New Nikon digital FM2 (small bodied FX) on the way

[D.P.]

100% confirmed now that Nikon have released a teaser video http://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=...ylist?list=PLr5KnmfikOdm5dqUYbgj42k1ixH90j7et

We are looking at a small bodied FX camera with excellent build quality without too much gadgetry. Steel body with retro style, likely the D4 sensor. Could be just what some people are looking for, could be an excellent wedding and street camera.

 

[D.P.]

It's a fashion statement, not really a tool.

A d800 if you want a tool, get this if you want to look cool.

Pretty much. Presumably Nikon saw Fuji getting all these sales for retro looking cameras and wanted a piece of the action

 

[D.P.]

Potentially it could but very cool but if it does turn out to be $3000 then it's $1000 more than a D610 with a worse spec.

For $3000 it had better be made of metal mined from the moons of Jupiter and come with a free beer for life otherwise Nikon are having laugh.

I don't see $3000 being a high price for such a camera, the specs look higher than the D610 for the most part. The body is very definitely going to be much better quality, solid steel and mag alloy construction likely so you are look at D4 type body quality, if not higher with better aesthetics. It also has the D4 sensor, so it is closer to a smaller, lighter D4 that is slower but as fast as the d600.

The D4 retails for 6 grand...

You also have to consider the "smaller body and retro design" tax that all camera manufacturers seem to levy. If you make the same camera Ina. Smaller body and add some 1970s era brushed steel then you can add 50% markup to a conventional body.

 

[D.P.]

It's still a photographic tool no matter how retro cool it looks. I do like this sort of look but it has to perform as well. There's also the rumoured Fuji FF mirrorless to come as well (although they need to step up their AF game). I'm ripe for a change at the moment so will be interested to see how things pan out...

I think it will perform very well as well. Only thing I would want to see is the 51pit AF form the D4/D800/d7100 but the D610 AF is still very good.

It makes for a very solid FF camera line D610, D800, And this DF type camera. Something for everyone really.

 

[D.P.]

The spec list showing the price as $3000 is fake so the price could be anything. With 16mp it won't stack up in the marketing war against the A7/R at that price so needs to be cheaper.

I agree the price could be anything, I see it more like $2500 to put it between d610 and d800, but I can imagine $3000 as realistic if the build quality is top notch.

The megapixel count is pointless in such a comparison. The 2 best professional DSLRs on the market have 16mp and 18mp respectively (Nikon d4 and canon 1dx). Putting the highest end sensor Nikon have in a body half the price is a strong move.

Such a camera is not about having the highest MP, that is what the d800 is for. Nikon doesn't need another d800. 16Mp will work fine for the legacy glass that won't render much much detail and the casual style intended by the users.

The high resolution of the d800 is great for landscape, wildlife or sports for working professionals and dedicated prosumers. This new camera has a different market segment, more aligned to hobbiests but also potentially wedding and street work where high resolution/pixel density is not so needed. For the more amatateur landscape/wildlife/sports togs the d7100 is impossible to beat really.

 

[D.P.]

i think the biggest breakthrough/clue is in the micro lens that leica start using. these lens make local correction allowing for shorter flange distance. sony made their own implementation on their latest FF sensor for A7/A7r and as we know nikon sensor are made by sony, so i guess both companies must have worked together to get a solution which allow the F mount flange distance to be shorten. as to price... too early to tell i think.

This will have a normal f-mount flange distance. If it was shortened then the old lenses wouldn't work.

This camera likely isn't mirrorless at all, just a more compact body in a retro design.

 

[D.P.]

Nikons same gen lower mp sensors have far better iso performance though than the higher mp versions. Surely that would offset your comment as I take it you are downsizing the files to hide noise that isn't intentionally applied via processing?

The high ISO performance of the d4 and D800 are basically the same. The D4 holds a better DR at high ISOs, the advantage of which varies. The D4 files are cleaner natively at 16Mp but that is not a useful comparison, you need to compare at equal print/viewing size.

However, the 16mp D4 is appropriate for this type of camera IMO. Older retro glass won't stand up to 36Mp very well and the type of user such a camera is aimed at wont really want or need 36Mp. If they were printing huge or need a high resolution DX then a D800 would be a far superior camera and the size would be an issue because it would be mounted with big heavy lenses like the 14-24mm, 24PC and the super telescope (300mm and longer).

 

[D.P.]

^^^
Yep, looking cool does not make it not a tool just like Fuji's Leica's Olympus's Sony's etc.
And being a hipster does not mean you are a tool.

Agree with the first statement, not sure on the second!

 

[D.P.]

Nikonrumors imploded under the excitement

 

[D.P.]

Personally it is exactly the kind of camera I expected (digital FM2) at the exact price point I expected. Of course a D800 is a much better buy but then the same goes for the sony A7r, the d800 is a far better camera in almost every way.

Manufacturers charge a premium for small cameras, and for retro designed cameras.

