Nikon Pure Photography

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know how any photography can be at this point but that is the fun of it. I doubt I will be alive ten years from now but it should be interesting to see how those that are look at the perspective we have now. I think this is what the whole thing ia about.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Owen, I don't know if I will make it another ten years or not, either. I have to say, though, that I have enjoyed digital photography immensely since I bought my Olympus E-20 in January, 2002 (after shooting film SLRs since 1977--and Kodak Instamatics before that). I really have been enthralled to see one barrier after another come down during the digital epoch, and I am always wondering what will come next.</p>

<p>It really has been a fun ride. I bought a D800E last year, and that is quite a ways from the E-20, which had only five megapixels. I also got a second-hand D3s this past summer, and it has been a lot of fun--<a href="/photo/17506019&size=lg"><em><strong>shooting at ISO 12,800 in virtually dark conditions handheld.</strong></em></a></p>

<p>Who knows what's coming?! After all these years, I can hardly wait to see--even though I can't afford to buy a thing right now--and arguably will never really need more than what I have.</p>

<p>Interestingly (well it is to me), the time of my shooting an SLR or more recent camera has been almost as long as my career in college teaching--one an avocation, the other a vocation. Now I only teach part-time for a local community college, and so I have seen almost my entire college teaching career and my "career" as an amateur photographer come and go--in the blink of an eye, as they say. Where did it go?</p>

<p>--Lannie<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>Phil, where did you get this image? Is it reliable? The one I took from the Nikon`s site doesn`t have that detail.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are referring to this link: <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/purephotography/">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/purephotography/</a></p>

<p>There is a better version of this photo on the rumor site's flickr account, but its the same photo so I think its reliable.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>As Don Bright said above, "Maybe the camera in the ad is just a prop." </p>

<p>If that turns out to have been the case, all of our speculations about "retro" will have been for naught.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Gup]

<p>Lannie, our speculations about a retro camera aren't based on these blurry images. The buzz has been ongoing for awhile now around the web.<br>

I have also wondered if the model is holding a prop. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>And teaser #3 is live: "<em>No clutter, no distractions, this is my world</em>". http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/purephotography/<br /> Seems to be a AF Nikkor 24/2.8 he is blowing dust off of - but it's does not seem to be the same lens he is then mounting onto the camera - that one has a chrome ring and likely is that new 50/1.8G. And the camera definitely looks retro. And what's that dial on the right side of the camera (where the grip is)? </p>

<p>Given the wide range of expectations on what that camera will have to be, many are bound to be disappointed once the full specs and appearance will be known.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Yes, it's definitely a chrome ring which means to me that there is an aperture ring of some sort. Also the external shape of the new 50/1.8G seems very different than the current version.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>In today`s soap chapter, the leading is cleaning some dust out of his AF/AFD lens (looks like a plain 52mm thread lens, so it doesn`t have a silver ring). The rear (mount) of the lens is darkened.</p>

<p>In the following sequence, the back of a lens is flashed, a silver ring and something like a "G" type mount is shown... (maybe with a longer back?)... I try to see even the MA/M switch... but there isn`t the usual aperture ring.</p>

<p>My guess is that these are two lenses, the first one is something like a 35/2AFD, the second one a new different lens which enjoys a silver "retro" looking ring and a "G" type back.<br /> Is there an adapter? It could be extremely important. Maybe what is "on my hands again" is the 35/2... (hope it is a new one! ;)<br /> <br /> I`m having fun with Nikon these days... I wonder about my life after the release... :)</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>Looks like there is a film rewind lever on the right side...<br>

I Wonder what is the white text on the front</p><div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>This' camera looks really, REALLY.. WIDE! Way wider than the FE...!</blockquote>

 

<p><i>Oh</i>. Well that explains it. Nikon is releasing a medium format camera to compete with the S2.<br />

<br />

<i>(Ducks)</i></p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Not that there's anything wrong with film....but there's absolutely no sense for Nikon to invest time and money re-inventing a retro-film camera. I refuse to believe it's film based.</p>

<p>We're only being shown FX lenses, so an FX rangefinder is a possibility with a new type of augmented EVF.</p>

