Nikon Pure Photography

[Andrew Garrard]

Shun: I said showing LIVE VIEW through the finder. That is, in mirror down mode, light is bounced from the

Fresnel screen around the prism. In mirror-up mode, illuminate a display behind the front element of the

prism (the one the eyepiece points at). Same as normal live view, but with the option of using the finder.

I'm not suggesting they'll do this, just pointing out that it's possible. I brought up the Fujis because they

similarly have a purely optical path (straight through the rangefinder) and a live-view-in-the-finder solution.

All this is without resorting to evf-only solutions like the Sony SLT (using the image sensor for the evf) or

the secondary-sensor-for-the-evf approach (though I've embarrassingly forgotten who did this).

 

 

I'm not particularly expecting an unconventional finder, given the way the camera seems to be pitched, but

it's fun to speculate. Roll on Tuesday.

[Andrew Garrard]

Dan - where do you get the physical ISO dial? Also, I'd really not go from the existence of a dial that allows

quick setting changes to film, for which you set iso once per roll. (Though I like my idea of a film camera

with integrated variable ND filter...) Plus there's the edge of what looks like an LCD. Now, a sensor in the finder offering live view and preview shots for a film camera would be interesting, but about ten years late. I'm calling death on 135 film, at least. (I must use what I have...)

 

 

"FX" seems unlikely for a film camera. It does seem to be about slowing down the photographer (the dial

interface is slower to use than Nikon's normal arrangement, at least the way the model is using it). One

could argue that's a good thing. I just hope it's an eccentric model for exceptional use - and those who still

haven't switched from film (though I'd expect F5 and F6 owners to be happier with a D4 or D800). So long

as it's not Nikon's new ui strategy, I'll be happy to gaze in wonder at it. It'll probably seem like a better idea

than a Leica X-Vario or a 'bad Lunar, anyway.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Gotta be film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't want to be rude, but that is absolutely ridiculous.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So long as it's not Nikon's new ui strategy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does Nikon have a user interface strategy at this point? I'm not seeing any determined or consistent direction in the development of a user interface across different models for Nikon.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Honestly, if Nikon produces an F7, I'll be pleasantly surprised. But I can't imagine it'd be commercially

viable, and an unnecessary distraction. I wonder if there's a kickstarter for that, but making a very small

production run film camera that's a better buy than what's on the used market is going to be very hard.

 

 

Lannie: I think that's a little harsh. There's a lot in common between the D3xxx/D5xxx cameras and

between the D7xxx and up. I'd feel a lot more comfortable using a D4 or D3, owning a D700, D800 and F5,

than I would trying to use 5D or 1D - even though I own a 300D. The current range are pretty consistent.

The F4 was very different, and the new camera seems to be too. Not that there aren't differences, even

though I've not seen the changes (to one-handed operation) that I'd like. Still, the 1 series is very different -

it's not as though Nikon has only one UI, even ignoring Coolpix. Though the thought of a V1 interface on

any semblance of a serious camera horrifies me.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie: I think that's a little harsh.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry, Andrew. The point was not to be so critical of Nikon as to express my own failure to see or understand what is going on. I do not have as much experience with Nikon as do many others. I shot Canon FD from 1982 to 2006, and Canon EOS from 2006 to 2012. Although I used some Nikon lenses with my Kodak 14n and DCS Pro SLR/n, I am really quite the neophyte where Nikon gear is concerned.</p>

<p>I cannot say that Canon has been any better where user interface design is concerned.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>So far, we have seen ~all of the front, most of the top, and only the top right quarter of the back. This suggests that the missing 3/4 contains the final mystery. What could they be hiding there?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Lannie: I may be oversimplifying! Nikon did cause some havoc by switching the +/- buttons and moving

the AF controls in the D800/D4 generation. Plus the D4 got some joysticks (as did some of Canon's recent

models). Most things have been pretty consistent since the F5, though, just as Canon have had the same

"wheel above the shutter + big rear wheel" arrangement since film days. At the low end, both

manufacturers move things around more, especially with flip screens (which ironically achieve the effect I

want of moving buttons off the left side of the camera) and touch screens. I'd probably struggle just as

much with a D3200 as with a 5D, based off my limited interaction with each. I'd like to think they're aiming

for incremental improvements. I just don't 100% trust them not to decide a radical redesign is better

without a lot of ergonomic testing - mostly because I still don't understand why the AF control position on

the high-end Nikons has never been seen as a problem.

