Nikon Pure Photography

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Landrum. NO, we do not have to discard the tripods, regardless we using less and less time. But, how do you going to do a long exposure shoot without the tripod, or a longer exposure needed for a darker morning, evening, graduated neutral density filter on the lens, exposure a 1/15 or longer, aperture 16-22 to get a lots of depth of field, etc. Long lens shooting, like birding still need a tripod. Yes, for general photography, we no longer need a tripod. But, to play safe, still a recommended tool to get a sharp image.<br /> <em>"That guy is capturing landscape without a tripod; can't be a very good photographer."</em><br /> It is not a big deal, I shooting landscapes in good light and wether, hand held, thanks for the D3s and D4 high ISO capabilities.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Re. Sony, a reminder that, when Nikon were selling the D3x and Canon selling the 1Ds3, Sony massively undercut them both with the A900. The forums briefly said "whoah, cheap 24MP full frame camera" - but they really didn't make a big dent in the sales of the duopoly. It's interesting that these cameras were released, but the company that I suspect should be most scared of it is Leica. Besides, I see the biggest benefits of mirrorless as being for wide angles that don't need to be (as) retrofocal and, mostly, portability. Portability is a hard sell when you have a big sensor and all your lenses are 1.5x longer (usually physically) than those on a DX camera.<br />

<br />

I maintain, as I have for some time, that the "too many pixels" issue could have been fixed by Nikon implementing something like sRAW, not just by actually reducing the sensor site count on their cameras. IMHO they really should have done this with the D800 - it would have fixed the biggest complaint. Still, computers have got a lot faster in the years since the D700 was released, and I maintain that the time taken to process D800 images now is no more prohibitive than the time taken to process D700 images was when it came out. Of course, people quite like that processing D700 images now is faster than it used to be with an older computer; I'm just suggesting perspective, not ignoring the issue.<br />

<br />

Historically, Nikon have done a very good job of releasing things that make me think "why on earth did they release <i>that</i>?" rather than meeting what a lot of people have asked for. If this is a double-bluff and the new camera is a D400, kudos to them. I'll wait to see what turns up, but I'm not rushing to get my D800 on ebay.<br />

<br />

Lannie: I use my old tripods as studio stands to position flashes. Though I'm not really considering them useless yet when it comes to trying to track birds with a manual focus 500mm, or for astrophotography. Alternatively, you can always use the spiked feet to fend off anyone wanting to steal your exciting new camera. And there's Galen Rowell's trick of using them for drying the washing.</p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>Historically, Nikon have done a very good job of releasing things that make me think "why on earth did they release <em>that</em>?" rather than meeting what a lot of people have asked for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This makes me pause. I have heard this before. Read the responses above and you quickly come to the conclusion that if Nikon really was to release what people have asked for, they would have to release a separate camera for each individual. The list of wants and demands above are staggering.</p>

<p>As for the claim that the D800 has too many pixels, I see just as many demands for cameras in the 40, 50, 60 range. You can't please most of the people some of the time, or something like that. I was perfectly pleased with 12 megapixels, however 36 has not been a problem, my computer handles them just fine. Although when I purchased a 10 megapixel D200 in 2006 I had to buy a new computer to keep up.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Looks kinda heavy....built in 1kg gyroscope? Hand-held down to 4 seconds. Of course, don't try following a horse over a jump with it 'cos you won't be able to move it that fast!</p>

<p>EDIT..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the claim that the D800 has too many pixels, I see just as many demands for cameras in the 40, 50, 60 range</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess I must have missed <strong>all</strong> of those posts on the Nikon forum.. Canon's maybe?</p>

<p>Gosh, the pre D4 'blank' space on the Nikon site has gone??</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Yes, it has gone! So, nothing to chat about. This discussion should be closed... :D<br /> BTW, there is a HUGE difference between tripod and no-tripod. To me, non-tripod shooters are journalists, not photographers... ;)</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<blockquote>

<p>Gosh, the pre D4 'blank' space on the Nikon site has gone??</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and the D300s still leads the DX series no matter what they say about D7100...:)))</p>

 

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Somebody's comments, I agree full heartedly. Digital FM3a, without all the automatizations.</p>

 

 

 

