Should Nikon make a FF High End Mirrorless?

[pics]

<p><strong>"As this unfolds I find myself thinking that we are making several big mistakes by concentrating too much on the OP's "Should Nikon make a high end Mirrorless?" question and after thinking about it bit I'd now emphatically say "No". Nikon would do a lot better by looking very carefully at the evolution of image capturing in the last few years."</strong></p>

<p>I agree. I think sales of mirrorless cameras would have to stop tanking in North America before Nikon (or Canon) would give serious thought to this. This is a nasty little fact that often gets lost amongst all of the mirrorless buzz from an enthusiastic fan base and the industry itself. It's hard to call a nearly 50% drop in sales a "sign of the future." While there are some pockets of the globe where mirrorless sales increased from 2012-2013, overall sales of mirrorless cameras declined at the same rate as DLSR's in 2013. People point out that Mirrorless sales increased in Japan, but so did sales of DSLRs (DSLR shipments in Japan from Jan-Oct 2013 were 140% of what they were during the same period the prior year.)<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.cipa.jp/index_e.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.cipa.jp/index_e.html</a></p>

<p>It's not that Nikon and Canon need to jump on the Mirrorless bandwagon to ensure economic viability in the future. Quite honestly, the advantages of mirrorless (or what mirrorless users consider advantages) are actually quite minute in the grand scheme of things and mostly lost on the vast majority of potential customers. For those who do actually understand what mirrorless offers, its not unanimously agreed upon as being an improvement. Here in the U.S. "professional" means large and complex looking. Most mirrorless cameras (despite their technical prowess) look like glorified point and shoots to a novice or first time buyer. They want what they see the pros using and with the exception of a small number of pros (usually highly advertised by the mirrorless industry) their aren't too many mirrorless cameras being taken out on paid jobs.</p>

<p>In reality Nikon needs to focus on the real changes that are making a difference in the industry (namely increased video capabilities) and improving the short comings of what they currently offer. Heck it wasn't even that long ago that people were shooting film and focusing manually (or coping with atrocious autofocus). The low hanging fruit has already been grabbed off of the vine in terms of the digital revolution. The improvements are getting more incremental and harder to come by but that doesn't stop photo mags and forum buzz from using every new technology as a replacement for the "film vs. digital" debate.</p>

<p><strong>"I could go on but to me the "no brainer" is for Nikon to go for top end phone followed by most usable tool for current day journalism."</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong>Considering the times we live in yes, this would do infinitely more for their bottom line than another high end MILC on the market.</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_petrov1]

<p>If we are going to dream, here is one from me.<br /><br />Nikon could make a digital camera with the size and usefulness of FE. It cold have the following features:</p>

<ul>

<li>With a mirror, so that the user can compose through optical viewfinder. No power-hungry-slow-weird-color-expensive EVF, thank you very much.</li>

<li>Without any screen on the back or top - they take space and drain a lot of power. I would review my images on the computer anyway.</li>

<li>Without AF motor, to save space. Or with it, I don't mind as long as it is cheap.</li>

<li>With small buffer, to reduce the price.</li>

<li>With dials on top for speed, aperture, and ISO.</li>

<li>With slow, low-power processor to save price and increase battery life.</li>

<li>With the cheapest and slowest AF module, 11 AF points are more than enough.</li>

