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

breogan_gomez · October 3, 2011

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.

</blockquote>

I has nothing to do with being nice or keen, just market share, profit and potential sells.

Nikon's smallest prime is much bigger than you average Leica or Olympus lens. Nikon is just a different system.

Few years ago I read an interview of some pro photographer who went inside North Corea to make some pictures. He had to use a small, tourist-like, camera. He choose a Canon 5D with a prime ("its small and looks like a cheaper DSRL") and a G9 (or something of this series).

lex_jenkins · October 3, 2011

"...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)..."

</blockquote>

That's the key phrase. I stopped paying much attention long ago to unqualified opinions online, especially after realizing some dissatisfied customers will post the same comments to multiple websites, often under multiple aliases, which can give the illusion of consensus.

I'd rather rely on either reviews done using methodical testing - which can be replicated independently if necessary - or qualified opinions from experienced users who know how to evaluate equipment.

Even then I wouldn't give much credence to comments about reliability or inconsistencies unless the person had methodically tested multiple samples of the same equipment.

"Heck, if Don McCullin had been shooting with a D7000 instead of an all metal F2, that sniper bullet would have finished him..."

</blockquote>

McCullin was using a Nikon F with the standard meterless prism. According to most sources the rifle was an AK-47 (possibly an SKS, also widely used among less well equipped troops), a reliable battle rifle that can produce 6" groups at 100 yards from moderately powerful rounds, but hardly a sniper rifle. After looking at various photos of the Nikon F, it appeared to have been a glancing shot from a distance, not a direct hit at close range. Even the modestly powerful 7.62x39mm round - especially with the cheap and plentiful steel bullets - would easily penetrate a Nikon F at reasonably close range with a direct hit rather than glancing blow. But the round also tended to yaw, especially with poorly made bullets.

While it might not quite equal the Nikon F series film cameras in terms of being literally bulletproof, the D7000 does have a magnesium body or chassis. As for being bulletproof, most personal protective gear now is woven or laminated synthetics with ceramic plates, not metal. If Nikon ever decides to make a Kevlar and ceramic reinforced pro D-series dSLRs, I'd take it over a Nikon F any day.

ilkka_nissila · October 3, 2011

The camera is so large and obvious--and the kit so obviously expensive--that I would have been targeted and attacked immediately.

Then leave out the vertical grip and use a smaller, prime lens. When I use the D700 with a 35mm, 50mm or 85mm prime, people pay a lot less attention to it than if I use a 24-70 or 70-200 on it.

Or, you could use an E-PL3 or G3 and a couple of primes, e.g. the 14/2.5 and 45/1.8 for those situations. The Fuji X100 is another possibility. These cameras are very small and should get the job done.

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)

The AF of the E-PL3 is anything but slow; it's practically instantaneous. EVF - yes, that's what is needed when the mirror is left out but the rewards in terms of camera and lens size are considerable. And the X100 and micro four thirds cameras are all full frame - their lenses are optimized for the sensor size being used, which is what full frame means. There are many advantages - you can set the focus point virtually anywhere in the frame.

ShunCheung · October 3, 2011

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.

</blockquote>

Mihai, there is where you argument falls apart.

The few people who want a small, light-weight FX body because they don't want to carry a lot of weight. Please re-read what the OP says:

What I would really like is a full frame DSLR (my old manual primes are resting in the cupboard waiting for the day that one appears!) but at 995gm a D700 is out of the question.

</blockquote>

His objective is to re-use those old manual-focus lenses, although I think that is a poor reason due to the quality of those old lenses. It should be pretty obvious that those people who prefer light weight are not very interested in buying new lenses and certainly not those big and heavy 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S, 85mm/f1.4 AF-S, etc., let alone 300mm/f2.8 .... Therefore, the whole argument that making this camera will sell more lenses is simply false.