 

 

So I hope Tuesday's release is interesting and radical - but I hope the whole range doesn't follow it.

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=959573">Didier Lamy</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 03, 2013; 09:34 a.m.</p>

 

<p>So far, we have seen ~all of the front, most of the top, and only the top right quarter of the back. This suggests that the missing 3/4 contains the final mystery. What could they be hiding there?</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Didier - I've been thinking the same thing. They have given looks over most of the camera. We have not seen the back of the viewfinder, rear LCD or the left side of the LCD. If they have not shown us most of the camera there must be some surprises left.<br>

This leaves me to believe that either the viewfinder is removable or there is an EVF stuck in the viewfinder - e.g. their recent patent on such a configuration. Maybe the LCD is monochrome for reduced power consumption and the EVF is used for color picture review. The in viewfinder EVF would draw much less power than the rear LCD.<br>

Two more nights and we'll find out.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

John: interesting thought, though I have to assume that mono LCDs are rare enough that they may not be

very cost-effective. Just missing the colour filters from a conventional LCD would only triple the resolution

in one direction. I always took this as the only explanation for the Leica monochrom having a colour LCD.

The edge of SOMETHING is visible in one of the images, suggesting there is an LCD of some sort. Maybe

it's entirely touchscreen-driven - this wouldn't surprise me on most cameras, though it might be a bit odd

on this one. It would bypass the need for conventional multi-function dials as well as dedicated ones, but

this camera seems to have both.

[donbright]

<p>Maybe its film, with a monitor? That's not necessarily wishful thinking, I'm actually hoping its digital, I already have an F3HP, FA, and an FM3a. Sorry if I seem confused, but it seems like I'm in the same company.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>All this retro stuff, I rather shoot the real thing. People buy stuff from online stores nowadays, what's so hard using a online film shop and a online lab. Paying current prices (let alone an expected premium) on a retro looking camera with a 21st century CCD sensor. The images itself isn't gonna look like film anyway. That's beside the point I know ... it's a lookalike with 21st century convenience. But like always give it 5 or 10yrs and this Df price tage will just plummet, it's the latest iPad people use it for Facebook and Youtube videos. Couldn't I just use the first iPad or a 2004 model desktop PC on that running Windows XP. Heck I import film from B&H/Frestyle back to New Zealand then export to Dwaynes Lab for processing. You guys have it cheaper and a better quality than my single local pro lab here. Rather put that $3,000 per 4yrs into a film/lab instead not that I remotely shoot that much. Still many people just want shots put on Facebook or emailed to them. The 0.25% put on 6x4s. If I get to NYC I would pick up 20x pro packs of film at your current prices. </p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>There will be many many howls if the DF doesn't have an excellent, MF-optimized OVF at the very least.<br>

Also howls if there is no other magic other than an excellent OVF, external controls, and Nikon prices it above the D610.<br>

I also noticed that it likely does not have a 10-pin connector. This is truly looking like a Frankenstein of a camera that grabs features from an F3 or F4, D600, D800, and D4 puts them in a blender and out comes the DF which makes it really hard to tell where they will be pricing it.<br>

If it doesn't have an excellent OVF with interchangeable screens or a built-in EVF then it may be quite hard for me to go back down from 36MP all the way to 16MP.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>10pin, i thought retro mechanical cable releases ;-) surely not one of those D3200 stereo plugin ones.</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>I dont believe to the film hypothesis, however there is some film perfume coming from this Df, namely:<br>

> in video #1, the first and only sentence is "it's in my hands again". *again* what?<br>

> in video #3, the guy is busy cleaning his lens, so it is fair to assume that his camera is switched off. When he hears the bird, he puts back the lens in place and quasi immediately takes the photo. Are digital cameras fully functionnal so fast?<br>

> we never see the photographer looking at the back of the camera after shooting</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Regarding film: It has a back screen. Why on earth would you need a back screen for film?</p>

<p>Ergo, it must be digital.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe its film, with a monitor?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny because I made a prediction earlier in this thread that was wrong, but opposite to this. I said digital without a monitor.</p>

<p>I would be floored if it was film, and I think we know enough from these teaser videos to know that it is digital. It appears to be a camera with external manual controls, thus the retro, but with all the modern good stuff. Personally I love the idea that it might use the D4 sensor. I could quite easily live with 16mp rather than the 36 that I shoot with now. It looks like a really interesting machine, and rather than demanding a camera custom make for me, I am quite interesting to see what the people at Nikon created. They have come up with some amazing things in the past so lets give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I have wandered for 10 years why one of the camera manufacturers didn't produce a "film" SLR body with an LCD on the back and use a translucent mirror to accomplishment this. Go one step further and add memory card capability. You get both film and digital capability. Could also be either-or capability. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Lannie: Same reason you stick a polaroid film in a view camera: as a preview. But I agree with Michael: it

could have been really cool... ten years ago, when film was cheap and digital sensors less good.