<li>Without video, thank you for this.</li>

<li>With spot metering, so the user can decide what the exposure should be.</li>

<li>With the cheapest contemporary 10MP+ sensor.</li>

<li>And so on - anything reducing weight, price, and power consumption.</li>

</ul>

<p><br />In other words, a model like those in the d3x00 series, with much bigger and better optical finder, and without the screen and some of the electronics. Don't care if it is DX or FX. DX would be definitely cheaper, so let's start with it. In other words, from the "good, fast, cheap - pick two" formula my dream camera would be good and cheap, not fast.<br /><br />I would gladly pay for such camera what cameras in the d3x00 or d5x00 series cost. I would use such camera for landscapes, preferably on tripod, with all F-mount lenses I have. Would I shoot action with such camera - certainly not, I would use another camera for action like I do now.<br /><br />Could Nikon build such camera - yes, sure. Would they do it - no, there would probably be very low demand and hardly any profits.<br /><br />Now, since this is a thread for mirrorless cameras, I actually like them when they are small, with small sensors, and with fixed lenses. P&S cameras and smartphones are mirrorless, and they are great for their intended purpose - and price. Now, asking for expensive FF mirrorless cameras and lenses is a bit too much.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Nikon should concentrate on building a high quality D7100 replacement, and a pro build DX D400. They will not, but they would be wise to do so.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I think Nikon may have missed their chance with the tie-in to mobiles - several big names are already there - but there's a chance. While I've seen a few out and about, I really don't know how well the CAMERA(phone) devices - S4 Zoom, PureView, etc. - sell. They certainly compromise the pocketability of the phone, and probably the handling of the camera. Phones certainly killed the budget compact, often with decent image quality, but getting "big sensor" performance out of a pocketable device is (currently) hard. Though I'm sure people are trying various novel solutions, and the various software depth-of-field effects can be effective when they work. As for video, Nikon have never really been a video company - if Canon and Sony aren't getting it (more) right, I'm not surprised that Nikon struggle. That said, you could get pretty good video just by taking a BlackMagic system into the field, or one of the high-end Panasonics.<br />

<br />

Peter: I'll bite. Not that I'm going to persuade you to change what you want from a camera, but just as a discussion of the problems with camera design...</p>

<dl>

<dt>With a mirror, so that the user can compose through optical viewfinder. No power-hungry-slow-weird-color-expensive EVF, thank you very much.</dt>

<dd>But you want a "bigger and better optical finder"? You can do "bigger but dimmer" simply with optics; FX mirrors have more light hitting them, so they're inherently doing better on the brightness/size factor than DX ones. You can do somewhat "better" than the D3x00 series just by using a pentaprism - but it adds cost and weight. I'd actually vaguely like to see someone try an FX camera with a pentamirror as a weight-saving measure (the big lump of glass probably contributes more to the overhead compared with mirrorless than everything else). Plus I want to see someone try to make a collapsible finder...</dd>

<dt>Without any screen on the back or top - they take space and drain a lot of power. I would review my images on the computer anyway.</dt>

<dd>Periodically, people try compact digital cameras with no LCD, to reduce cost and size. They rarely sell, just because image proofing is so useful compared with the film days. Of course, they only drain power when they're <i>on</i>, so you don't have to lose out on the battery life, unlike many mirrorless systems. Or we could consider an EVF-only design but we've already ruled that out. You can disagree, but I think live review has been the single biggest benefit of digital cameras, and I doubt anything without one will sell - unless perhaps you believe Thom Hogan's idea with using a smart phone as a display. My experience has been that the chances of that solution working perfectly are small, but I'm a pessimistic software engineer, so what do I know?</dd>

<dt>Without AF motor, to save space. Or with it, I don't mind as long as it is cheap.</dt>

<dd>Agreed, this could save a small amount of space/weight and cost. Assuming you're happy with the additional size and cost of AF-S lenses, but since most lenses are AF-S these days, that may not be an issue. I almost expected the D600 (because it's "junior") and Df (because it's light weight) to be lacking a motor.</dd>

<dt>With small buffer, to reduce the price.</dt>

<dd>RAM is pretty cheap these days, especially if you really want a small pixel count. But I'll read this as "don't prioritise a big buffer". Which I'm sure will make the D7100 design team feel better. :-)</dd>

<dt>With dials on top for speed, aperture, and ISO.</dt>

<dd>These do add significantly to size and cost. I've said far more than anyone wants to listen to about the ergonomics of the Df, so I won't comment further on this - but if your ideal camera is a yet-smaller Df, this makes sense.</dd>

<dt>With slow, low-power processor to save price and increase battery life.</dt>

<dd>Again, like "don't prioritise the buffer". Sounds reasonable, although I'm a little unclear on how many different designs Nikon actually use at any given point. Presumably there's a low speed grade, and with low resolution I doubt anyone will notice...</dd>

<dt>With the cheapest and slowest AF module, 11 AF points are more than enough.</dt>

<dd>Canon have been slow to add AF points (though they've been playing with putting them on the sensor), but I guess with a low pixel count, focus-and-recompose is more viable. I think some of your requests are going to bump the price up, though, so people may be less willing to put up with low-end AF (not that this hurt the 5D2 or 6D much). I don't really know how much the AF modules cost...</dd>

