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

[carl_becker2]

<p>It depends on what else you have to carry and how far. My situation was a 4 day 40 mile hike in the Sierra Nevada. I want to reduce all weight possible just to have a more enjoyable trip and still keep the quality. 14 to 17 mile day hikes get longer with four or more pounds of camera also. Go from sea level to 11k and it gets even better. A few miles from the car the D700 with a couple of lens and tripod is not a problem.</p>

[michael_alger]

<p>I also would appreciate a smaller and lighter D700. However, as long as it does not come with a line of state-of-the-art smaler and lighter lenses, there is no point in saving a little bit with the camera and then carrying along lenses such as the 70-200 2.8 oder a 24-70.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Even if Nikon (or anyone) made a smaller FX/FF DSLR, there is still the problem of getting lenses with image circles big enough to cover the sensor--and that (in the lens) is where the weight is ultimately felt the most, not in the body.</p>

<p>I just saw that Michael (just above) came in some hours earlier on the same theme.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Anybody out there, forget the technical possibility to produce a bigger then FF camera sensor size, but smaller slightly, then a Nikon D3. It is a Leica S2(S3). If Leica can do it, why not Nikon or Canon? Yes, I have seen the video, but it is not a prove. Actually, I dreaming a FF camera including a build in battery hand grip, like the D3's but smaller slightly, and I don't need all those processing and tricky electronic, I would be very happy if it provides RAW recording only. </p>

[Member69643]

<p>Good gods. Get a film body (N75) comes to mind and be done with it. Light, full frame, takes great pictures. And you'll never need worry about a hard drive crash wiping out your pictures.</p>

<p>The big weight killer in DSLRs is usually the battery. With canon it's usually the lenses - nearly every EOS lens (worth having) is gigantic. Nikon is definitely the king there.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>If Leica can do it, why not Nikon or Canon? </em></p>

<p>Because they'd have to make a new line of lenses to cover the bigger frame. And did you check some of the Leica S lens prices? They're out of this world. </p>

[Mike D]

<p>The Nikon FE was my favorite film camera for many years. I now use 2 D7000s because they kind of feel like my old FE. I like the DX format because the VR lenses these days for full frame cameras are huge. To me, it doesn't make sense to have a compact full frame DSLR with over sized lenses. I want to use smaller lenses and lenses designed to fit DX only bodies fit the bill nicely. </p>

[robin_barnes]

<p>A full frame DSLR of similar weight to an FE2 (lets call it a DFE2) would be almost half a kilo lighter than the lightest FF option currently available - i.e the D700. It wouldn't matter which lens you put on a DFE2 the combination would still weigh about half a kilo less than a D700 with the same lens. For me, at least, not having to carry that extra 500gms around would be very welcome. Clearly it would be very nice if Nikon decided to make some lighter FX lenses as well as a DFE2 but I can't agree that, without this, saving weight on the camera body would be without merit.<br>

<br /> My thanks to you all for responding to my question.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Ilkka. I don't wanted to get a Leica medium format sized DSLR. My point is, If Leica can do it in a smaller body, "and larger sensor then a normal FF, as a Nikon D3 FF", why is so difficult for Nikon, to create a 24x36 FF sensor camera, smaller then the D3? I hope you get my point. We may have a language problem here.<br /> The Leica a medium sized camera technically, but in size, slightly smaller then a Nikon D3 FF camera. That is the point. I hope, we understand each other.</p>

[breogan_gomez]

<p>I would say that, when you look at the numbers, its difficult to see that happen.</p>

<p>I was checking the FM2 and F3 specs and the former is 550grs. and the latter 750gr, and that's only mechanical body with no electronics. A D7000 weights the same as the F3 and that's the lightest you can get with a magnesium body. Granted, one could take out the focusing motor and reduce the battery, then you have to put a bigger mirror, pentaprism and sensor to go FX. More or less that camera would weight the same as a D7000.</p>

<p>Main problem is that Nikon is not likely doing a camera for each ones preferences. Will do a model that can serve many different purposes at the same time. So you will likely have a focusing motor and a nice battery on a camera with magnesium body.</p>