<p>Short of some very exotic, built-in optical converter, the flange>sensor distance is still the limiting factor in body depth if you want to use FX lenses....unless you fold the optical path....now that would be scary! Bounce the image sideways maybe?</p>

<p>EDIT.</p>

<p>Cheers Andrew! Wide but kinda shallow!.....You'd never get an FX lens to cover MF sensor area...without auxiliary optics.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>the flange>sensor distance is still the limiting factor in body depth if you want to use FX lenses....unless you fold the optical path....now that would be scary!</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, I've been suggesting for a little while that if you have permanent mirror lock-up, you could collapse the lens into the mirror box for transport (at least, <i>most</i> lenses). Few people care about a camera being big in use, it's when it's being carried around unused that size is an issue. Works better with a pentamirror, because you could collapse the finder as well. It's just a small matter of engineering. :-)<br />

<br />

The alternative is to start making very short lenses with diffractive optics, making it easier to collapse them.</p>

 

<blockquote>You'd never get an FX lens to cover MF sensor area...without auxiliary optics.</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, there did seem to be a new lens... (and, technically, I have a couple of medium format lenses for shift reasons in an F mount...) - but no, I'm not really expecting this (in case anyone thinks I've lost my remaining senses.)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Something to compete with the Sony RX-1?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx1"><strong>[LINK]</strong></a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Gup]

<p>I guess this is all we're getting this time. <br>

So far we know that you can take it walking, fishing and camping.<br>

And it must have incredible ISO to be shooting handheld at loud noises by firelight...<br>

Who leaves a light on in their tent when they're not in it? Batteries are precious when in remote places. Maybe he's not alone? Where are those fishermen? Why is he blowing off his lenses in the dark with wood ash drifting everywhere? </p>

[Gup]

<p>P.net left the image behind...</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Why is he blowing off his lenses in the dark with wood ash drifting everywhere?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because there is wood ash drifting everywhere ;-) And he likely isn't taking a picture of the birds he heard but of whoever disturbed those birds. Maybe his girlfriend is approaching? Or, to go with the upcoming Halloween theme, a zombie? And isn't the whole point of FX to have high ISO capabilities - so that everyone can take images at candlelight - or in this case, the light of a fire? Maybe the light in the tent is on to provide some additional light for the exposure?</p>

<p>I sure hope that whatever is revealed at the end is worth this amount of teasing...</p>

<p>Quite surprising that not a single decent image of the camera has leaked so far - this close to the actual release...</p>

[donbright]

<p>At this juncture there's no knowing whether its film based or digital, no refusing, or leaning, believing anything. Everyone has a belief system that draws the conclusion they want to believe in. One thing that keeps cropping up between the lines is the need for simplification, and perhaps that's where the sentiment for film cues in. Sherlock Holmes wouldn't figure this out, and don't get me wrong this is fun to a point. What's haunting me in the ad is the sound of the shutter. It sounds like my F-3.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>One thing that keeps cropping up between the lines is the need for simplification, and perhaps that's where the sentiment for film cues in.</blockquote>

 

<p>Yes, about that... I owned a DSLR before I owned a film camera. After four years of Canon DSLR ownership and multiple film cameras, I switched to Nikon. D700, not a problem at all, worked out the basics pretty quickly. F5? Had to look up how to open it on the internet. And I still need a cheat sheet to change any of the custom settings. Last time I borrowed a Rolleiflex, I had to phone up about how to load film <i>even though I'd read a description on it recently</i>. I couldn't find how to change aperture on my Eos 620 in manual mode until I'd used up the last of my Kodak HIE in it. A friend picked up a Leica 3, and after a couple of days we'd managed to get some film into it. I've yet to pick up a 5x4 camera, but I've done a <i>lot</i> of reading to try to work out how to use one, and the metering still scares me.<br />

<br />

Simplification is a matter of opinion. Though I guess Nikon probably want to stop making the F6 (maybe the one guy they've got custom making them is due to retire), and they want to convert owners to a DSLR.<br />

