Nikon New Camera Teaser, FX Mirrorless to be Announced on 23 August, 2018

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, it is true compatibility has become a little spotty, but if you use a recent mid to high end DSLR, most manual (Ai compatible or PC) and almost all autofocus Nikkors work fine. If you go with an entry level DSLR, then the compatibility is more limited. All my current Nikon DSLRs fully support all the lenses I ever owned for the F mount.

[Andrew Garrard]

I'm not sure I'm going to catch up with the comments without spending way too much time, and boring you all with the virtual sound of my voice. I'll keep it short, by my standards. :-)

 

Firstly, I don't think Nikon are going to stop making dSLRs in a hurry. That means they'll have a path for people who want older lens compatibility (and autofocus). They may make the adaptor with a motor, I just don't believe they need to - the priority is to provide access to enough lenses to make up for the fact that the mount is brand new, and will therefore be a fraction of a system (at the time when most of the competition have had years to develop). Honestly, I'd love to see a full adaptor - and I've been arguing for a "mount with everything" special Nikon for a while, even if it has no market use. I'm just not going to be surprised if we only get partial functionality. But I suspect a lot of the Nikon faithful aren't going to be all that tempted by the mirrorless system anyway (or they'd already be adapting their Nikon lenses to Sony or Fuji mounts) and what they really care about is new customers. If Nikon go all in on the mirrorless system, they're going to lose as many people who don't want anything but a dSLR as they would through any lens incompatibility.

 

I've my share of older lenses. A couple of tilt-shifts, the 50mm E, the 135 f/2.8 and 200mm f/4. Of the AF-D lenses, the 50mm is no-one's idea of quality glass (though it's reassuringly small), and my 135mm experience was fairly horrendous; I appreciate others had better luck. And yes, you don't need to shoot any lens wide open (I was only picking on the 85 f/1.4's wide open behaviour, not its general use), and there are plenty of reasons to use older lenses for their rendering. Still, any fast, old lens raises the question why you're paying for (e.g.) f/1.4 when the quality is terrible until you get to f/2.8 - which cheaper glass can also do. Some of the older f/1.8 lenses (85mm AF-D, 50mm AF-D) don't render like their f/1.4 brethren; the AF-S ones do, more or less. I'm not dismissing them, and nor do I think sharpness is the ultimate goal (or I wouldn't have a Petzval), but for every person who likes the rendering of a particular lens, I bet there are ten complaining on the internet that the 180mm f/2.8 isn't as sharp as they'd been told it was.

 

Well, it is true compatibility has become a little spotty, but if you use a recent mid to high end DSLR, most manual (Ai compatible or PC) and almost all autofocus Nikkors work fine.

 

Um. D7500. No aperture ring.

 

Andrew!

I rarely use ISO control as I set the ISO for the situation before hand. I do at times use auto ISO but that's not the point. I am used to not changing the ISO because in the film days that's a tough thing to do. I never use the exposure compensation because if I don't shoot as per the meter I would shoot in manual. I use the F3 for almost 40 years and I never once used its exposure compensation feature. That is the reason why I need to switch auto ISO on and off quickly because when I use it I only use it in A mode. When I need more or less exposure than the meter said I switch to manual and also have to switch that auto ISO off.

 

Fair enough, BeBu - but you are using a subset of the camera's features. (To be fair, I almost never use shutter priority or custom white balance, so I'm as guilty.) Changing ISO is no longer hard to do on a dSLR (though being at anything but ISO64 on a D810 is of questionable utility; the D850 less so). I regularly shoot in manual to control depth of field and motion blur, and use exposure compensation for the scene to balance ISO. I could do the same, tweaking ISO manually, but I rely on the camera for sudden exposure changes. I'd like to be shooting aperture priority with auto ISO but the minimum speed set dynamically, still using exposure compensation. Even in pure manual and with manual ISO control, you can still use EC to decide a zone in which to spot meter a subject. There are reasons to have more controls dynamically available. And turning auto ISO on and off quickly generally involves pressing a button and turning one of the general-purpose dials, unless you like menu diving!