<dt>Without video, thank you for this.</dt>

<dd>Why? It really costs nothing to add, unless Nikon design a completely new sensor and image processor that can't do live view especially for this camera. The Df doesn't have it as a philosophy, but I really don't see the down side. Except in combination with the lack of LCD, but I've argued against that too. Don't get me wrong - I almost never shoot video, and didn't miss it on my D700. But if you're in that once-in-a-lifetime situation, it doesn't hurt to have it.</dd>

<dt>With spot metering, so the user can decide what the exposure should be.</dt>

<dd>Depending on your definition of "spot" (some meters have more sample points than others), it seems rare to exclude this these days. Which is nice - I remember missing it from my Eos 300D.</dd>

<dt>With the cheapest contemporary 10MP+ sensor.<dt>

<dd>That may be the 24MP one that Nikon are shipping in vast quantities in other cameras, but point taken. Clearly a lot of people would still be happy with the D7000 sensor.</dd>

<dt>And so on - anything reducing weight, price, and power consumption.</dt>

<dd>Laudable aims, though I'm not sure that the "manual controls" and "better finder" are compatible with them. You're happy with a D3300-style plastic body, then? Do you actually want less power consumption, or would you be happy with a bigger battery? How do you feel about integrated flash? "Cheap" can mean mirrorless (fewer moving parts), but "low power" usually means phase-detect AF - though I guess someone might manage to design a sensor with on-chip phase-detect that doesn't power up the main sensor until needed. (You could then have a tunnel viewfinder that just marks the AF points, rather than being TTL.)</dd>

</dl>

<p>It's nice to dream. I don't think Nikon could make what you want for the price that you want, even if they sold a lot of them, but that doesn't make it less valid to know what you want. Maybe Nikon will listen when/if the Df gets replaced. Though I'd always imagined the Df design as making sense for landscapes, and the choice of Nikon's lowest-res sensor with the least dynamic range at minimum ISO seemed like an odd mix for landscape shooting.<br />

<br />

I'm mostly happy with what I've got already (the camera, not the credit card bill), so I won't make a counter-bid here. Well, I have plenty of requests, but most of them are BIOS updates. Mirrorless is a fine concept, as is a cut-down "traditional" DSLR, but I'm not holding my breath from Nikon. On the other hand, Leica have just made (very small numbers off) their first new film camera in several years, so maybe I shouldn't be shocked if Nikon announce an F7 at Photokina. (Nonetheless, I would be!)</p>

 

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Another way to work out what Nikon should make for us :-) would be to list the reasons why we decided that we needed a "good or very good" camera and how we justified that to ourselves.</p>

<p>I've always needed a good camera for my work - I'm a sculptor, enough said - for last 21 years we've had an art gallery as well and over that time my photographic interests have expanded to become my hobby or in art school terms my elective. The fact that I can take a reasonable pic means that my community (and family) relies on me to some extent to document moments that are important to them.</p>

<p>My own children, all grown up, all have reasonable cameras, and have some pride in taking quality pictures.</p>

<p>I mention these things because I suspect that many of us on this forum have similar stories to tell and our demographic is the one that Nikon needs to understand before launching into FF mirrorless or anything else for that matter because we are the vast majority of their customers.</p>

<p>To me small isn't necessarily much of an advantage, once cameras get bigger than genuine pocket size only weight matters. My favourite film camera was a Fuji GW 670, aka the Texas Leica, which made me think of using the guts of a D800, interchangeable Nikon lenses, maybe a rangefinder style viewfinder that altered as we zoom, no retched little bright light that alarms people as we aim the camera at them and a Live View monitor that is crystal clear at high magnification, could go on but that'll do for now.</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

One way that Nikon could quickly introduce very powerful and desirable mirrorless cameras : use the current chassises (sp?) and basic form factor used for the D7100, D610, and D800 and remove the prism and mirror mechanisms from them. This would also eliminate the

mechanical parts of the phase based autofocus system and as a consequence may eliminate the need for the autofocus

micro-adjust system as well. may No need to redesign lenses or change lens mounts. I'm sure they have considered it.

 

What would be in it for Nikon and it's customers?

 

- savings in R&D

 

- saving in retooling and manufacturing facilities.

 

- most importantly: continued use of existing lenses and not alienating the existing customer base.

 

- savings in packaging and shipping.

 

 

I've looked at the Sony A7s Alpha camera. While image quality is terrific, I don't like the tiny form factor otherwise I'd

switch.

 

I suspect there are more photographers switching from Canon to the A7r than there are Nikon photographers for the

simple reason that Nikon already makes 24 and 36mp cameras whereas Canon doesn't.