<p>Adding it all up one can see that this camera is already on the market and is a D700.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>Why would Nikon absolutely need to come out with a whole new lens line for a small (FE, FM-size) full frame camera, as some people seem to be maintaining would be a necessity? Why couldn't we just use film lenses, or the newer lenses designed for FF cameras? After all, that was the purpose of the M8 and M9--to allow Leica users to shoot with their old (sometimes *very* old) lenses on digital bodies that looked as much like their predecessors as possible.</p>

<p>I don't agree with everything Shun said above--my 24/2.8 AIS is bleedin' sharp on my D300 as are my 35-70/2.8 AFD and several other older manual/autofocus lenses. In fact, I don't have a single lens that was not originally designed for film cameras, and most of them are sharp as hell on digital (and I have turned in-camera sharpening off--I only shoot RAW anyway--so it's not like the camera is fooling me into thinking they're sharper than they are; they'd be even sharper still if it weren't for the accursed anti-aliasing filter).</p>

<p>I realise that the D300 is leaving off the extremes of the frame, where losses in quality tend to be highest, but from what I've read of the performance of the latest digital lenses, I can't believe that most of them (except for perhaps the most expensive--and possibly not even them) are *much* better there. Some--but not all--of the older lenses do show a bit of CA; however, that is easy to clean up in post processing. I'd love to try some of my older lenses on a small but proper full-frame camera.</p>

<p>I know it's just my particular photography wet dream and it ain't gonna happen, but what I'd like to see is a digital body not a smidgen larger than the F3--I'd really like an FE/FM sized one--with a spectacularly large viewfinder which, unlike most digital bodies, would make manual focusing and composing a simple and pleasant task. And what I'd really lust for--and would buy!--is one that *looks* like one of these old cameras: no bloody control wheels, no LCDs (except for the back, chimping is kinda handy at times--and it is a digital camera after all), and strip off and out all the excess plastic and rubber. Let's see chrome, or black paint on brass, something that speaks "real camera" and has a bit of solidity to it. And maybe put on a wind lever for cocking the shutter, so we can do that when we wish--and save space that the motor for doing it would take up.</p>

<p>Like I said, I know it's just a fantasy--I do believe it would sell more than some people on here believe, but not well enough for it to be attractive in the least to Nikon's bean counters. Plus it would put a dent in Nikon's lens sales, as it would suddenly make lots of older lenses useful again, which appears diametrically opposite to their current business plan.</p>

<p>But tell me you wouldn't find attractive the idea of strolling about with a camera the identical twin of the FM3a, say, but with a screen on the back, and maybe a system of two or three compact prime lenses built to the quality standards of the AI days. (It would probably be cheaper, too, by a lot, even with newly-designed versions of these lenses, than schlepping about a single monstrously large and expensive 24-70/2.8 zoom.) To the casual shooter, this might not appeal. But for real photographers, I think it might indeed come close to the best of all possible worlds. It would make *me* happy...if only, sigh.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>why is so difficult for Nikon, to create a 24x36 FF sensor camera, smaller then the D3?</em></p>

<p>They have, it's called the D700. Love it.</p>

<p><em>Why would Nikon absolutely need to come out with a whole new lens line for a small (FE, FM-size) full frame camera, as some people seem to be maintaining would be a necessity? Why couldn't we just use film lenses, or the newer lenses designed for FF cameras?</em></p>

<p>If the sensor is full frame and not bigger, current lenses can be used. But wide angles that work well on FX DSLRs are huge, and if the camera is without mirror, then new wide angles can be made much smaller.</p>

<p>In any case they can not make a FM/FE-size FX DSLR without taking out the mirror. The simple fact is that a film roll and mechanics to move it around take far less space than AF motors, sophisticated ambient and flash metering systems, the digital sensor, electronics, and means to display the image on the back cover, buttons to control all the functions etc. If you leave any of these functions out, you lose 98% of the market. The D700 is as small as a full frame Nikon DSLR gets. It's already cramped for space - there isn't even a 100% viewfinder. The Leica M9 is smaller because it doesn't have a mirror, autofocus etc.</p>

<p>There will eventually be mirrorless FX cameras, of this I am certain. It will happen when the electronic viewfinder exceeds the quality of optical viewfinders and the refresh delay is not perceptible by a human. And then we'll all be buying new (no doubt expensive) wide angles and upset about the adapter that is needed to mount those huge old F mount lenses. The wide angles will be expensive because they'll be compact and compactness is a value which can be used to justify increased price (internally at Nikon).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Let's see chrome, or black paint on brass, something that speaks "real camera" and has a bit of solidity to it.</em></p>