[BeBu Lamar]

 

Fair enough, BeBu - but you are using a subset of the camera's features. (To be fair, I almost never use shutter priority or custom white balance, so I'm as guilty.) Changing ISO is no longer hard to do on a dSLR (though being at anything but ISO64 on a D810 is of questionable utility; the D850 less so). I regularly shoot in manual to control depth of field and motion blur, and use exposure compensation for the scene to balance ISO. I could do the same, tweaking ISO manually, but I rely on the camera for sudden exposure changes. I'd like to be shooting aperture priority with auto ISO but the minimum speed set dynamically, still using exposure compensation. Even in pure manual and with manual ISO control, you can still use EC to decide a zone in which to spot meter a subject. There are reasons to have more controls dynamically available. And turning auto ISO on and off quickly generally involves pressing a button and turning one of the general-purpose dials, unless you like menu diving!

 

I am using a subset of the camera features because I am not rich enough to buy the camera that only has the features I want to use. If I am super rich (like some guy named Andrew) I would have Nikon make me a camera just the way I want which has very few features.

[rodeo_joe1]

"They have for example patented a semitransparent mirror version of the adapter which is likely intended to maximize performance of older AF lenses,...."

 

- What madness is this? And doesn't it infringe Leitz's Visoflex patent?

 

Why the **** would you need to incorporate a semi-silvered mirror in a lens adapter?

 

"Let's put a pointless auxiliary mirror into our mirrorless camera" - If that's an example of Nikon's thinking, then I'm really pessimistic about their MILC design.

[Gary Naka]

Well, it is true compatibility has become a little spotty, but if you use a recent mid to high end DSLR, most manual (Ai compatible or PC) and almost all autofocus Nikkors work fine. If you go with an entry level DSLR, then the compatibility is more limited. All my current Nikon DSLRs fully support all the lenses I ever owned for the F mount.

 

My D7200 will work with the AF-P lenses, but it CANNOT turn the VR off.

So I would not be able to use the D7200 + AF-P lens on a tripod.

 

I have a bunch of pre-AI lenses from the 1970-80s that I cannot use on my D7200.

So unless the lenses are AI converted, they are NOT usable.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Why the **** would you need to incorporate a semi-silvered mirror in a lens adapter?

Nikon wouldn't be the first:Sony has an LA-EA4 adapter to mount A-mount lenses on E-mount cameras.

[ilkka_nissila]

Why the **** would you need to incorporate a semi-silvered mirror in a lens adapter?

 

 

Sony's adapter which supports their A mount screwdriver AF lenses also has a semitransparent mirror and AF module.

 

My thinking is this: the embedded PDAF points can only measure the phase difference if the focus error is in a relatively small range and if there is enough light that the phase can be separated from noise. In those cases (close to correct focus, bright lighting conditions), those embedded tiny PDAF sensors give useful data. The external PDAF module of DSLRs have both greater range and also can collect more light so they give useful data within a larger set of conditions than on-sensor PDAF units. Whenever in a mirrorless camera the focus is outside of the range of the OSPDAF sensors, or if there is not enough light, the camera resorts to contrast-detect AF. CDAF can work in two ways: one is to step through all possible focus positions and selecting the one which gives the best contrast, then driving the lens back to that distance. This is a slow strategy and annoying because the viewfinder shows the lens rack all the way through the focus range and back. The other way is to estimate the focus error by performing a kind of numerical diffentiation by evaluating the contrast before and after a small adjustment in focus. Newer lenses built around stepper motors can this kind of step change very well, but screwdriver AF lenses are really bad at it. So a mirrorless AF strategy relying on embedded PDAF sensors and screwdriver AF lenses won't wokr because the sensors have limitations that lead to frequent need to use CDAF to estimate a gradient (either in low light or when the focus is way off).

 

So, to support older lenses, an adapter is made which has all the components that are missing from a mirrorless camera: a focus motor, an AF sensor module (hopefully Multi-CAM 20k or better), and because it would be make the adapter too large to actually insert a moving mirror and submirror in the adapter, they use a pellicle mirror.

 

Whether Nikon goes ahead with this to support old-style AF Nikkors without motors is not yet clear. Sony did, but it seems the majority of their mirrorless customers come from other systems and not their own A mount, so this adapter is probably not among the most popular ones. The AF module in the adapter may be a bit dated also.

 

This isn't madness, even though it might seem a very complex solution to a problem. I am sure they also offer adapters without the mirror and AF module, to work with manual focus and AF-S lenses.