 

For the next few years there will be a sizable market for DSLRs as well, but as the technology used for mirrorless

cameras advances the need for them will decrease.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The 36MP high resolution sensor doesn't introduce AF or diffraction issues though it may reveal more clearly what issues exist</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if that's the case, then how come just about every single article i've read on the D800 clearly states that the diffraction tipping point is about f/8 on a d800, compared to f/11-13 on a 12-16 mp sensor? i realize diffraction is a complicated subject, and i'm trying to avoid overly-technical explanations in the interests of boredom relief, but its pretty clear that the higher in MPs you go up, the earlier diffraction comes into play. that HAS to be a sensor issue. the AF issues with the d800 are well-documented as well, so it's hard to imagine the sensor size didnt play a role in that.<br>

<br>

also, when i said "sweet spot" for FX, i perhaps should have qualified that a bit. in fact, let me amend my previous statement and say the sweet spot for FX is between 16-24 mp. but that sort of depends on the type of photography one is doing. i can still get away with 12mp for photojournalism -- i dont necessarily need more resolution, i dont want bigger files, and i like having a largeish buffer and excellent hi-ISO with my D3s. the D4 and Df are firmly within the center of this range, with their 16mp sensor. PJs probably dont need more than 20 mp, and even at 24mp, the large sensor starts to have some disadvantages in both DX and FX. for general photography, likewise, 24 is more than most people need. but for detail-oriented landscapers, who print big, and wildlife shooters, who may need to crop, it makes more sense to have bigger sensors, even if there are some tradeoffs.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I think sales of mirrorless cameras would have to stop tanking in North America before Nikon (or Canon) would give serious thought to this. This is a nasty little fact that often gets lost amongst all of the mirrorless buzz from an enthusiastic fan base and the industry itself. It's hard to call a nearly 50% drop in sales a "sign of the future."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

50% drop in sales? those are last year's numbers. the first four months of 2014 tell a different <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-growing-again.html">story</a> -- that mirrorless is currently the only growing market segment in the camera industry. That said, it is historically true that north america has lagged, but in nikon's case, the Nikon 1's sales issues can be attributed to misguiding marketing efforts, confusing inventory chain decisions, and overambitious price points. there's actually a demand for the AW1 which isnt being met on dealer shelves -- which is kind of a shame because that's a good example of an innovative product.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most mirrorless cameras (despite their technical prowess) look like glorified point and shoots to a novice or first time buyer. They want what they see the pros using and with the exception of a small number of pros (usually highly advertised by the mirrorless industry) their aren't too many mirrorless cameras being taken out on paid jobs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>part of the issue here is that the market for first time DSLR buyers has dried up, compared to 5-7 years ago, when DSLRs were the buzz of the day. another thing is that phones have eroded the compact market, which used to be Nikon and canon's bread and butter. this forced the high-end compact P&S to emerge, which in turn created a demand for compacts with high IQ. the big issue for any camera company now is that the $400-$800 and $800-$1300 market segments are so saturated nowadays, making anything priced above that a hard sell, unless it's clearly innovative and/or unique. in the $500 range, you can get a Sony RX100, a Fuji X-A1, or a Nikon 3200. The Coolpix A, which is a mirrorless entrant, makes little sense at $1100 when the Ricoh GR, which has the same specs, is $700. Nikon obviously has more marketing muscle than Ricoh, but they've priced the camera out of range for likely buyers despite that. So the failure to penetrate the N American market by the big two in mirrorless is partially a result of their less than enthusiastic approach to it, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. <br>

<br>

Another point that needs to be made is that paid jobs themselves have eroded, certainly in the media segment, as newspapers have cut staff and stock photo companies have made their archives available for free. this has impacts on what people can spend, since freelancers dont get to choose equipment from a photo pool, but have to buy their own gear. the implication, again, is that the over-$1000 market segment becomes a tougher sell, as you're essentially looking at working pros and well-heeled amateurs. Semi-pros might just not foray into FX waters at all. as the mirrorless cameras continue to get better in the critical areas where they are currently lacking --cough, AF tracking, EVF lag, cough--more pros will use them eventually. <br>