There are all sorts of werid requests, and Nikon will simply ignore most of them. It is not like Canon or Sony is making any light-weight FX DSLR either. Those who want light weight will either have to accept the D700 (or its successor) or choose DX. Nobody else is going to fulfill this minority request.

The much bigger hole on Nikon's FX lineup is that Canon has been selling this 20MP, sub-$3000 5D Mark II for 3 years. From Nikon, if you want anything more than 12MP, it'll have to be the $8000 D3X. Plenty of people buy Canon for more affordable pixels. If anything, that is a far more urgent competitive disadvantage and I am puzzled that Nikon hasn't done anything in 3 years.

ilkka_nissila · October 3, 2011

Shun, I think I may be the culprit regarding the lack of an affordable high-resolution FX Nikon. Nikon is waiting for me

to buy the D3X. The D800 will surely be announced the next day. ;-)

My theory: Nikon is intentionally leaving a gap here to support the higher price point of the D3X, and I suspect they'll

continue by leaving something important out of the D800. They're not aiming to take all of Canon's market share in the

professional camera segment by being too competitive. Instead, they're happy being roughly on par with Canon in the professional segment, with neither

brand offering everything at a low price point, but both brands offering what is needed if you pay for it. Nikon arguably has some extremely good wide angles that Canon does not, and they offer a faster (AF, fps, etc.) affordable full frame than Canon's 5DII. Canon appeals to landscape photographers with their feature selection. They match this with compact high quality telephotos such as 70-200/4. It's not just about making the most money within one company but how to

optimise profits for the whole Japanese camera industry. Not stepping on each others' turf too much is part of it, and the proprietary lens mounts are another method. Notice also how Nikon avoided making a direct

competitor for micro four thirds and NEX even though a lot of people would have wanted them to. Too much

competition in a segment reduces prices and profits. To sell more cameras, Nikon decided to make a new

type of camera which is closer to a video camera with its sensor size and features, but still offering useful still

capability and some exciting new developments.

I think Shun is right in that Nikon cannot split their FX cake into too many models. I was really suprised that

they made three that are concurrently in production. Personally for me the D700 body size is a good fit and no doubt some

aspect of performance or robustness would have had to be compromised if it were made a lot smaller and lighter. I

think Nikon's market research tells them that an expensive, feature-stripped FX camera would not sell well enough. Most

people who pay that much for a camera will want the zippy autofocus, high quality viewfinder, and operational speed. Next step down, I think the D7000 represents a very good balance of

features and performance for the weight. For a still smaller camera, I would buy either G3, GF3, or E-PL3 and two or

three of their capable yet extremely small primes.

I maintain that the best way to assure that features that you like are being produced is to buy the camera which closest matches your needs, whichever brand it may be. If the mirrorless large-sensor segment grows a lot, Nikon will enter it. Right now they think it's too small a pie to be split. Just wait 5-10 years and they'll get there. First with DX, of course. Notice how quickly the mirrorless cameras are now getting faster AF, first Panasonic, then Olympus, and Nikon are all making progress in this area, and Sony will surely follow. By purchasing the closest match of these cameras to your needs today you are funding research and development in the technology that will eventually fully satisfy your needs.

mihai_ciuca · October 3, 2011

Mihai, there is where you argument falls apart.

The few people who want a small, light-weight FX body because they don't want to carry a lot of weight. Please re-read what the OP says:

</blockquote>

No, is not. My argument was related to yours:

And for that small 5% of sales (although it is the important high end), Nikon already has 3 current models: D700, D3S, and D3X.

</blockquote>

My intention was to show that an offer of three FX bodies is not enough for a class of customers that is very particular and could not be satisfied just with three options: one moderate large and two very large. During film era, in the same time with F5 and F6 were on the market F100 and FM3A, being available new or used many other options... something for each pocket-size and mind. Every pro photographer, apart of the leading body of the era use to have some other F, FM, FE, N and so on, able to fit his needs for every particular circumstances. At this time Nikon meets wonderfully the need of someone who goes to shoot sport, wildlife or weddings. But the same person when is willing to wander the streets, to travel light in his vacation or when want to not attract attention on the field is sent to M4/3, to compact, to Nikon 1 or to DX format.