<p><em>" Hi all,</em><br>

<em>A while ago... there was a (bs) rumour of Nikon returning a classic design (FM2 / FE2 / FM3a) style camera with a digital sensor.. This is more of a theoretical question - who would want / love / hate to see this come to reality? How successful do you think it may be?</em><br>

<em>DM3a would probably have something like (made up on the spot): </em><br /><em>16MP FF Sensor (or whatever) </em><br /><em>Contrast AF + Split Screen Focusing Screen for fast MF </em><br /><em>Bright, 95% coverage with a reasonable magnification level.. </em><br /><em>Matrix, Center-weighted & Spot Metering. </em><br /><em>3.5FPS (or whatever again). </em><br /><em>500 grams.</em><br>

<em>Personally, i think the FM3a is the most beautiful camera ever made by Nikon aesthetically. I prefer it's size for everyday use, it's weight, and it's overall character and build. I like manual focus with a big viewfinder and a split focusing screen.. Ripping out the AF would allow the camera to retain it's pleasant, small size.. To anyone here who hasn't used one and who has only owned consumer DSLR's - you don't understand the level of character and build. I strongly recommend handling one if you ever get the chance.</em><br>

<em>Tandem this up with CZ manual focus lenses, or old Nikon AI-S lenses.. 24mm f/2, 50mm f1.2, 85mm f/1.4, oh my god.. i wouldn't need to buy another camera in my life for everyday use.</em><br>

<em>Thoughts? "</em></p>

 

 

 

[Two23]

<p>My guess is that Nikon saw Sony running away with all the buzz lately about their new camera, and decided to release an ad at least about something. They badly needed to stay in the spotlight. As to what this "something" is, who knows. Trying to figure it out from the ad is like looking at clouds and guessing what they look like. A digital FM3--would I be interested? I don't know. It might be full frame, and I don't have the lenses for that any more. I'm not keen on buying yet another set of lenses. I'll wait and see what shows up. It might be too late for Nikon to get this out by Christmas now? As for the retro look, I'm not sure I'd spend what will have to be over $1,000 on a digital camera that will quickly lose value. I love "retro," but have plenty of choices already in my closet to pick from.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I must have missed <strong>all</strong> of those posts on the Nikon forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I won't try to link to another forum, not sure if I can or not but it wouldn't be polite to the PN owners. However, Model Mayhem, as you can imagine, is full of studio shooters so their views might be a bit slanted. At any rate there you will find many discussions about higher megapixel cameras. Several people there seem to think that 36 is the new low water mark. Their forums are divided into Model and Photographer and not by brand of camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My guess is that Nikon saw Sony running away with all the buzz lately about their new camera, and decided to release an ad about something.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But the problem with this line of thinking is that if Nikon is near a release, they would have had to start developing the camera ages ago.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>From what I understand the A7r which has no AA filter, has offset microlenses and as a result may work better with old rangefinder lenses than the A7 which has the AA filter but no offset microlenses (correct me if I'm wrong).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's my current understanding too. And from this test http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224 peformed with the A7 (and not the A7R) those offset lenses are certainly necessary to use M-mount wide angle lenses. But some of those lenses cause problems even on the M9 and M 240 - so no reason to get ones hopes up to high. <br /> <br /> I purchased a NEX 6 to use with two Leica M lenses (35/2 ASPH and 90/2) and would certainly like to use them on a full frame camera. But I am weighing the restricted use of manual focus and stop down metering vs the cost of an A7 or A7R. This photozone test of the 35/2 ASPH reveals a lens that is very sharp in the center and with virtually no CA - but only a so-so corner performance, large vignetting, and a hideous bokeh if not shot wide open; certainly IMO not justifying a $3000 price tag.</p>

<p>More and more I am leaning towards the opinion that it might be better to use modern lenses with these new cameras instead of that expensive Leica or Zeiss legacy glass or it's lower priced Voigtlander alternatives. More trouble than they are worth?</p>

<p>And FWIW, many wide angle lenses can't even be used on a NEX 6 (and fare even worse on a NEX 7) - it's for that reason that I use my Tokina 11-16/2.8 as my "superwide" on the NEX 6. Works like a charm but is, of course, a bit on the large side.</p>