<br>

But what's also a truism is that more and more pros and semi-pros are using mirrorless as secondary or personal systems. if you want a fully manual camera, you have to get at least a d7100 in the nikon lineup, and then you run into the issue of maybe not having the exact lenses you might need or want--cough cough, fast wide primes, cough cough. If mirrorless can fill in those gaps, they'll continue to resonate with market segments who have a need for small yet competant systems, such as travelers, vacationers, hikers, etc. just the fact that a complete fuji or m4/3 system can fit into a fanny pack as opposed to a backpack makes those systems viable, with a more reasoned lens selection than Nikon/Canon APS-C in some cases. in any event, FF mirrorless for Nikon seems like a long way away, and wont happen until after other companies cultivate that market segment first.</p>

 

[clive_murray_white]

<p>If Nikon was a vehicle manufacturer it would create concept models for the big Motor Shows - a smart way of developing these innovative designs would be to have an open to all international concept design competition - I reckon it should be based around the D800, $US20,000 first prize, maybe 5 shortlisted designs get mocked up by Nikon for the big Camera shows.</p>

<p>Mind you I wouldn't say no if they rang me up and offered me a silly amount of money to design my version of an "Artist's Camera".</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon could make a digital camera with the size and usefulness of FE. It cold have the following features:</p>

<ul>

<li>With a mirror, so that the user can compose through optical viewfinder. No power-hungry-slow-weird-color-expensive EVF, thank you very much.</li>

<li>Without any screen on the back or top - they take space and drain a lot of power. I would review my images on the computer anyway.</li>

<li>Without AF motor, to save space. Or with it, I don't mind as long as it is cheap.</li>

<li>With small buffer, to reduce the price.</li>

<li>With dials on top for speed, aperture, and ISO.</li>

<li>With slow, low-power <a id="itxthook2" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cdgU?start=50" rel="nofollow">processor<img id="itxthook2icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> to save price and increase battery life.</li>

<li>With the cheapest and slowest AF module, 11 AF points are more than enough.</li>

<li>Without video, thank you for this.</li>

<li>With spot metering, so the user can decide what the exposure should be.</li>

<li>With the cheapest contemporary 10MP+ sensor.</li>

<li>And so on - anything reducing weight, price, and power consumption.</li>

</ul>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How much do you expect to pay for such a camera? Although you think such a camera have a very limited set of features and lousy performance yet I don't think Nikon can make a profit selling it for less than $2000. So if the consumer like you won't pay the price Nikon won't make it. </p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"50% drop in sales? those are last year's numbers. the first four months of 2014 tell a different <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-growing-again.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">story"</a></strong><br /> <br /> Point taken. Yes that was from last year and yes MILC sales so far this year are growing higher than DSLR sales. Whether that will hold up over the course of the year and whether it will make up for last years losses is anyone's guess. Of course MILC shipments still are only 30% of DSLR shipments so there is some sizeable catcing up to do.</p>

<p>I'm not saying it will never happen, just that the conditions, customer demand and technology aren't in place for it to happen right now and I think Nikon realizes this. At the moment, the best do it all camera that can handle anything you throw at it in all different environmental and lighting conditions from studio to fast paced action with a minimal amount of quirks and hiccups is still a DSLR like the D4s or 1DX. The people who buy these cameras most likely don't care too much about shaving a few ounces and inches off the size of the camera body considering they are probably carrying a pelican case full of gear to a shoot anyway. In the end I would have to ask would a MILC get the job done any better for a person like this or give any better image quality than what they are already getting? I personally don't think so and if that's the case is it worth abandoning an entire system (assuming zero backwards compatibility) to get a camera body with a slightly smaller form factor and a WYSIWYG viewfinder which may have difficulty in some shooting situations? The consumer market does what it does and usually ends up chasing the latest most "in fashion" piece of gear. Right now that's retro looking small form factor cameras, but a D5 wouldn't be geared towards that market. The "F" system is well developed and proven with a complete system of lenses/gear that can handle just about anything you throw at it. Nikon won't move away from it on a whim and I think they will wait and see how the MILC game plays out for a bit longer. Certain things about MILC's are genuine technical improvements but some things like camera size, shape, design, "retro look" could be fads that come and go. I wonder how many people are buying them for those reasons just to have something new and different and not because they have an intense hatred for mirrors and optical viewfinders which are currently doing a pretty darn good job getting the shots. The industry is on shaky ground and taking a big risk for a sliver of the 30% piece of the pie (which may end up alienating more current customers than it attracts new ones) may not be smart. For now I think their decision is a wise one.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I wonder how many people are buying them for those reasons just to have something new and different and not because they have an intense hatred for mirrors and optical viewfinders which are currently doing a pretty darn good job getting the shots."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No doubt some customers were lured by the novelty - even some experienced photographers who had a few bucks to spare on a lark.</p>