<p>Huh? The plastic, rubber, whatever it is that Nikon puts on cameras gives good ergonomics and a solid grip. It insulates the cold camera from your face when working at -20 C, so your face and fingers don't freeze and get glued to the camera. It adds friction to the camera in the bag so that it doesn't drop out so easily inadvertently. The ergonomics is a result of years (decades) of development and a key reason why we love Nikon cameras. If you want black paint, or a retro styled camera, buy a Leica. Don't come back and complain about image quality because those companies who make these types of cameras cannot afford the R&D needed to make good sensors and image processing algorithms that make images look good, because almost no one wants their cameras. Nikon can develop these things because they make cameras and lenses that have features and quality that people<em> </em> want to buy - millions of them, every year.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>The D700, at 1075g with battery, is more than double the weight of a typical consumer polycarbonate DX body like the D3100 (505g with battery). It might be hard to make an FX body as light as the D3100, but I suspect if FX sensors suddenly became dirt cheap Nikon could get fairly near it. We know that the FX design of the D700 adds about 170g to the weight of the D300, so there should be no problem making a 505+170 = 675g FX camera (400g lighter than the D700) with similar features to the D3100. In practice, I imagine you could go a fair bit lighter than this - the D700 vs D300 weight difference overestimates what you'd have to add to a lightweight design like the D3100 (with pentamirror, etc.) to embiggen it to FX. A complete F65/N65 body weighs under 400g, after all, and includes an AF motor. A sub-650g FX dSLR should be perfectly doable if there were actually a market for this combination of features.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>Well, Ilkka, the main reason I'd like some real metal is that despite Nikon's extensive and decades-long R&D into the grippiness factor of their rubber coatings, they still haven't managed to make one that stays put on my D300.</p>

<p>The original rubber peeled off all the way around after about a year and a half. I had it professionally replaced at Fixation of London, but that is now also swelling up so it no longer fits into the space it is designed to and it is peeling as well. I will need to replace it before long at the cost of nearly another £100. I haven't even bothered with replacing the door covering the electronic connections, which I never use anyway, but which has also swelled all out of proportion. I just used a bit of gaffer tape to hold that closed.</p>

<p>Of course, all that might be because I actually *use* my D300 as a tool. It's got well over 260,000 shutter activations on it, and has been through the hell of shooting pro boxing, grime raves and other sweaty all-night clubs, catwalk shows, and countless hours of studio shoots.</p>

<p>As a tool, it works very well indeed and I'm quite happy with it for that purpose--very much so. It's easy to use to do my work, and it produces excellent images. But a tool is all I regard it as. And when I'm not shooting something that pays me, or which doesn't need to be turned around really quickly, I leave it at home--it's not really *fun* to shoot with unlike many of my other cameras, it's not terrifically inspiring as a device for artistic expression, and quite often I have to force it to do what I want it to. Of course, I know exactly how to do that--unlike a lot of people--but it's still a pain in the arse.</p>

<p>When I am going out to do photography that pleases me, I do take along a (film) Leica, which I happen to own. Or, when I'm in the mood for SLR style shooting, my FE (if I want something small and compact), my FE plus an MD-12 (if I'm shooting skateboarding, say, or I want a larger grip), or my F4 (which is a bit heavy, even in its smallest configuration, but whose viewfinder is like looking at a movie screen compared to the D300--even after I installed a Katz-eye focusing screen in it). I also take along a few prime lenses, which I find much more enjoyable to shoot than any of Nikon's egregiously large professional zooms, several of which are so big and heavy they actually interfere with the process and enjoyment of making photographs.</p>

<p>I *do* love Nikon gear more than other brands--that's why I've never thought for an instant about switching over to Canon. But I don't love everything about them. And there are some things about the older cameras I don't think need to have been changed--they were excellent as they were.</p>

<p>To be honest with you, I think the *real* reason millions of people buy some of the crappier Nikon (and Canon) bodies and the even worse lenses the manufacturers put on the front of them (at least you *can* make good photos with a naff body--the sensor is still nice enough--if you have a good lens throwing light on it) is because they really aren't very discerning, discriminating or knowledgeable about photography or photographic gear. I've seen ignorance purchase a lot of photographic gear, and really, a plastic consumer zoom on even a cheap body *does* make better photos than your phonecam.</p>