<p>Re: the Nikon DF (if that's what it indeed will be called) - wouldn't it be time for the 2nd video); it's no good to start a buzz and then stop feeding the frenzy.</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>To complete the retro experience I've heard that the new camera will use a new cylinder shaped memory card that fits in the back of the camera. You open the back by pulling up on the release mode dial on the top left. After each shot the user will need to push a lever with the right thumb to advance to the next digital frame. A new motor drive will be available for those requiring a higher frame rate, but in keeping with the pricing started with the introduction of the MB-D12 will require a second mortgage on your home.<br>

I've also heard there will be a second version that is actually made from cardboard in the shape of the camera shown in Nikon's teaser ad. When you open the back of this version, inside you will find a shiny new D400.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>This makes me pause. I have heard this before. Read the responses above and you quickly come to the conclusion that if Nikon really was to release what people have asked for, they would have to release a separate camera for each individual. The list of wants and demands above are staggering.</blockquote>

 

<p>I should clarify: There are a lot of requests for "what I really want in a camera is..." along with a specific set of features that would make it more expensive or less useful for a lot of other people. I can completely understand why Nikon ignores this kind of thing. On the other hand, there are times when - given the apparent holes in Nikon's line-up, a lot of public of analysis by prominent bloggers on the internet, and calls by people on forums - it's hard to see why Nikon decided to prioritize something entirely different.<br />

<br />

The D600 (and 6D) surprised me, because I thought people would object to a camera with cut-down features other than the big sensor. It turns out that they do, but people are still buying them, and Nikon managed to make one not <i>that</i> cut down. Fair enough - though I'm a little concerned about profit margins during the price war. There have been calls for what would effectively be a D3000 with an FX sensor; it would be marginally cheaper (yes, people still claim the D600 was too costly) and I'm sure people would complain. I'm not saying I'm always right, just that I'm often surprised and that there's limited benefit to my trying to guess.<br />

<br />

Looking at the 58 f/1.4, I wasn't expecting one. I am, at some point, expecting a 300 f/4 VR (at least if it doesn't steal sales from the f/2.8), a new 135 f/2, and refreshes to the 70-200 f/2.8 and, especially, 24-70. I wasn't expecting yet another normal f/1.4 lens. Actually, I'm mildly interested, but I wasn't expecting it. To make people happy (not me, I don't have a DX camera), I might have hoped for a couple of f/1.8 wide DX primes, or a fast DX zoom or two. Not yet another variant of a superzoom.<br />

<br />

But I don't run Nikon's product decisions, and I have no evidence that I'd do a good job if I did. I just sometimes wonder what people were thinking.<br />

<br />

Phil: There were certainly lots of complaints that 12MP wasn't enough. I sympathize with Nikon - you can't accuse them of not having fixed that problem with the D800, and then people criticise them for it.</p>

[rjmelone]

<p>I find it interesting that the D300s is ahead of the D7100 and the D90 ahead of the D5300 in the Nikon lineup.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The line up is a combo of chronology within the sub-division of FX > DX high end to low end....ie the D90 is higher end than the 5*** series as it has screwdrive.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I find it interesting that the D300s is ahead of the D7100 and the D90 ahead of the D5300 in the Nikon lineup.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, if you arrange the cameras based on their respective initial price in the US, that would be the right order. The D300S was $1800 when it was introduced back in 2009, the D90 $1000 in 2008. Otherwise, there little debate about the D300/D300S, D90 and D5000 have very similar 12MP sensors, and the succession is D5000 -> D5100 -> D5200 -> D5300.</p>

<p>For me, I never bought a D300S, which is essentially the same camera as the D300 plus dual CF/SD memory cards and primitive HD video. I replaced my D300 with the D7000 back in 2010 and then replaced the D7000 with the D7100 earlier this year. The D300/D300S are two generations behind, and now in 2013, we should be speculating when the D500 will replace the D400.</p>

<p>As I mentioned on the following rumor thread earlier: <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00c5bk">New Retro Nikon? http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00c5bk </a>I currently have no insider info that is not already in the public domain, such as the teaser video. Obviously Nikon seems to have another new camera to announce, but then every 2, 3 months, they have another new camera to announce so that you can safely say at any time that Nikon will "soon" have another new camera. Otherwise, whether the rumor is from rumor sites or from and official Nikon teaser, we can keep posting till our faces are blue, these discussions will get absolutely nowhere until the official announcement.</p>