<p>Others by the significant step up in IQ compared with their cell phone cams, with a slight improvement in ergonomics - anything would be an improvement over most cell phone camera ergonomics.</p>

<p>But I doubt anyone who'd used an SLR or optical viewfinder camera before had "an intense hatred for mirrors and optical viewfinders". The rear LCD only mirrorless camera is a significant compromise for some types of photography. But it's also an advantage for other styles. I find it much easier to follow erratic action using the rear screen - especially kids and pets. It's nearly intuitive to pan with motion, and terrific for my mixed up right-handed/left-eye-dominant style. Finally, I can keep both eyes open while following action. And it's great for no-look or roughly aimed high or low angle shooting.</p>

<p>But the rear LCD only cameras aren't great for bright sunny days, especially with low light over my shoulder. It isn't great for carefully composed portraits - I find it distracting to repeatedly shift my eyes from the rear screen to the person, and I need to wear reading glasses to do so. It doesn't provide the sense of seeing through the camera, like using a TLR or rangefinder with good optical finder. There's always the sense of looking at the surface of a screen.</p>

<p>And every mirrorless or P&S digicam I've owned or tried in shops has the same slight blackout between shots. Even the very quick V1 has that slight blackout. In that respect it's no different from using an SLR or dSLR at a shutter speed of around 1/15th second, where the slight blackout can make it tricky to be certain your subject didn't blink or pull a face. And it's worse with bursts, where some cameras keep you waiting for a half second or several seconds, depending on the buffer.</p>

<p>I like the entry level mirrorless models for the incredible value - IQ equal to any dSLR with the same sensor, in a smaller, lighter and less expensive package. But the overall handling isn't equal to a well designed dSLR or optical viewfinder camera.</p>

<p>Given comparable IQ, Nikon's closest camera in size and weight to the Fuji X-A1 is the Coolpix A, which costs more than twice as much as the Fuji. Nikon's closest cameras in price, the D3100 and D3200, are significantly bulkier and heavier than the Fuji (not to say the Nikons are heavy, just heavier).</p>

<p>Ellis' notion for a Nikon mirrorless model made from a modified dSLR body probably makes better economic sense than my notion of a from-scratch Nikon mirrorless design. That's how Cosina developed its first Voigtlander bodies for Leica screw mount lenses (not rangefinders, but viewfinder cameras primarily for wide angle lenses). Cosina modified the generic SLR body they had already been making for sale under various marques - Nikon, Canon, Vivitar, etc. Personally I'd rather have an optical finder - or a Fuji style hybrid finder - but Nikon would probably make an optional accessory shoe EVF.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I find it much easier to follow erratic action using the rear screen - especially kids and pets. It's nearly intuitive to pan with motion, and terrific for my mixed up right-handed/left-eye-dominant style. Finally, I can keep both eyes open while following action. And it's great for no-look or roughly aimed high or low angle shooting.</blockquote>

 

<p>Lex, I think that may be a function of you being left-eye-dominant, although I certainly sympathise that this is a common problem for cameras with finders. With a dominant right eye (in fact, with a right eye that has keratoconus after dodgy laser surgery) I'm actually better with a finder diopter adjustment alongside my open left eye. I've never had a problem panning with the camera to the eye. Panning smoothly at arm's length is something I've always found tricky, especially sitting down. I do value the idea of a tiltable finder for macro, waist-level shooting and over-the-head shots - I keep meaning to use my F5 with the prism off, and I got on well with a Rolleiflex - but I tend to use the fixed LCD live view under duress (I don't always trust my D800's AF) rather than for preference.</p>

 

<blockquote>I like the entry level mirrorless models for the incredible value - IQ equal to any dSLR with the same sensor, in a smaller, lighter and less expensive package. But the overall handling isn't equal to a well designed dSLR or optical viewfinder camera.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm with you except for the "less expensive". They certainly didn't used to be. I've just checked my default dealer in the UK, and the D3200 (okay, last year's model) lists for £249 (including Nikon's £30 cashback). The cheapest mirrorless is a Q7, at £279; the cheapest micro 4/3 and (old) Eos M come in at £299. It should be cheaper to make these things, but the bulk manufacture of DSLRs still seems to be having an effect on keeping the price down. With a kit lens, the UK price for a D3200 seems to be £319 (incl. £30 cashback), and the X-A1 with a kit lens is £359. The Nikon probably has the better sensor, though I acknowledge the X-A1's size advantage. I'm also not blown away by the size of the collapsible kit lens that Nikon are shipping these days - I was hoping for something near the size of the Panasonic 14-42 PZ - but every little helps. The Coolpix A, on the other hand, <i>is</i>... "optimistically" priced.<br />