<p>I quite often mentor young photographers, and let them get in a bit of practice in my studio. You ought to see their faces light up when you hand them an F4 and let them look through it, or a Rolleiflex or something after they've been using their D90, etc. I've gotten several of them to try out film--not for the sake of using film, necessarily, but also for using cameras that force you to think as a photographer but don't get in your way with excess bells and whistles.</p>

<p>All I'd personally like to see--and, like I said, I know it's not gonna happen the way I want, I live in the real world not Fantasy Island--is a full-frame digital camera, at a reasonable price (goodbye M9), nimble and unobtrusive in size as an FM/FE, with high-quality compact and efficient lenses, and built to a standard of quality beyond the plastic rubbish that makes up all but Nikon's (and, even worse, Canon's) most expensive bodies. Oh, and if they could please come up with a coating that grips my camera as well as it does my hands, I'd be highly pleased and might think that all that R&D had been worthwhile after all.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>After all, that was the purpose of the M8 and M9--to allow Leica users to shoot with their old (sometimes *very* old) lenses on digital bodies that looked as much like their predecessors as possible.<br />I don't agree with everything Shun said above--my 24/2.8 AIS is bleedin' sharp on my D300 as are my 35-70/2.8 AFD and several other older manual/autofocus lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bernard, Leica is a very different camera company than Canon and Nikon. Canon and Nikon make cameras and lenses for actual photographers, from professional to casual amateurs. I just went to my local Costco, and they have three Nikon DSLR kits for sale: D3100, D5100, and D7000.</p>

<p>You don't see pros using Leica any more. They cater to wealthy collectors who don't necessarily even take pictures. Leica can sell a 50mm/f1.4 lens for $3695 and it doesn't even auto focus: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/332585-USA/Leica_11891_50mm_f_1_4_Summilux_M.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/332585-USA/Leica_11891_50mm_f_1_4_Summilux_M.html</a><br />Nikon sells a 50mm/f1.4 AF-S at $450 and people think the price has gone up quite a bit from the AF-D version.</p>

<p>It is well known that Nikon has not changed the optical formula on the 24mm/f2.8 since the AI version back in 1977. In 1978 I bought one of those but sold it a while ago. I currently have the AF-D version which has the same optical forumula. I tested that on the D3X and corner quality is terrible even at f8. On the D300, it is ok but quite mediocre. Modern zooms such as the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX and 14-24mm/f2.8 beat it easily at 24mm.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>Hi, Shun! You don't have to convince me about the Leica thing. I hang out at a couple of camera shops occasionally which are full of Leica fondlers. I believe I am one of the very few people at either who has a Leica and actually uses it to take photos!</p>

<p>Still, it is a bit unfair to say that Leica is not at all used by professionals--I've seen quite a few documentary/photojournalism projects over here shot on Leica gear. A lot of the Magnum guys still seem to use them, at least part of the time. And for the kinds of projects they do, quite often the Leica is a more useful tool than a Canon or Nikon likely.</p>

<p>But they are the rarity, true enough. And I guess we could go on to debate the relevance of Magnum Photos in this day and age, even though a lot of the work they're producing is still magnificent.</p>

<p>I've never been fortunate enough to try my lenses on a D700, let alone a D3. So I'll grant that there may well be some differences in the corners on full frame, as I said earlier. Still, my particular sample of the 24/2.8 AIS was nearly as sharp on my D300 as a friend's spanking new 24-70/2.8 AFS that I borrowed briefly, and my 35-70/2.8 was just about as sharp.</p>

<p>The 24-70 does seem to have, from what I have gathered, just a bit more sample variation than some of Nikon's lenses, but I don't think my friend's was a dog--I think the two lenses I have are pretty darned good most likely. I certainly wouldn't describe the results I get from them as mediocre. The two zooms you mentioned may indeed beat my lenses--but I'd be willing to give mine a go. My 35-70 also optically outperformed a more modern (if not current) 28-70/2.8 AFS I tested it against when considering an upgrade. I bought both of the 24 and the 35-70 combined for far less than a 24-70 would cost me, and I'd much rather carry around either when I'm shooting for pleasure than that oversized beast, which is at least, in its defence, somewhat smaller than its immediate predecessor.</p>