Also... from my contacts it not seems to me that only "few people" are interested in a compact FX body from Nikon. But if you want to convince yourself that there is an important request / expectation for such as camera, please place a poll on photo.net to see how many people are interested to purchase a digital version of a possible future FM3a with FX sensor, if Nikon will decide to produce it.

ShunCheung · October 3, 2011

My intention was to show that an offer of three FX bodies is not enough for a class of customers that is very particular and could not be satisfied just with three options: one moderate large and two very large. During film era, in the same time with F5 and F6 were on the market F100 and FM3A, being available new or used many other options... something for each pocket-size and mind.

</blockquote>

Right, so during the film era, there were the F5/F6 and F100, F80/N80 and FM3a .... Today, there are the D3X, D3S, and D700 for those who want FX. And there are the D300S, D7000, D5100, D3100 ... for those who prefer smaller cameras. I personally use a D700 as well as a D300 and D7000. It is by no means a requirement that every body must be FX.

Think about it this way, Canon curently only makes 2 full frame bodies: 1Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II. Sony barely has only an A900. Leica has whatever they charge mage bucks. Pentax, Olympus, Samsung, Panasonic ... do not even bother to make FX bodies and most of them are doing just fine. If anything, I think Nikon's 3 choices is on the high side and perhaps too many.

craig_meddaugh · October 3, 2011

Other than sheer market segmentation (which none of us can discuss given that we don't work for Nikon), there are a couple of barriers to a small FF camera.

First and most obvious is the enormous mirror box. Sure, Leica can make a small FF camera, but only because they forgo the SLR arrangement in favor of a rangefinder design. Second, as others have pointed out, there are an enormous amount of electronics that have to get squeezed into the camera. If you could live with 2FPS, they could probably cram all of the needed processors into a FM3a, much as they found room in the Leica M9. But that would be about as good as things would be. I guess what I am saying is that if you want a small FF camera, the Leica M9 is already available with all of its technological limitations. Nikon faces those same limitations while still needing to find a place to put a pentaprism and a mirrorbox.

And even if Nikon does make a small FF, the lenses will still be enormous, so I really don't see the point in any case.

Richard Williams · October 3, 2011

"First and most obvious is the enormous mirror box. Sure, Leica can make a small FF camera, but only because they forgo the SLR arrangement in favor of a rangefinder design."

http://basepath.com/images/PhotoArticles/big/OlympusOM1a-2.jpg

http://basepath.com/Photography/OlympusOM1.php

"And even if Nikon does make a small FF, the lenses will still be enormous, so I really don't see the point in any case."

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/mf/singlefocal/wideangle/45mmf_28/

BelaMolnar · October 3, 2011

Richard, . . . Leica has have a DSLR (S3/S3) with bigger then FX sensor, and slightly smaller body then the Nikon D3 FX. So. . . . ? It is posible.

Inherited. . . I love my Olympus OM-1, -2 FF bodies and the lenses. Regardless, I'm a Nikon user.

craig_meddaugh · October 3, 2011

Richard, those would be the exceptions that prove the rule. Plus I am not sure that there is a very large market for a slow normal prime lacking AF.

Yes, building a smaller FF can be done, but it would either be very limited in terms of its capability or very expensive. And in any case, there aren't a lot of "small" lenses to go on it.

zack_zoll · October 3, 2011

Just two comments here: Leica, Olympus, and the like are able to produce much smaller lenses because they use a wholly different mount, and the lens is designed for different coverage and focus (behind the lens) than the existing lenses. There are tradeoffs. The OM cameras have very few lenses faster than f/2, and even those are priced well above even AF versions of similar Canon and Nikon lenses. But they are smaller. The 'E' mount lenses for digital are smaller and have even better aperture ratings than Nikon and Canon, but are unable to cover a full-frame sensor. Right now Leica is the only company offering a digital camera with interchangable lenses that is compact and works with an existing lens mount; and those are both too expensive for most people, and lack any AF to boot.