<br />

As for adapted SLR bodies, I do have a Bessa R LSM body developed exactly this way (though mine is one with a rangefinder). But Voigtlander had the advantage that they were aiming for lenses that were designed for mirrorless. Try this with the F mount and you end up with something that looks like the Pentax K-01. I do know someone who wanted one (unsure if he actually bought it), but I'm not aware of it being an amazing success, and the reviews were not kind.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I've been kind of a critic of entry level, DSLR kits sold at big box retailers but just over the last weekend, I had cousins ask me if the D5300 kit with 2 lenses including memory card at Costco was a good deal ($200 rebate). I tried to convince them to buy mirror-less but that was out of the question. They ended up buying the D5300 kit. These people were baby boomers who had a SLR in the 60's and 70's and wanted to upgrade to the latest equipment. They were pretty adamant about buying a DSLR kit. </p>

 

[jack flannery]

<p>On one hand, I need a viewfinder. Period. And I commonly require a small camera. So I have tried the V1, the EP-5, and the X-Pro 1. When it comes right down to it, nothing matches the responsiveness of the DSLR. So I don't know why Nikon would introduce a mirror less high-end camera unless they can jump 2-3 generations in technology. </p>

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<p>On one hand, I need a viewfinder. Period. And I commonly require a small camera. So I have tried the V1, the EP-5, and the X-Pro 1. When it comes right down to it, nothing matches the responsiveness of the DSLR. So I don't know why Nikon would introduce a mirror less high-end camera unless they can jump 2-3 generations in technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well then you need to try the latest mirrorless cameras that are a couple of generations more advanced than those you just listed. True you can't shoot sports or fast action with them, but my GX7 is more than fast enough for my casual photos of my 11 year old kids and performed superbly on my last vacation.<br>

Oly EM1, Pany GH3 and GX7 are all excellent cameras with very very good EVFs. Plus the focusing accuracy is better than my D800 (though not as fast). And if you haven't used a truly silent electronic shutter it's great (for the right situations).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Michael: Out of interest, why did you try to persuade them to go mirrorless? There <i>are</i> reasons, but it's certainly not the case that a DSLR is a bad buy if they're happy with them (particularly the size).<br />

<br />

I'm looking forward to seeing how the RX100-III reviews. A genuinely pocketable (just) camera with a decent EVF and a decent lens (I hope) is pretty appealing, though I also wouldn't mind it being a bit cheaper than it's likely to be. I can't argue that my D800 sometimes misses focus with phase-detect (usually lens-dependent and because I need to spend some time AF tuning), but there's also the argument that DSLRs sometimes focus better in low light. Canon have cameras that can do both, though not usually as well as the state of the art mirrorless.</p>

[alan_bessler_sr]

<p>Could care less,I love my D610 .......</p>

[larry_johnson6]

<p>Full frame mirrorless from Nikon? Not unless they can do it without neglecting the current line up of full and crop SLRs. From my vantage point I feel Nikon has muddied the waters with too many models possessing too few distinctions and distinction. To better clarify things for the world market only produce low/middle/advanced/pro models of all the formats, but be sure that whatever level one selects, it is sound. Present each new model with a simpler, but adequate, menu system with the option of adding less common functions by way of downloadable updates paid for by moderate fees. Engineer in external switches/controls for the essentials: aperture, shutter, exp compensation, ISO. With the advanced and pro units, include GPS and WiFi. Maintain viability for the legacy lenses: this is one of Nikon's greatest advantages over the smaller, younger companies. Restore the wide-spread impression that Nikon gear is premium quality (reliability, user interface, precision, current technology) by raising the design and quality assurance standards. Have patience to let the changes register with the public and then maintain the philosophy. Back to the initial topic: to stand out, I would suggest creating a boutique/niche segment with a contemporary version of the Mamiya 7 and a kit of five superb prime lenses (eq 21, 35, 50, 85mm) and two f3.5 zooms (eq 20-50 and 60-100). This Digital Medium Format system would compete head-on with Pentax, Hassy and Phase, but would be tougher, smarter, lighter, and usable in the field as well as tethered in the studio.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I'm with you on most of what you say Larry especially the idea of a niche segment, I even like the Mamiya 7D idea but I'd still look at D800/800E as the basis for something, partly because of speed and lens compatibility. All the MFDs that you mention are reflex.</p>