<p>And, really, as Ken Rockwell (sorry to bring him up, but he is frequently amusing and occasionally insightful) points out, sharpness isn't really all *that* important. Give me a suitable body on which to put my 24 AIS so that it functions as quickly and efficiently as possible and as designed, and even if the 17-55 and 14-24 are measurably superior in the corners and when viewed at ludicrously high magnifications, I will have a heck of a lot more fun--and probably produce better photos in artistic terms--using the lowly 24 than I would deploying one of those huge things.</p>

<p>I don't give a darn if a lens gives 596 lp/mm resolution if it is too big and heavy to use with real enjoyment, or if it draws attention to itself (and/or appears large and threatening to the people I'm shooting), or won't allow me to get right up into the middle of the action with it. Or if it has to be used on some nasty plastic-gutted, rubber-covered body with a crap viewfinder engineered to save Nikon money in the expectation that I won't be wanting to use it to focus manually on occasion, and most of whose automatic settings I am going to have to anticipate and override.</p>

<p>Really now, is that much different altogether from the Leica strokers? How many people buy some ungainly and sordidly pricey Nikon pro zoom that theoretically could take incredibly sharp photos, and then use it to shoot safe, boring, emotionally vapid rubbish--but which does at least manage to show insanely and demonstrably high resolution in the corners? When if they had something smaller that forced them and allowed them to zoom with and think on their feet, they might actually get stuck in, get more emotionally involved, and make better photos content-wise? And you could very probably get one of the lenses I'm banging on about for the same price or less as one of Nikon's current consumer zooms--the old lenses *would* blow away those cheap plastic pieces of rubbish.</p>

<p>Still, if it goes to 11...</p>

<p>The all-automatic Nikon bodies, the plastic construction that saves weight and cost, the 12mm-60000mm zooms are good in that they have democratised photography--they have brought it into the reach of more (the millions more that Ilkka mentioned earlier) people, and made it possible for folks to take reasonably decent photos from a technical standpoint even if they know sod all about photographic technique. I think that is overall a good thing--even though we now have to wade through many magnitudes more of rubbish images, the fact that more people are attracted to photography is not an evil at all. And the ability to take decent photos more easily may encourage more of those newcomers to stay with it and learn more--and become better at it. Unfortunately, there will be many more times that number who just leave the camera set on program mode and never learn a bit beyond how to turn on the camera and fire it.</p>

<p>However, the bad thing from my standpoint is that some of us don't need our hands held, we don't like having to turn off all kinds of automatic functions and make sure they stay turned off, we don't want some huge oversize body (much worse than overweight--as nice a grip as even a primitive D70 had, you still couldn't slip it and an attached lens into a coat pocket, certainly nowhere as easily as you could an FE and a small prime) and ungodly ginormous zoom lens with all sorts of buttons and switches getting in the way of making photographs. Hell, that's why I bought a Leica in the first place--I don't want it as wrist jewelry, I just like the fact that the only controls are the aperture, the shutter speed and the focus ring. That's all I need!</p>

<p>I imagine that R&D on the electronics costs so much nowadays that Nikon is not going to produce a camera that *won't* sell to millions of people--many of them untutored, unskilled, and unwilling to learn more than the barest rudiments. In the days when cameras were simpler, you occasionally got things like the FM3a and (in part at least) the F6 which obviously weren't gonna sell huge numbers, but were designed for people who knew exactly what they were doing and wanted the simplest and most efficient--and durable--machine to do it with.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Golly, since I got a much larger monitor, I haven't had to scroll down to read a single post.<br>

Now I have.</p>

<p>When they get rid of the mechanical mirror, then they will be able to make "fool" size sensors in a smaller package. But it will be EVIL!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Bernard, please stop spreading those myth here. I tested six different copies of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and all six are very consistent.</p>

<p>Anyhow, what you posted no longer has much to do with the OP's question.</p>

<p>Let me say this again, in terms of number of DSLRs sold, FX is about 5% for Nikon and the remaining 95% are DX DSLRs. That is an estimate according to Thom Hogan; I know very well that DX is over 90%, and Hogan thinks it is 95% based on the production capacity at Sandai where all current FX models are manufactured and Nikon Thailand, where all current DX models are made. Nikon USA declinds to provide the exact break down percentage to me.</p>

