Once all my kids are out of college I might buy something if I felt like it at that time.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If Nikon comes up a with a FF $1400 camera...no one would be buying the 5D2 any more. Then Nikon would have most if not all potential FF market...then comes $$$lenses. Sure, if Shun and anyone else want to look at the worst case scenario...But it could also turn lots of heads if it becomes successful like the NEX. </p><p><br></p><p>Me...I just want a smaller FF, be it MF like the FM3A or plastic cheap AF like a d40. And I don't want Nikon to fold either, I think it can work, work quite well actually.<br></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'd like a compact DX or FX sensor Nikon, preferably in the S-series rangefinder configuration, mostly because it'd suit my preferences for casual candid photography. But I doubt there's enough of a market right now to support that. As others have noted, live view isn't quite ready to replace SLR optical finders for all situations. And Nikon would have a tough niche to compete in, since the Micro 4/3 paradigm has caught on well with folks who want something between a compact P&S and a bulky SLR.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"...no one would be buying the 5D2 any more"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not everyone wants a smaller dSLR, or a non-SLR type. Heavy lenses, especially teles and zooms, are easier to handle with a larger body, especially with a vertical grip. Even the reasonably sized 300/4.5 AI Nikkor is awkward to handle on my F3HP and FM2N without motor drives. But with the motor drives attached it's easy to handle, much better balanced.</p>

<p>Offhand, Nikon probably has made the same observations that Canon seems to have: a significant chunk of its market includes serious amateurs who enjoy wildlife photography, and some sports photography. The current SLR/dSLR paradigm probably suits their preferences more than any other design. That paradigm evolved in response to the market, not the other way around. The camera manufacturers didn't force users to adapt themselves to a body design that nobody wanted. Form does follow function. The current dSLR designs are better ergonomically than most previous camera body shapes for a wide variety of photography genres and disciplines.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Nikon has d700, D3 for bigger hands but no small FF cam, Lex. I am not asking anything revolutionary but in a smaller (fM3A, d40) body....not mirrorless, not RF focusing etc...just plain old smaller DSLR form/shape. I was only using the NEX as some people believe we can not pack all the electro parts FF in a d40 body...</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>A full-frame mirrorless camera not for several years atleast? That would be a massive surprise to me. Digital moves quickly, as we should know by now.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Actually, the reason Nikon and Canon don't have any mirrorless cameras is because they're both traditional companies, and they don't understand why anyone in their right mind would spend $600-$900 for a relatively slow camera with poor battery life when they can get a real camera for the same price. In the case of Canon it's much moreso, since they also dominate the 'high end compact' market with the G11.</p>

<p>But neither of those companies have ever been very good at grasping the concept of a second, smaller, camera for travel or for funsies.</p>

<p>I know for a fact that Nikon is in the process of developing something. Considering their close collaboration with Sony, expect it to be like the NEX cameras, but a little larger, possibly worse in high ISOs, and a little slower to operate ... but with a real hot shoe, and a MUCH better interface.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I would have to consider the s-series rangefinder idea with sensor. A basic and very durable camera like that would be just what I need in a camera. Of course the price would be an issue as always.</p>

[sd_woods]

<p>It will happen. I don't know when, but it will.</p>