There is the possibility that Nikon doesn't offer a compact FX camera that uses an existing lens mount because the laws of physics don't allow it. Sony has come the closest with the NEX cameras, and even those are only pocket-sized if you use their new pancake lens. ANY other lens, even a different pancake with an adaptor, makes the camera too large. Personally, I don't think we'll ever see a 'compact full frame' camera with interchangable lenses that isn't a rangefinder. Not unless we shoot everything at f/3.5 anyway. We didn't see it with 35mm film (unless you count the slower, manual-only OM lenses), and we've had 75 years to work that one out.

Also, I want to chime in on the bulletproofing debate. A good friend of time has had several tours of duty, and on his last we was shot by a 7.62 X 39mm round. AK, SKS, whatever. Franky, the gun part doesn't matter. The point is that it hit his "bulletproof" vest, and stopped there. But there was enough force in the bullet to crack a rib, which punctured his lung. Thankfully he's still alive, but he could have died right there if he wasn't able to get help. The point is that you can't make anything 'bulletproof', as the force of dropping the camera or lens can still damage the internal bits regardless of whether or not the outside is okay.

That's why I put a lot of stock into weather-sealing, but I'm not so worried about metal construction. It's a good feature, but I'm not going to buy a camera just because it's "built better", since it will probably still break if I drop it.

BernardMiller · October 4, 2011

Hi, Zack! There really wasn't a bulletproof "debate" as such. I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole to demonstrate how tough I thought the old cameras were. Lex's explication above of what happened in the McCullin incident is right on the money.

Heck, I teach secondary physics! Even a massive old F4 certainly wouldn't stop a powerful, directly-aimed round fired from close range. Although I'm sure it would give the best protection, at least compared to other 35mm SLRs. (I'm just joshing again, sorry it's not always obvious in print.)

But, yeah, way back when I was first trying to decide which system to get into, there were all sorts of humorous threads on the internet like the poll about if you dropped an F4 on a concrete floor, which would suffer more damage? And a fellow who said that he facetiously told friends that the dent on his still-working F2 resulted from the time he had to club a border guard as he escaped across the Iron Curtain. I went with Nikon because I tend to drop things and to shoot in situations where myself and my gear get banged about a little. And I really liked the idea of using even the oldest lenses in the system on the newest bodies at that time. I think that's one of the huge strengths of the Nikon line--that I can still use excellent old lenses on my digital body if I want, and until the advent of G lenses, I could use the most modern glass on my manual-focus bodies.

I just still have a fondness for the tiny old mechanical warhorses that I grew up with. And I don't think it's entirely nostalgia--you can slip an FE with a fast 50 in one coat pocket and a wide-angle in the other and you're ready to go. Even Nikon's smallest current bodies don't offer quite the same portability/stealth factor, for when that is needed, and they don't feel as well-made. (Of course, part of this is the built-in obsolescence factor; while a 35-mm film camera never really goes obsolete, the constant upgrading in sensor capabilities means you probably do need to replace your digital body every few years. So why build it to last forever? That certainly wouldn't make economic sense.)

JDMvW · October 4, 2011

In the 19th c. it was a bible in the pocket that stopped the round and saved the soldier. I am told, but have not seen, that some bibles were made with metal plates to enhance the armor effect.

In Vietnam, I am sure there must have been Nikon Fs that gave their all to save a photographer's life.<div></div>

robin_barnes · October 4, 2011

Well now, when I started this thread I expected to get my usual 6-10 replies but I see that there are now over 60 (albeit a couple of them are mine) and I've made it into the active threads department for the very first time! This is exciting - thank you gentlemen! I don't think there are any ladies present but if I'm mistaken my thanks to you as well.