<br />

I'm in favour of a lot of ergonomic fixes, and I'm not going to complain that different ergonomics might be bad - or even that (for a subset of uses) something that handles like an F4 would be bad. I'll be interested to see what turns up. But I'm not assuming it's going to make me want to drop my D800 - this is fine, I'm not in the target market for <i>every</i> Nikon product. The last time I said that was about the 1-series, and I did get a V1 eventually, so what do I know?<br />

<br />

Low light, portable, retro, no images leaking... Nikon are releasing a flash gun, aren't they?</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Everyone has a belief system that draws the conclusion they want to believe in. One thing that keeps cropping up between the lines is the need for simplification, and perhaps that's where the sentiment for film cues in.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>D700, not a problem at all, worked out the basics pretty quickly. F5? Had to look up how to open it on the internet. And I still need a cheat sheet... Simplification is a matter of opinion.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree. But I still wonder why when I`m leaving home for a weekend I hesitate between the D700 and the F3 (say FM2, Leica M6)... if I really need the shot I take the DSLR, many times with a bit of... laziness? But if I want to go comfortable, I pleasantly take the film camera (which many times I think -s<em>adly it`s not digital-</em>, too).<br /> Now sometimes I`m even replacing the D700 for my iPhone... </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Quite surprising that not a single decent image of the camera has leaked so far - this close to the actual release...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How do we know anything about the release date?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I just hope that the "simplification" doesn't come at the expense of a high price. Simplification is certainly a matter of opinion - some consider "all manual" the epitome of it. Yes, it's simple - and then it isn't. Which some find out the instant they are still fiddling with the "all manual" when their subject has decided to walk away. And for the record, I shot "all manual" for two decades - and I have zero inclination to go back to those stone ages. Of "PSAM" I can easily live without the P and the M - the former more so than the latter though - sometimes M is the ticket (though exposure lock can make up for it under certain circumstances).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>How do we know anything about the release date?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know nothing - just an "educated" guess. A video every 2 days, a total of (rumored) 6 videos (5 teasers and the sixth the official release) - so it doesn't take much to guess that the end of this week or the beginning of the next, the camera will be officially revealed - and thus "released". Doesn't do Nikon any good to whet everyone's appetite - and then don't serve lunch or dinner.</p>

<p>And if this "release" is going to keep people from leaving Nikon for the greener Sony FX pastures - then the camera can't be delivered early enough.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Even before I bought my D800E last year and my D3s this past summer, I was saying that the future belongs to Sony.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, when one is in his late sixties, as I am, <strong><em>the future is now</em></strong>--and so I went with the brand that I think is the best now.</p>

<p>Was I correct that the future belongs to Sony? I have no idea, but Sony is big and it always offers advanced electronics--and has for a long time. It, like Canon, has a lot of money for R&D. Yet, yet, Nikon keeps defying the odds and coming up with winners.</p>

<p>I hope that the one we are waiting for is a winner.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>At this juncture there's no knowing whether its film based or digital...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No way it's film... no way. Not in 2013. When was the last time any of the 35mm camera manufacturers released a film camera? They aren't making any more.</p>

<p>I think their marketing is brilliant this time. Love it.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Could this (rumored) "hybrid" viewfinder (that Nikon does file a patent for) be actually an interchangeable one? Somehow what I have seen so far reminds me of the F3 - so it isn't inconceivable that Nikon were to release a camera with interchangeable viewfinders - one being a normal pentaprism and one being an EVF - for a camera that allows to use both?<br>

One thing I am not very happy with in some of the current camera offerings is that one is going away from an integrated approach and back to where on has to attach this and that to make the camera function. Best example - Leica M 240 that needs a cheesy EVF attachement to become a "mirrorless". As if Fuji has demonstrated that there is another way.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Well, Nikon's OVF/EVF viewfinder patent doesn't indicate anything about being interchangeable - in fact it doesn't need to since the patent itself relates to the placement of a LCD layer in the optical path that becomes active (opaque) when the mirror is up to block the light passing through the partially silvered mirror from lowering the contrast of the transparent electroluminescent display sandwiched in the light path.<br>

The patent shows the OVF and EVF nicely integrated, so one would wonder why you'd want to change it out. I guess you could change it to be a top view instead of rear or perhaps they will offer a "High Eye Point" version for a larger image.<br>

We'll find out in a few days.</p>