 

Canon's dual pixel AF seems to be more sensitive in low light so that CDAF is not needed in low light. But, it requires the sensor to have twice as many photosites as result in the final image, and considerable computing power to run an AF system where each pixel produces distance data. It solves a couple of the OSPDAF limitations but the out-of-range hunt might still happen. Time will tell how these strategies are used in the future.

 

Or, people could just buy new lenses for mirrorless and use DSLR lenses on DSLR cameras. I think this is probably what works best for most people in the long run.

Edited July 24, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[RaymondC]

We have seen dSLRs on the market for many years now. If I was looking for something smaller I prefer APS-C sensor. The likes of the Sony FF lenses are not that smaller. To be fair the APS-C sensor zooms are not that small too but I enjoy using primes.

 

Re: adapters FWIW a local store here, said that you need quality ones. There has been times when they get cheap ones online from China etc .. the camera had to be sent back to the service center to be dismounted.

 

There are benefits of the mirrorless system though. WYSIWYG with the mirrorless viewfinder I have been told, able to manual focus a bit easier maybe and the few people I know who do photography with models the Sony at least has face or eye focus. They find that quite useful.

 

Also FWIW, at my camera club a good number of people have gone towards the M4/3 system and have not gone back to a dSLR be it whatever brand. Some of these people have had the classical 3 L zooms with a Canon 5D or Nikon D700 kit. Others have a more modest kit lens with a 24-105L or the Nikon 24-120. At the end of the day those that I know they are happy with mirrorless and more people are attracted to that and until when it slows down I don't know. Not saying mirrorless is technically superior, but for them it does the job and they are happy.

[RaymondC]

I am not from the USA. Just from my club. I guess we are not into the technicals that much nor do we know that much about it. We also may not have as much gear some of you guys. All I can say is that those who have gone to a mirrorless already have all purchased new lenses - camera manufacturer brands. Sigma Art etc are very nice but very few of us there actually do that. We generally 98% stick to the camera brand lenses.

 

2% of the time sure, yes adapters. There was one person who had a Metabones adapter? He adapted his Canon L lenses to his Sony A7r but he has since sold all his Canon gear including L lenses and that 85mm F1.2. For the others yeah they have just bought Olympus lenses with their Olympus cameras. Sony lenses with Sony cameras. Fuji with Fuji. Even with Nikons, by in large people just pick up near gear overseas cos NZ can be expensive. There is more people getting new gear than used gear.

[ShunCheung]

Nikon has formally announced that an FX-format mirrorless camera is coming. It will have a new lens mount that is different from the F mount that has been in use since 1959. To begin with, Nikon will introduce multiple (i.e. 2, maybe more) new lenses for this mirrorless camera, and there will also be an adapter to use traditional F-mount lenses. Edited July 25, 2018 by ShunCheung

[RaymondC]

What would be interesting to me over the years is what is the focus for Nikon. They say they will run the mirrorless system alongside the dSLR line up. Would they still continue to push as much money into the dSLR given that now there are 2 line ups. Will any dSLR models go away? How quickly can they push out the mirrorless lenses. Do they expect people to use a lot of dSLR lenses or would they really focus on mirrorless lenses too. Not just what they do but how that would change over the 5 or 10yrs. A lot of that might depend on their customers.

 

Is mirrorless gonna be only FX? I see there is no mention of DX on the press statement. There is that FX mirrorless market but there is also that crop sensor market too which Olympus, Fuji and Sony owns.

[Gary Naka]

Raymond

One problem is not all lenses can be adapted fully.

Example, with Nikon lenses on an m4/3, there is NO electronic communication between the lens and the body. This is with the $500 Metabones adapter. That means that the lens is FULLY manual, and auto NOTHING.

So as a Nikon users, most of my Nikon lenses are crippled on the Olympus m4/3 cameras.

This basically forces me to buy a new kit of m4/3 lenses for the Olympus m4/3 camera.

 

According to the latest press release, Nikon will have an adapter for the digital lens to the new mirrorless camera. I interpret "digital lenses" to mean the electronic AF-S lenses, not the mechanical AF and AF-D lenses. This will bridge the time where Nikon is fleshing out the native mirrorless lens lineup.

 

As for Sigma and Tamron. I see them fitting in where the manufacturers leave gaps in their lens lineup, especially for the APS-C format cameras that both Nikon and Canon seem to have neglected to some degree.