I'd like to correct a misunderstanding - Shun the primary reason that I would like a lightweight FX camera is not so that I can use my old manual FX lenses again. It is so that I can enjoy the benefits and advantages that FX offers over DX in comfort when I am out and about, walking and traveling. However I do have the added incentive that others who have invested heavily in DX equipment do not - i.e. I already own half a dozen FX lenses. I know that you take the view that these will not perform well on an FX DSLR but opinions on this vary and I have certainly seen posts on the Internet from those who use two of the ones I have (the 50mm f2 and E Series 75-150mm zoom) who say that the results are first rate. However in order to have the lightweight walking kit I desire (currently I use my D3100 with a 16-85mm zoom for this) I would add a modern FX zoom - perhaps the 24-120mm VR. A DFE2/24-120mm combination would be a bit heavier than a D3100/16-85mm one but still almost half a Kilo less than one involving a D700.

So who would buy a DFE2 other than amateurs with similar needs to myself? Well I suspect that a lot of professionals who currently use other FX Nikons would want add one to their kit to cover those situations when a light and less obtrusive camera would be more appropriate and/or to have it as a backup camera - I am assuming here that it would be somewhat cheaper and less well specified than the D700 and its successors.

Would that be enough to make it worthwhile for Nikon to manufacture a DFE2 assuming that it's technically possible? Frankly I don't know but having just had a look at Nikon's website something else became apparent to me. I was surprised to see that while Nikon makes just 18 DX lenses it makes 49 FX ones. OK so some of the FX ones can be used on DX cameras (allowing for the 1.5 crop factor) but this suggests that Nikon is devoting more resources to developing FX lenses than DX ones. Introducing a DFE2 would be advantageous because it would increase the number of FX lenses sold.

I see that Nikon Rumors is predicting that the successor to the D700 will be announced later this month and it will have a 36 megapixel sensor! If this proves to be correct it will be interesting to see if Nikon has managed to repeat what it did with the D7000 and increase the megapixels while also improving low light performance relative to it's predecessor! With a jump of 24 megapixels that seems like a tall order! Anyway no doubt it will be built like JDM's tank so, sadly, I will not be buying one.

zack_zoll · October 4, 2011

Bernie (can I call you Bernie?), I was just trying to highlight that regardless of how 'well-built' something is, anything with complicated internals is still inherently fragile.

And if I had to use a camera to stop a bullet, I'd pick a Minolta SR series, preferably from the first generation without the meter or hot shoe :) THOSE are tanks. I actually got a sore neck carrying one of those around all day with a 58mm f/1.2 attached.

Two23 · October 5, 2011

i come at this from a fairly Midwestern pragmatic POV. The way I'm looking at it, DX is doing about 98% of what I want to do. DX cameras continue to improve and are hot on the heels of cameras costing twice as much. Historically, camera formats have been getting smaller since about 1878. We had full plate, then 4x5, then MF, then 35mm, now DX. The latest crop of cameras have even smaller sensors than that and often outperform the 35mm cameras we raved about just a decade ago. More and more, I find I have very little loyalty to a format (35mm/FX) that was designed back in the 1920s. I fail to see what's so "magical" about that particular sensor size and it's unlikely I'll pay much more than what a higher end DX camera cost. DX format IS the smaller, lighter alternative. As DX and the newer formats continue to improve, I think there will be less and less reason for Nikon to continue the FX format. History backs this thought. Why make a compact FX when already there are compact DX bodies with great image quality? I do love historic lenses and collect and use them. I use them on film cameras though. I don't want to use them on modern high performance digital bodies--personal choice.