<p>And for that small 5% of sales (although it is the important high end), Nikon already has 3 current models: D700, D3S, and D3X. For the remaining 95%, Nikon has 4 models: D300S, D7000, D5100, and D3100. It is simply unrealistic to expect Nikon to further divide up that tiny 5% into more models to satisfy a small, niche market. They will lose money big time if that do that.</p>

<p>I think most of us here agree that a small, light-weight FX DSLR is not going to happen. Therefore, IMO it is pointless to keep debating it. For those who want such a camera, if you don't mind shooting 35mm film, you have plenty of choices there. Otherwise, pick a DX or mirrorless camera.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>Jeez, Shun. Sorry to cheese you off. Glad you found the 24-70s you used to be so consistent. However, that doesn't change the fact that I have read scattered accounts of them not being perfect--B&H's customer reviews alone offer several examples of people who weren't happy with them out of the box (although a few of those do seem more in the nature of user error). And, as I said, I didn't find it breathtakingly better than my old lenses, so factoring in the cost, it's not a logical upgrade at this point.</p>

<p>Is it a great lens? Heck, yeah! And I'd love to own one some day and very likely will. And I'm pretty sure, based on the percentage of highly satisfied users, I'll find it just as superb as you and most people say it is. It still won't be my street lens, but I'd love to use it shooting boxing or in the studio.</p>

<p>I'm not debating anything--I just have expressed my personal wish that such a thing as a small, tough, capable but not over-endowed FF DSLR might be made. And repeatedly made it clear that I *know* it's not gonna happen because while there are those of us out there who would use something like that, there's not enough to make it economically viable for Nikon.</p>

<p>That doesn't make the idea of such a camera a bad one--M9s fly off the shelf despite their crazy prices, and not all of them just go straight to some collector's cabinet. There is a market for that sort of thing for actually doing photography. Leica basically *has* to pursue that market, while Nikon can afford to ignore it and actually come out better off financially as a result.</p>

<p>If I could afford an M9, I'd buy one---and use it. Fuji is making waves with a somewhat similar thing to what I'm talking about in the X100--they seem to be selling a ton of those--but they're not quite yet what I'm asking for. No full-frame, no interchangeable lenses, still too many obstacles between the user and the image (EVF, slow AF) and build quality and durability not quite up to pro Nikon standards.</p>

<p>I don't think there's any harm in wishing that Nikon could make a similar but better camera: something small, tough, highly capable without being overendowed, and which could be used to shoot likewise compact and high-quality Nikon lenses. And at an actual reasonable price, unlike the Leica. A man can always have his fantasies. Leave me mine, at least I'm not foaming at the mouth about them, and they don't harm anyone else.</p>

<p>Thanks and good shooting!</p>

<p> </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<blockquote>

<p>Let me say this again, in terms of number of DSLRs sold, FX is about 5% for Nikon and the remaining 95% are DX DSLRs. That is an estimate according to Thom Hogan; I know very well that DX is over 90%, and Hogan thinks it is 95% based on the production capacity at Sandai where all current FX models are manufactured and Nikon Thailand, where all current DX models are made. Nikon USA declinds to provide the exact break down percentage to me.<br>

And for that small 5% of sales (although it is the important high end), Nikon already has 3 current models: D700, D3S, and D3X. For the remaining 95%, Nikon has 4 models: D300S, D7000, D5100, and D3100. It is simply unrealistic to expect Nikon to further divide up that tiny 5% into more models to satisfy a small, niche market. They will lose money big time if that do that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even though if the above percentage 95 / 5 is 100% true... I think this is just a facet of the issue... The real thing is that the huge majority of those purchasing entry level DSLR are buying it with the kit lens and that's all. Some of them will buy also something like 55-200 and 35/1.8. In the same time for the large majority of those entering FX world... the money spent on the body are just a small part of the equation... the largest amount is going (constantly) on the glass. This is not based on any Hogan estimation but is the real thing I see in my life and in the life of every Nikon FX user I know around. And I live in a country with way behind economy than US or Western Europe.</p>