• Example1 the discontinued Sigma 50-150/2.8 filled the gap for the Nikon DX cameras where Nikon has no comparable DX lens to the FX 70-200/2.8. The 50-200 is a slow variable aperture lens. I was very close to buying a Sigma 50-150.
   
  
• Example2, the replacement Sigma 50-100/1.8 has a shorter zoom range, but faster aperture. Though the smaller 2:1 zoom range makes it more of a specialized lens, than the more GP 50-150 with a wider 3:1 ratio.
   
  
• Example3, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 similarly fills a gap for a fast wide to normal zoom. 1 stop faster than the Nikon 17-55/2.8
  

I can even put together a 3-lens Sigma system 18-35/1.8 + 50-100/1.8 + 100-400/5-6.3.

Though I would prefer the Tamron 100-400, because I can put a tripod collar on it, for long/time exposure use.

[Gary Naka]

The current pricing of the 2 mirrorless cameras leaves a HUGE price gap from consumer grade DSLR to the mirrorless.

So Nikon will have to keep both DSLR and mirrorless lines going until the mirroless lineup is fleshed out, and there are enough customers on the mirrorless system.

They could slow down advancements in the DSLR line, to save costs, and try to push people to the mirrorless system. But they can't just drop the DSLRs, until the mirrorless system product lineup is fleshed out.

 

DX is a result of that being the sensor size of the early Nikon DSLRs, so Nikon was kinda stuck with it.

 

I had not thought of it before, but with the new mirrorless system, Nikon could drop the DX format and concentrate on FX; with both consumer/lower cost, and pro gear, just as Olympus has. The consumer gear could be simpler and more aggressively priced, for new users and to be the path for the DX users to migrate to. That would eventually eliminate the DX/FX problem that Nikon currently has. It is much easier for a consumer to migrate within a format (FX) than from one format to another (DX to FX). Then again, those who do migrate from DX to FX might be a small minority.

It would be no different than the Nikkormat (consumer) / Nikon F (pro) cameras back in the film era.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Gary Naka

[RaymondC]

Even if the adapter work electronically I imagine most people will stick to a direct lens.

 

FX mirrorless is unlikely to be that sleek for travel photography ... some of the manufacturers that fulfill that market.

[Andrew Garrard]

I am using a subset of the camera features because I am not rich enough to buy the camera that only has the features I want to use. If I am super rich (like some guy named Andrew) I would have Nikon make me a camera just the way I want which has very few features.

 

Be fair, BeBu. I appreciate that I'm lucky enough and experienced enough to work in a field and location that will eventually allow me to pay off the credit card, loan and payment plan that I've used to acquire my camera equipment. I'm privileged enough to be able (just) to spend a lot more money than many are in a position to do on Nikon kit - though other than fast food it's pretty much my only vice (I don't smoke, drink, gamble, go to expensive sporting events, have a nice car, have kids, own my house outright...) But I also don't have the expensive exotics or single digit bodies that some on this forum and others I've met have acquired. Neither I, nor (to my knowledge) those people have persuaded Nikon to make them a custom camera.

 

Nonetheless, my point wasn't that your camera isn't suited to you, it's that different circumstances are best met by different ways of using a camera. We all try to meet this circumstances with the ways of camera use with which we're familiar and comfortable, within the limits of what the camera supports. And we continue to learn, as I have with recent discussions about how I should configure the autofocus system.

 

There are some styles of shooting, and some photographic scenarios, for which an F3 is a poor tool. There are many others for which it works just fine. The Df and digital cameras from other manufacturers with dedicated dials generally have the same abilities as conventional recent designs - but in order to improve the ergonomics or familiarity for the style of shooting at which the F3 was capable, the ergonomics are compromised for other styles of shooting. I'll wager you won't see many Dfs in press pits at sporting events or attached to big telephotos on safari, despite it having the capable D4 sensor.

 

Fuji built a niche camera system for a specific style of shooting. It wasn't until they supplemented it with a camera built with more modern ergonomics that they started putting telephoto lenses in the system. If you only indulge in a subset of what the camera can do, this is fine. Nikon could choose the same ergonomic route for their camera. But they'd be excluding a lot of customers by doing so.