<p>My thinking would be to have another look at modular and maybe large format type functions, this way they may even be able to "slip" a tilt shift module between lens and sensor - the whole system could be made from existing stuff but deconstructed and slotted onto some kind of foundation chassis. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Larry: I concur that what Nikon probably don't need is yet more models distracting from the DSLR line-up, especially with a different mount. They're already trying to run the 1 system (we could argue about whether that's a good idea, but there are still customers who would be annoyed if Nikon killed it) and compact sectors, and there's a strong argument that the lens department should have been giving some love to DX wide angles. A new body style, especially with a new mount, is going to take development time that it's not clear Nikon have, to me. Although part of Nikon's problem is inventory - when the shelves are full of the D3100, D3200, D5100, D5200, D7000 and D300s - often in preference to their replacements - it's hard to explain to customers that your "current, streamlined line-up" only has three DX models in it and that therefore there should be no confusion.<br />

<br />

Should <i>someone</i> look at a digital Mamiya 7? Well, maybe - and my very brief exposure to a Mamiya was positive (if a bit plasticky). But one advantage of digital backs is that you don't have to put them only on DSLRs - for example, look at what Alpa are doing. I'd also suggest that the 645D cameras and the S2 are pretty field-friendly - and it's being a little unfair to claim that even the modular cameras are studio tethered, though I concede that they're not obvious sports cameras.<br />

<br />

I think Nikon do a fairly decent job of external controls though I could certainly argue with some of the ergonomic choices (and have). There's direct control - or at least, as direct as you can get with flexibility and without harming ergonomics (so sometimes "press a button and spin a dial") - for all the primary controls on every Nikon from the D90 up, though I'd have to have a close look at a D3300 to work out how fast you can set ISO. I'd support the paid-for downloadable content idea, although not necessarily in the style of Sony's apps. (More an "I'll pay you to keep fixing the BIOS.")<br />

<br />

And Alan: Yes, I'm not feeling any urgent need to replace my D800e either! But I might win a lottery tomorrow...</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>These people were baby boomers who had a SLR in the 60's and 70's and wanted to upgrade to the latest equipment. They were pretty adamant about buying a DSLR kit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depend on what they had in those period it may not be an upgrade but rather an adaptation to the time. </p>

[mark_gonda]

<p>Nine months later, we now have very interesting capabilities from Samsung and Sony in terms of mirror less high end cameras - and more on the way.</p>

<p>Is Nikon so entrenched in DSLR that they cannot think outside the box? What if we could have a smaller, lighter full frame nikon mirror less with F-mount? Think of possibilities...</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>Having delved deeply into mirrrorless sytems with shutter shock problems and needlessly complex menu systems as well as lagging electronic viewfinders, the mirrorless concept has lost much of its charm to me.<br>

A lightweight(!) compact full-frame DSLR holds many advantages, including real-time view through an optical viewfinder and few restrictions in sensor design.</p>

[larry_johnson6]

<p>Ten or 12 years ago when Mamiya had their excellent MF model 7 rangefinder film cameras I mused about a future when that kind of form factor might house a larger than "full-frame" digital sensor in a body that could accommodate and couple with their fine lenses. Well, clearly, that's not going to happen with them, but how about a similar product from Nikon. I don't have a guess whether any of Nikon's existing F-mount lenses would have an adequate image circle to provide a basic five lens kit until R&D could create some contemporary lenses. If that is too far-fetched, then yes, I'd be curious about a sleeker body hosting a conventional 24x36 sensor, an integral EVF, and a modified menu of goodies and capabilities that somewhat reflected their solid rangefinder cameras of the 1950s - 1970s. I'd prefer it to be designed with two levels only: true amateur and sealed and strengthened for the pro-sumer. Let it be a tad smaller, noticeably lighter, certifiably quieter, offering a choice between 24mp and 36mp, be less menu-driven, and a neat and purposeful design. How soon?</p>