Kent in SD

ben_ballard · October 5, 2011

Unfortunately full-frame just isn't a feature that camera buyers think they have to have, like auto-focus. Perhaps if more full-frame DSLRs had been introduced sooner there might have been uncertainty about the future of DX and more customers might have demanded DSLRs with full-frame so by now the price for FX sensors could have been equivalent to DX. That didn't happen. DX is here to stay, and now there are switching costs for all those who bought DX lenses. They aren't interested in an FX body, where they might have been 5-8 years ago. The price of FX sensors remains high, and overall engineering and tooling costs of producing a new model of DSLR are quite high - it takes several years in most cases for manufacturers to recoup this investment before they produce a new model in the same segment. The risk for Nikon to make your camera would just be too high -- the market for compact DSLRs is extremely price-sensitive, so a premium compact DSLR with full-frame might be a great camera that flops. We could all name a few of those...

ilkka_nissila · October 5, 2011

More and more, I find I have very little loyalty to a format (35mm/FX) that was designed back in the 1920s. I fail to see what's so "magical" about that particular sensor size

That's you. A lot of lenses were made between then and now, and many people want to use those lenses like they were designed to be used (not many of them will take well chopping off half of the image area; it's like drinking milk that was diluted by 1:1 with water; still some taste left but not the same thing). Lots of people like DX but most of them like it because a camera that they can afford is better than no camera), not because they wouldn't prefer FX if they could have it without sacrificing something.

They aren't interested in an FX body

There are few photography enthusiasts who wouldn't like to have an FX camera, if it weren't for the cost. Nikon has divided the markets by dividing their introductions into only consumer-to-mid-grade glass for DX and only mostly very high-end glass for FX (a few exceptions do exist, but a 50/1.8G does not make a system); this puts most new FX glass out of reach for most amateurs. But it's a policy decision, not to do with the FX format itself.

The price of FX sensors remains high

The cost of the FX sensor itself is not why FX cameras are expensive. The D700 costs 1700 EUR today and Canon's 21MP 5D mk II costs 1800 EUR. The 7D costs 1300 EUR and the D7000/D300s cost 1000 EUR. If you consider the cost of the whole camera system that you build for yourself, the difference in the camera prices at this level are insignificant for most of us. When there was no FX, Nikon's top DX camera cost 5000 EUR (the D2X), yet it was superseded by the superior D300 which cost one third of that. Just like that. The high price of the D2X was just a lot of hot air - it's the added cost having a top performing camera at a given time that costs money, not the sensor itself. Now the FX cameras cost from 1700 EUR to 6250 EUR (D3X). Again the difference is not the sensor - Canon and Sony both make 20+MP FX cameras around 2000 +-200 EUR. The D3X is expensive only because it's Nikon's top model and some people will pay that much for being on the cutting edge. Next year we could have more or less the same at 2500 EUR, depending on what Nikon decides to do. It has little (or nothing) to do with the cost of the sensor itself, and everything to do with market placement. The D2X-> D300 transition basically proved to us that the prices are really taken from a hat. The same is true of medium format digital - the Finnish importer of Hasselblad openly noted to me that the cost of the cameras have absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing cost, but it's based on value that the manufacturer sees the purchaser will get from the product. That's why FX cameras are expensive - they're valuable to the users so the manufacturer can charge more. There's nothing more to it.

With FX you gain access to more lenses that are optimized for the format. Why does it matter whether half of the image is chopped off by the small sensor? It does matter a great deal for the rendering of the image specifically at large apertures (which is 90% of my use). It matters less at f/5.6; if you always shoot at base ISO on a tripod, focus using live view, and shoot at f/5.6 then a D7000 is a fantastic camera but it didn't work for me as a general purpose camera.

ilkka_nissila · October 5, 2011

By the way regarding those still smaller than DX formats - the image quality of Micro Four Thirds is quite good in terms of sharpness compared to DX, but the images are quite noisy in the shadows compared to FX. As for the Nikon 1 - the sharpness or overall image quality is intermediate between MFT and compact cameras - clearly they are oriented towards those compact camera users who want to shoot video and action with fast autofocus and response time, and not so much for still subjects with high definition. IMO for a DSLR user, MFT makes sense for its utmost compactness and the pancake lenses, but I doubt it will ever be a primary camera format for serious photographers. It's only a small sector of applications that require the cameras to be that small, and in many cases the ergonomics are not that good for long lens shooting (how exactly do you hold the thing steady at arm's length?). The user interfaces of virtually all the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are designed for casual shooters - which shows that the manufacturers do not consider it a choice for DSLR users.