[Gup]

<blockquote>

<p>So I think "game changing" is premature, but for sure there is a lot of buzz on forums</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, you are always the voice of reason here. When I used the phrase 'game changing' I really meant the game of selling cameras more than the game of photography. I sought out all the information I could find when I first heard the announcement from Sony and then was dismayed at the limitations I could perceive, lens limits being the most serious. As always, no tool will 'do it all' (except those sold on late night info commercials). So, I totally agree with your assessment.<br>

Since taking the advice of Shun and company a couple of years ago I did adjust to the smaller body of the D700 after years of only pro Nikon bodies and now look forward to something that might be even smaller and lighter for the future. I won't sacrifice build quality or image quality, though, so it would require a FF sensor and my wish list would be 24 megs. I've never used more than 12 and that is an exciting prospect for me. I expect it to be built like a brick, too, if it is a true retro design. And finally, I'd love it to be enough camera that I never had to upgrade again. I don't require any improvements in AF or fps or ISO, just dynamic range, resolution and longevity.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Well, AFAIK, Nikon has <em>never</em> released a new camera over the weekend, so go take what you've already got, go outside and enjoy using it!</p>

<p>Now Mondays, that's another question. I like Thursday myself.</p>

[Albins images]

<p>In the film time, between several different models (F801, F4, Nikkormats FTN/2/3) ultimately the F3HP was and probably is my all-time favourite camera. The transition to digital went relatively smooth via D200 and D300 and now back to full-frame with D800. Those bodies are intuitive, fast, reliable, and offered great backward compatibility with my old lenses. Like today, I worked with the D800 and an old 24/2.8 and it definately felt like 'pure photography'..<br>

<img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3757/10480142086_22df388e01_n.jpg" alt="" width="320" height="213" /><br>

..So I came from the film time.. and now have all the camera I could ever want..<br /><em>But I am so excited to see what Nikon comes up with!! ;-)</em></p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Things that would return the "pure photography" experience for me: (i) full-frame body, (ii) about the size and weight of an F2, with (iii) comparable optical finder magnification, (iv) optimized for manual focus (with or without hybrid elements), and (v) comparable build quality. The rest is up to them.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>I'm excited because there is the possibility to have a compact FX digital body that will work well with my compact primes (16/3.5 AI, 20/2.8D, 45/2.8P, 90/3.5CV, 180/4 CV) and provide an excellent way for manual focusing that does not work very well now with my D800 (poor focusing screen & insufficiently accurate focus confirmation dot).<br>

This may stop me from building my m43 system from more than I have now - just what Nikon wants to hear I suppose.<br>

It would help this camera out a ton if Nikon came out with some compact primes that were excellent for manual focusing. <br>

24MP would be better for me, but I can make due with 16MP for sure. I don't think I'll be selling my D800 though as it just works so well for other types of photography. </p>

[donbright]

<p>Very...Very!...Interesting that Nikon pulled the mystery camera out of the Digital box. That means the possibilities have been expanded! Nikon Medium Format film Camera? A stretch, but then again maybe its another rebirth of the rangefinder. Whatever it is, it still smells like film to me.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I would love to see then put a rangefinder on the market again and so would a lot of film manufacturers.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Two23]

<p>I don't see any way that Nikon will release a film camera. Lomo, yes. Nikon, no.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>And teaser video #2 is up - revealing some more of the camera: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/purephotography/</p>

[jonathan_newman]

<p>"Besides, I see the biggest benefits of mirrorless as being for wide angles that don't need to be (as) retrofocal and, mostly, portability"</p>

<p>Not sure whether there retrofocal or not but I think generally we've seen that on digital this talked about advantage doesn't seem to have appeared, mirrorless UWA's(at least the ones with decent performance unlike the Sony 16mm E mount) have all been pretty large/long lenses. That's at 43 and ASPC sensor size as well with only the Fuji and Zeiss primes being faster than F/4.</p>

<p>I look at the new FE lenses and to me they actually look significantly longer than I'd expect for similar DSLR designs. You look at say the 28-70mm kit lens and its actually almost exactly the same length as the Nikon 24-85mm kit dispite the latter being wider, longer and faster. I'm wondering whether the relatively modest specs on them aren't just an effort to balance the camera but rather to cover this issue?</p>