 

 

Didier: I assume "again" is just about a camera with early 1980s handling. Yes, DSLRs wake up very

quickly these days, and many don't review after every shot, at least if you trust the meter (or your

estimation skills).

 

 

Ray: the Fuji cameras and Leicas still sell because, for some uses, they're really good tools for the job. I

have a film Bessa R, and I'd like an X100s. I've used a Rolleiflex and mostly enjoyed it. An F5 isn't always

the right tool, nor is any DSLR. In this case, with a small lens and a degree of methodical shooting, I can

see the appeal of the camera, especially to the significant number of photographers who never "got" the

button+multifunction dial interface. I think there are good reasons why most cameras don't work this way

any more, but as a second camera or if I really didn't get on with a D800, I can see a small market gap. As

for why not buying an old camera instead, sorry, but 135 film really can't do what a modern digital sensor

can except under exceptional circumstances - that debate really died a few years ago. We could still just

about talk about larger formats (I'm keeping my Pentax 645, I actively want a 5x4, and I wouldn't turn down

a rolleiflex or a Mamiya 7 if offered), but those are different cameras. Which is not to say 135 cameras are

land fill (I may even pick up an Eos 3 for fun some day), but there are reasons to go digital instead.

[RaymondC]

<p>I know where you are coming at ... but film is just fun. I don't demand the highest quality, it's fun, much more processes, imperfections are part of it too and they are cheap. To me at least looking at the older photographs is more interesting than the newer ones say at a photography gallery. If I happen to be in NYC would certainly carry back 20 rolls of pro pack with me :-)</p>

[donbright]

<p>Well, at the risk of getting into a DVF thing, and I won't, I fail to see why a monitor is exclusive to digital, by digital, for digital, and of digital. Monitors have their function for some. Personally I've lived all these years without one, as the viewfinder provides the majority information, but the monitors purpose, is to simply get instant feedback, and for improvisation of the scene which is just as useful for film as digital. If monitors were placed on film camera's in the first place we wouldn't know there should be a difference. It could have been done.</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>Andrew:" "again" is just about a camera with early 1980s handling". You are probably right, but still, all that for just that...<br>

Back to the missing 3/4 of the back, how about this one?</p><div></div>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>That looks like the new PIMJIP (<strong>P</strong>re-<strong>I</strong>nserted <strong>M</strong>emory <strong>J</strong>ogger <strong>I</strong>nformation <strong>P</strong>anel) I've been hearing rumours about...<br /> Now available in Special Edition 2013 Square Format too!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ray, I agree. But I don't think it's the basis of releasing a new commercial product. :-) (Though, seriously, if someone kickstarters a modern 135 camera project with an F mount, I'll be interested - <i>if</i> it's cheap and there's any chance of it actually being made.)<br />

<br />

Didier: Ooh, I forgot about the film reminder holder. But, alas, there's a little writing on it in teaser 5 shot 2 above, so I'm sticking to the boring "big LCD" theory.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Why on earth would you need a back screen for film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's not forget that the F6 has a back screen - and it is definitely a film camera:<br /> http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/NikonF6/images/MIR4NikonpassionC.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/NikonF6/&h=979&w=1080&sz=131&tbnid=dJLSebX0FhQECM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__1cQFcHwekrI0yi97rbZRRuyrAm0=&docid=Tk3bwVPbi8hMnM&sa=X&ei=5n93UoHlJMGmigK_toCoCA&ved=0CEEQ9QEwBA<br /> Imagine it comes in handy to be able to see the camera settings when on a tripod, for example.<br>

Not that I believe for even a second that any camera maker is going to release a new 35mm film camera nowadays.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Now, a film camera with a live-feed histogram on the back screen (and maybe in the VF) might be handy.</p>

<p>I don't believe it though!</p>