<p>Lot of juice comes to Nikon from selling full frame glass. I'm a golden member to the major retailer of Nikon in Bucharest and every time I go there I discuss various things with the people on desk that are very friendly and professional. One thing I checked with them is about the dynamic of glass sales. Remember I live in a Country that not long ago was among third world... and the economy still is very bad. They are telling that most money are coming from medium & top quality glass, mostly FX.</p>

<p>If that's true... and I do not think is not... Nikon has all reasons to help people migrate toward FX to eventually increase the sales of glass. Look at the printers (laser and ink) market. The cost you pay for a unit is almost unbelievable small... it is said that the manufacturers are living only by the ink cost... I think this is a good business model.</p>

<p>The problem is that these who buy entry level bodies are in majority not knowing much about photography. So offering to them two or three options is suffice. But those entering in FX world are very particular. They knows exactly what they need and they look around for that. Also who owns an FX camera owns at least a second camera and is quite usual to have even more. So there is a growing number of people requesting a smaller FX body. Nikon could not ignore forever this request. Also, if on DX side Nikon offers entry level bodies with an affordable cost, I think they have to offer as well something like an entry level FX camera.... for something only slightly higher cost than D7000 and eventually with not all option you find in pro grade bodies... because there are a lot of people dreaming to go FX but they are not ready to jump on D700 or D3 kind of camera.</p>

<p>Acting this way Nikon will help some of the 95% DX move on FX increasing the sales of FX glass. This is not against Nikon's own interest but supporting it. I definitely know that some DX users purchase anyhow some FX glass... but that's true mostly for long tele... not so much interest for glass like 14-24 or 24-70 on a crop sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think most of us here agree that a small, light-weight FX DSLR is not going to happen. Therefore, IMO it is pointless to keep debating it. For those who want such a camera, if you don't mind shooting 35mm film, you have plenty of choices there. Otherwise, pick a DX or mirrorless camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I see that more and more people require or dream for such as camera... so IMHO it is not pointless to debate the idea. Maybe threads like this will generate reports to Nikon, who knows... and maybe one day Nikon will be much receptive for the needs of its customers. Because they have to build their offer on what we really need not on what they are considering that we need.</p>

<p>And to answer to the OP question... at least IMO there is no any good reason Nikon couldn't make a small FX DSLR.</p>

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>Like many here I would like a lightweight camera with full frame and decent performance. I grew up with an Olympus OM4ti as my main camera; a digital version of that concept is what I am looking for.<br>

It might be easier to make a fixed lens version of a smaller, lighter full frame camera, (with or without a mirror) something along the lines of the Fuji X100 but maybe with a fixed 24-70mm or 24-120mm lens on it. A camera like that would be a great walk around camera, with sufficient focal length to do 90% plus of what I would want from a camera like this.I used to use a Pentax 67II professionally with a 45mm, 55mm, 105mm and 200mm lenses; great camera, but very heavy. Those 4 lenses gave me a range of roughly 22.5mm to 100mm in full frame terms; again enough of a range to do most things except wildlife. I've got a Panasonic GF1 for a lightweight camera but I would like a wee bit more sensor size than that and a camera with a proper viewfinder, even if it is inbuilt digital, rather than bolt on. </p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Just a couple of points to consider: Nikon's F6 film camera weighs 975gms without batteries, the F5 weighed a massive 1200gms and the F4 well over a kilogram. By comparison the D700 weighs only 995gms without battery. That's only 20gms difference between the digital version and Nikon's lightest film camera offering similar funtionality.</p>

<p>So, basically, what are you all moaning about? If you <em>really </em>want to save weight and size, then forget the convenience of zooms, VR and AF; ditch your impressive-looking aspherical wide aperture lenses and stick tiny old manual focus primes on your cameras. Problem sorted. </p>

<p>And to set the record straight: Snowdon and Bailey were paid handsomely to be seen with Olympus cameras. I doubt that any of their other commercial work at that time was done using 35mm film, let alone with an Olympus camera. Today we're also getting image quality out of our full-frame digital cameras that far exceeds what could ever be got from 35mm film, and can only be equalled on film by using cameras taking roll or sheet film and using big expensive lenses. So where's the weight and size disadvantage? If you want lightweight and convenient, then get a 4/3rds or Bridge camera. You'll still get better pictures than 35mm film delivered!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It could easily be that those 5% that buy FX cameras spend 20 times as much money on lenses than typical DX users. So this makes FX users very important to Nikon financially as well as for how the brand is seen by the public.</p>