It is true that there has been some shift towards smaller formats, you could say that DX is now used for many of the things that 35mm film was used in the past, and FX for what was previously for medium format, but not completely. 35mm film was the format of choice for low light in the film days because MF doesn't have many fast lenses (though some did use Hasselblads with f/2.8 and f/2 lenses indoors with fast film). FX is still the primary format for that kind of stuff because of quality (which has of course dramatically increased) and lens availability which has also been improving in the last few years.

IMO the lenses announced from 2007-> show where Nikon's focus is regarding FX and DX very clearly.

Two23 · October 5, 2011

In the 1930s, the common cameras were 5x7 and 4x5 for pro work, and serious amatuers shot 120 based cameras such as Rollieflex, Zeiss Ikon, and Voigtlander Bessa. The Contax and Leica 35mm were seen as convenient pocket cameras that were fun to use when you didn't want to bring a "serious" camera, but the format wasn't seen as being for professionals. The moral is, don't be so quick to dismiss the sub-DX sized sensors. An image from a C501 Hassleblad of the 1950s was not as detailed as that from the standard studio Century 8x10, but it was more than good enough 90% of the time, and far more convenient to use. By the 1970s most pro work was being done on 120 film, not 8x10. As I look down through the past 170 years of photo history the one trend that clearly stands out is that convenience/ease of use will always trump gaps in image quality. If that weren't true we'd all still be shooting 8x10, which is still vastly superior to any digital output including MF. So, needing a small sized camera that uses Nikon mount lenses? Make mine a D5100.

Kent in SD

craig_andrew_yuill · October 8, 2011

I agree with what Kent above just said. I have recently been using my old Nikon FM2n and F801S cameras and enjoying them. I have had a chance to handle the D3100, D5100, and D7000. The first two, size-wise, are much more to my liking than the D7000, which I think is much larger than it needs to be. All but two of my lenses are non-CPU AI-S-mount lenses, which I would like to continue using in spite of the DX-sensor crop factor. Alas, the exposure meters of the D3100 and D5100 won't work with these lenses. Only the D7000 has the amount of compatibility I consider acceptable for my needs. I just don't want to lug around a camera quite that big.

Thom Hogan has repeatedly stated that many serious photographers want a digital FE2. Film cameras like the F801S and Pentax LX had features like sophisticated electronics, robust construction, and weather sealing. They also had film-wind/rewind mechanisms that took up a fair amount of room, yet they were relatively small compared to many of today's DSLRs. I see no real reason why a smaller D7000- or D700-like camera could not be created, other than the marketing people have decided that "serious" cameras must be big. A D7000 or D700 camera the size of the D5100 - I'd go for one of those.

bravin_neff · October 9, 2011

Clearly some AIs lenses were duds, but many of them also were serious winners. And there is also a gradation of in-between-ness throughout the range of lenses. Just as with most things.

But to make the blanket statement that all those old optical formulas are easily surpassed by their modern counterparts? That is flatly contradicted by my experience, and countless others. My 105 f2.5 Ais is easily as sharp as my 300 F4 ED AFS, right from f2.5. Yeah, I'm sure someone can go out and find a dud. I've had some duds. But to then leap to the conclusion that all the old glass doesn't work well on FX is simply false. Quite a bit of it works great. Those m43 folks eat up the old glass like it's no tomorrow, with far higher pixel densities than any of the current FX cameras. And a lot of that glass is spectacular on digital. I know the Ais glass I've kept around is perfectly fine. The duds get sold off. But they don't represent all old lenses.