 

There are people who only shoot manual focus, and who ignore the meter. There are certainly those who never use live view, never shoot video, or never edit a raw file. Many of them take better pictures than I do. But it also means there are some shots they just don't have a hope of getting. Nikon have to go with flexibility for the masses. Only Leica can really do otherwise - and no, I'm not rich enough to shoot Leica.

[Andrew Garrard]

Raymond

One problem is not all lenses can be adapted fully.

Example, with Nikon lenses on an m4/3, there is NO electronic communication between the lens and the body.

 

Well, Nikon are very secretive about their mount protocol, and you can still use most Nikon lenses pretty well with just mechanical connections. There are adaptors for Canon lenses that are electronic, including autofocus; if you want a big SLR manufacturer's extensive lens range on your mirrorless body, you can go that way.

 

Where's the reference to "digital" lenses?

 

I also assume the talk of price is based on rumours at this point. Unless there's something very special about the body, the main benefit to Nikon (other than the bandwagon) of mirrorless is making the camera more cheaply. They've still charged a fortune for 1-system cameras in the past, but you might hope they've learned and would price at least one of these in the D6x0/D750 bracket that they've currently seemed to neglect. (Cue D760 at Photokina to spite me.) I suspect how much focus the dSLR line gets depends heavily on how the relative sales and profit margins work out. Likewise Nikon won't announce a crop version of the camera at this point - it might put people off buying the system they are launching (if only because "wait and see").

 

Mirrorless doesn't make a vast difference to lens size, as Raymond says. Small sensors do (at least if you don't want equivalent light gathering and depth of field). That said, a 24-120 that's actually small (because the wide end has to be less retrofocal) would be an interesting differentiator.

[Gary Naka]

Even if the adapter work electronically I imagine most people will stick to a direct lens.

 

FX mirrorless is unlikely to be that sleek for travel photography ... some of the manufacturers that fulfill that market.

 

Those that can may/will go direct to native glass, where they can.

However, the adapter will help for situations where the mirrorless versions of current DSLR lenses have not yet been released. The adapter will bridge the time until the mirrorless lens lineup has been fleshed out.

 

Those that can't $$,$$$ will migrate over time. The adapter will help to bridge these people as they migrate over time and can afford to replace lenses.

[Andrew Garrard]

I had not thought of it before, but with the new mirrorless system, Nikon could drop the DX format and concentrate on FX; with both consumer/lower cost, and pro gear, just as Olympus has. The consumer gear could be simpler and more aggressively priced, for new users and to be the path for the DX users to migrate to.

 

Well, I have argued for a sub-D600 FX model (without aperture ring or AF motor, and possibly pentamirror) as a way to encourage customers to buy more expensive FX lenses, but it's not had much support on this forum! DX is certainly less differentiated from the 1" pocket zooms and cell phones than FX is - certainly Nikon shouldn't go down in size.

 

But there are still an awful lot of DX cameras out there. The number of consumers upset if AF-D lenses don't autofocus on the mirrorless mount adaptor will be nothing compared to the ruckus if Nikon drop the DX system.

[Gary Naka]

Andrew

 

Shun's first post

Nikon Announces the Development of FX Mirrorless Camera

Then links to this page

Nikon | News | Development of a next-generation full-frame mirrorless camera and NIKKOR lenses — featuring a new mount — that pursues a new dimension in optical performance

 

Where this quote is extracted:

 

Additionally, a new mount adapter is being developed for the new mirrorless camera. This will work with the NIKKOR F mount lenses that are part of the Nikon

digital SLR system ...

 

I interpret the phrase "digital SLR system" to imply the electronic AF-S lenses, not the mechanical AF/AF-D lenses. It is the word "digital" that makes me think electronic AF-S lenses only. Though I could be interpreting it tighter than it really is.

[Andrew Garrard]

Ah, thanks Gary. While, as I've argued, I'll be completely unsurprised if it is AF-S only (at least in the first incarnation), I don't think it's definitive yet!

 

Incidentally, for those pointing at the Sony mount adaptor with integrated mirror, bear in mind some of the Sony 7-series are CDAF only, and would really suffer with lenses that don't have repeatable stepping behaviour. I know Nikon have a patent, but I'm not going to assume a mirror in the adaptor just yet.

 

Unless the camera is CDAF, of course, but then I think it's dead out of the box.