<p> </p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>I think that the reason some people have taken me to task is that they seem to believe I've dissed the 24-70 and the D3 or other digital bodies.</p>

<p>That's not the case. The D3 in its various incarnations is probably by far the most capable camera ever invented (even if it doesn't have all the movements which a large format camera can use for eliminating distortion and altering depth of field), and the 24-70 and Nikon's other new digital zooms are without doubt extremely good, possibly as sharp as any lenses ever made, at least in parts of their range. And I've been very happy with my D300 for over three years now, in most of the tasks I've set it to. Wouldn't trade it for anything but a D700 or better.</p>

<p>But sometimes those bodies and lenses are not the right tool for the job. And I'll offer a real-world example of what I'm after.</p>

<p>During the recent London riots, I was out having a look around. In my bag, I had my D300 kitted out with the MB-D10 and my 17-35/2.8 AFS lens, among others. That's some serious picture taking equipment.</p>

<p>However, if I had brought that out in view, it would have been suicidal. The camera is so large and obvious--and the kit so obviously expensive--that I would have been targeted and attacked immediately. And the lens was too slow in every respect possible: F2.8 even would have been too slow to shoot properly in that situation, the autofocus has a tendency to hunt overmuch in poor light, and the bulk of the camera and lens combination would have slowed me down significantly if I had needed to run for my life.</p>

<p>Plus, I don't think the combination would have survived the impact if I'd have had to club a looter with it. That's one thing that entertained me when back when I first got into Nikon gear--all the stories on the internet about falls, drops and impacts various Nikon bodies had taken and kept right on shooting. Heck, if Don McCullin had been shooting with a D7000 instead of an all metal F2, that sniper bullet would have finished him (look it up if you're not familiar with the story--the photo of the camera is pretty impressive).</p>

<p>Amongst the rioters, I was really wishing for a stealthy full-frame camera with an equally inconspicuous lens that allowed me to shoot and move as quickly as possible. If I'd had an FE sized camera, I could have stuck that under my jumper and otherwise kept it concealed enough that people wouldn't have been aware what I was up to immediately. Full-frame would have increased the light-gathering ability of the sensor--I know I can shoot film, but why would I want to when digital kills high-speed color film in tough lighting conditions?--making 3200 iso or even higher a feasible option. Something along the lines of the 35/2.0 AIS in size and speed would have given me more light to focus & frame and faster shutter speeds--and greater foot speed if I needed to evacuate in a hurry. I'd also have liked it to be, unlike the M9, affordable enough that if I did get my camera and lens ripped off me, I wouldn't miss them that much financially. I certainly wouldn't have taken a £5500 camera of very limited availability into that sort of situation.</p>

<p>And I really do believe that if I had to, I could smack a bad guy with one of the old metal Nikon bodies and lenses, and keep right on taking photos afterward.</p>

<p>Some people are not getting the point: the reason that Leicas, smaller Nikon bodies, the wonderful Olympus line, etc. became popular initially is that they allowed photographers to use small, basic but tough kit to get second-to-none quality while using a package that allowed them to blend in, to be unobtrusive and unnoticed. DSLRs with big zooms don't have that quality, no matter how sharp and hi-res they are.</p>

<p>I met Simon Wheatley a while back. He used an M7 to document the youth estate culture in London, work that got him into Magnum. The smaller, simpler camera helped establish he wasn't a cop, and allowed him to be a little less conspicuous, intrusive and threatening to the congenitally suspicious people he was shooting. He did still get mugged and roughed up a few times for his pains, but I think that would have happened a lot more often had he been using a DSLR and mega zoom. And I don't think he'd have achieved the intimacy with his subjects that would have allowed him to get such brilliant shots.</p>

<p>In my own case, I'd have much rather had pix with slightly unsharp corners from inside the riots than clinically sharp corner-to-corner shots taken three blocks away, if you get me. But there aren't many people taking these kinds of photos, so yeah, I can understand why Nikon isn't keen on catering to them. For those who are, sometimes a D7000 or even a D3 just won't do.</p>