ShunCheung · October 9, 2011

My 105 f2.5 Ais is easily as sharp as my 300 F4 ED AFS, right from f2.5.

</blockquote>

Have you checked that lens out on a 24MP D3X? Moreover, a fair comparison only compares identical focal lengths, or at least similar ones. A 300mm is almost 3 times as long as a 105. Your example is a meaningless comparison. In particular, you need excellent camera support or a high shutter speed to get the most out of a lens that is in the super tele range.

Those m43 folks eat up the old glass like it's no tomorrow, with far higher pixel densities than any of the current FX cameras.

</blockquote>

Not sure those people know what they are doing. Why put those big lenses designed for FX-format film with the need to clear a mirror onto thse Micro 4/3 cameras, where micro emphases being small as a major advantage. They also lose AF and all electronic coupling between body and lens.

But 4/3 only uses a small center part of a FX image circle. A lot of those edge/corner issues that will show up big time on high-pixel FX-format DSLRs can be totally avoided on m43.

Hopefully Nikon will have a 20+MP FX DSLR that is more affordable, within $4000 and preferably $3000. When more people get to use the lesser lenses on 24MP FX, the problem will be much better understood, just like many people realizing that same problem when the 16MP D7000 was released last year. In the last few years, not many people have experience with the D3X due to the high cost, thus hiding a lot of the issues.

I don't even want to think about putting 36MP or 40MP on FX. When I tested the D3X, I already had enough trouble with good lenses.

Thom Hogan has repeatedly stated that many serious photographers want a digital FE2.

</blockquote>

As I said, Hogan himself reported that he brought that topic up with Nikon's President, and the President asked Hogan how many he would buy himself because he wasn't counting on selling that camera to anybody else. (Maybe not literally nobody else, but certainly there is not a big market for it.)

The point is this, if Nikon does not make a digital FE2, what can those who want one do?

<ul>

<li>Can they switch to Canon or Sony? Neither Canon nor Sony makes a small FX body, I mean smaller than the D700.</li>

<li>They can continue to shoot their FM/FE bodies and avoid digital altogether, but if they don't mind continuing shoot film, they wouldn't ask for a digital version to begin with.</li>

<li>They'll compromise with a D700 or use a smaller, lighter DX body.</li>

</ul>

My conclusion is that any potential "digital FM/FE" will at most split off the existing market share of the D700. There is no incentive at all for Nikon to add a 4th FX model for a tiny percentage of photographers and hurt the sales of the D700 (and its successor). That was why Nikon's President asked Hogan that question since the President knows how to run a successful company, and he has results to prove it.

Philip Freedman · October 9, 2011

I had a D700 which I used with older Nikon and newer Zeiss manual lenses and was very happy with the results but

certainly found the combination rather heavy and it soon resulted in what I suppose is called photographer's elbow. I

also had and still have a D300 which is nearly as heavy. However, I remembered that Galen Rowell once wrote an

article in (I think) Outdoor Photographer saying that on mountain hikes he took one of Nikon's small light plastic-bodied

SLRs if a heavy pro SLR would be too heavy and bulky, and I decided that if a DSLR has a decent sensor and a

decent lens, and the viewfinder is not ridiculously small, a consumer model should be fine for a normal enthusiast like

me, so I recently bought a D5100 which has the same 16mp sensor as the D7000 and can take the same modern

lenses as the pro models. Apart from being a bit fiddly in changing the ISO (you can allot the Fn button to this but it is

awkwardly positioned) it is performing well and in many respects the IQ outperforms my semi-pro D300. I mainly use

the current prime 35mm G series lens which sadly I have to admit is just as sharp as the old Nikon manual lenses that

I still treasure.

Philip

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in