[RaymondC]

Those that can may/will go direct to native glass, where they can.

However, the adapter will help for situations where the mirrorless versions of current DSLR lenses have not yet been released. The adapter will bridge the time until the mirrorless lens lineup has been fleshed out.

 

Those that can't $$,$$$ will migrate over time. The adapter will help to bridge these people as they migrate over time and can afford to replace lenses.

 

If one is going to eventually going to end up purchasing a new Nikon mirrorless body and a new mirrorless lenses, but for now they will make do with this adapter. Nikon better have something substantial. If one was not brand loyal there are other brands out there a customer can consider.

 

Full frame mirrorless whatever brand - it's going to be more of that costlier and larger serious camera. Just because it is mirrorless it's not gonna be that typical street camera, or for that common individual.

[Andrew Garrard]

Anyone know what the rough cost of an FX sensor is these days? I'm just curious what the premium is to Nikon. In a dSLR, there's the larger mirror and prism to allow for, but in mirrorless it's just the sensor and shutter.

[rodeo_joe1]

"My D7200 will work with the AF-P lenses, but it CANNOT turn the VR off."

 

- Are you sure about that?

 

"I have a bunch of pre-AI lenses from the 1970-80s that I cannot use on my D7200.

So unless the lenses are AI converted, they are NOT usable."

 

- If you're really desperate to use those lenses, you can simply take a file to the aperture ring. 'Conversion' takes about 20 minutes work; an hour if you care to paint over the bare metal again.

 

However, in my experience there are few pre-AI lenses that are worth the trouble of converting. If they're in good enough condition, they can be sold as shelf ornaments to a collector, and replaced with their optically superior Ai or Ai-s version. If they're in tatty condition, then the application of a file, as above, may actually increase their value.

[mike_halliwell]

Regarding full compatability with the new Z mount, there's the in-lens firmware issue.

 

The likes of Sigma and Tamron lenses can be user-updated via various USB devices.

 

... and I'd guess there'll be a re-mount service available for the Sigma Art series.

 

Nikon, not so much, on either count.

[BeBu Lamar]

Be fair, BeBu. I appreciate that I'm lucky enough and experienced enough to work in a field and location that will eventually allow me to pay off the credit card, loan and payment plan that I've used to acquire my camera equipment. I'm privileged enough to be able (just) to spend a lot more money than many are in a position to do on Nikon kit - though other than fast food it's pretty much my only vice (I don't smoke, drink, gamble, go to expensive sporting events, have a nice car, have kids, own my house outright...) But I also don't have the expensive exotics or single digit bodies that some on this forum and others I've met have acquired. Neither I, nor (to my knowledge) those people have persuaded Nikon to make them a custom camera.

 

Nonetheless, my point wasn't that your camera isn't suited to you, it's that different circumstances are best met by different ways of using a camera. We all try to meet this circumstances with the ways of camera use with which we're familiar and comfortable, within the limits of what the camera supports. And we continue to learn, as I have with recent discussions about how I should configure the autofocus system.

 

There are some styles of shooting, and some photographic scenarios, for which an F3 is a poor tool. There are many others for which it works just fine. The Df and digital cameras from other manufacturers with dedicated dials generally have the same abilities as conventional recent designs - but in order to improve the ergonomics or familiarity for the style of shooting at which the F3 was capable, the ergonomics are compromised for other styles of shooting. I'll wager you won't see many Dfs in press pits at sporting events or attached to big telephotos on safari, despite it having the capable D4 sensor.

 

Fuji built a niche camera system for a specific style of shooting. It wasn't until they supplemented it with a camera built with more modern ergonomics that they started putting telephoto lenses in the system. If you only indulge in a subset of what the camera can do, this is fine. Nikon could choose the same ergonomic route for their camera. But they'd be excluding a lot of customers by doing so.

 

There are people who only shoot manual focus, and who ignore the meter. There are certainly those who never use live view, never shoot video, or never edit a raw file. Many of them take better pictures than I do. But it also means there are some shots they just don't have a hope of getting. Nikon have to go with flexibility for the masses. Only Leica can really do otherwise - and no, I'm not rich enough to shoot Leica.

I am just teasing you about super rich. When I said super rich I really meant to the level of at least Bill Gates and in that case I may spend a few millions to have Nikon make me a camera my way.