 

[D.P.]

The Black one looks nicer than the Chrome one.

Don't like it though - it's trying too hard to be 'retro' - the beauty of retro Cameras is their minimalist design. I know it is hard to do when you have a ton of controls with a Digital camera, but Leica and Fuji seem to have pulled it off.

As for the price. What on earth were they thinking?

TBH, I can't see the difference between this and any other stupid retro designed camera. They are all the same thing, pointless blend of 1970s nostalgia in modern technology. If efforts were spent elsewhere we could actually archived a functionally better camera in some aspect. E.g. If Fuji worked on interchangeable sensors then that would be a massive change in photographic potential, but no, they just make old looking cameras to sell to people who put fashion ahead of function because they cannot compete with the big boys designing functional cameras.

 

[D.P.]

Personally I think everything has an effect on everything. I think there is something to be said about creating art from a work of art, and the inspiration that brings.

Canikon are performers, they get the job done. They are however big and bulky and dull as dishwater, but while they still outperform there will be a place for them.
Some mirrorless camera's are works of art that you WANT to pick up. They can't go toe to toe with 35mm DSLR's yet for one reason or another, but they are training hard and improving fast. Soon they will be a match for DSLR's which they already are in some applications.

I walked into a camera shop a while ago to buy a 3rd D800E. I did something I have never done before. I said to the assistant, I have no intention of buying it but can you get that fuji out of the display so I can have a looksee. That is something I would never even think to do if it was a dslr.

Fuji just know how to make beautiful cameras. Makes me want to pick one up and take beautiful pictures.

I think Zach explains it well.
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/fuji-x100s-review-a-camera-walks-into-a-bar/

I think it is very subjective though, personally I would way prefer this Nikon with accessible manual controls and a sensor that gives wonderful RAW files to work with rather than the PITA Fuji files. But neither camera is aimed at me, personally I see the Nikon D7100 as probably the best camera on the market write now (considering performance, cost, size, ergonomics, features, image quality, lens selection) the d800 for serious landscapers and the canon 5Dmk3 as a great all rounder (for serious sports, expedition and pro-PJ the canon 1DX and Nikon D4 are untouchable). The Olympus em1/OMD takes the winner for the smaller compact travel camera. The Sony's and Fujis just don't have a place anywhere in my camera line up. The system size is either too big when considering lenses to be worthwhile as a small travel camera, the lens line up incomplete, the functionality missing, or the performance lacking for the price.

If I want some attractive piece of art To carry around I will buy something like a watch, not something that in a few years will need replacing because the performance is too far behind.

 

[D.P.]

I'd probably agree with most of the above.
The Df also has no video & a max shutter speed of 1/4000th.

With a camera that's most likely going to have wide aperture primes on the front that seems rather silly to me.

And the price, £2750 with a 50mm holy mother of god.....

I'm afraid for me the 'want' is weak with this one.

The originional FM2 had a max shutter of 1/4000th and shooting film you might well have been stuck with your ISO 200 colour rolls. People coped back then, they can sure as heck cope now when they can drop down to ISO 100, or god forbid, shoot at f/2.0or slower and get better photos....

 

[D.P.]

Heh, I dint own a watch!

A watch doesn't take pictures and a camera isn't a piece of art or jewelry.

 

[D.P.]

^^^
I think most people want a camera that get's out of their way. They don't want to cope with stuff. At the price Nikon is asking, nothing should have been compromised.

Photography is all about compromises and coping with limitations. We have to cope with the the fact the natural world and human's visual perception has a far higher dynamic range than the best sensors can provide. We have to cope with the fact that we have to fight shutter speed, ISO, noise and DoF and make compromises to cope with the sensors limits. We have to compromise on focal length, lens weight and cost.
Ideally we would have a 2000mm f1.4 lens that weighs 50g and costs $100 that can be used on a camera that produces noise free images at ISO 1000000000 at 1000FPS.

In the scheme of things shooting at ISO 100 instead of 200 is not a big deal.

The price Nikon is asking is stupid, that is the small-retro tax for hipsters. The same applies to the sony A7r, the d800 is a far better camera at a similar price point. Even worse is the Hasselblad rebranded A7r....

 

[D.P.]

The market has moved on. At nearly £3k this shouldnt be missing basic industry standard features such as video or 1/8000th.

Nikon are trying to sell a BMW 5 series for the same price as a Maybach and wrapping it in a different paint job.

Compromise at this end of of the market is simply not an option imo. But then again I'm a tight git and I'm sure this has got the Leica crowd jizzing in their pants.

I don't see it as compromise at all but design. The lack of video was a choice, many people don't want that in a DSLR at all. This camera is about photography, "pure" photography, not video. Video makes no sense at all on such a camera. The shutter speed is most likely the same thing, the film cameras never had a 1/8000th shutter speed on the dial, Nikon reproduced that behavior.

Again, the pricing is irrelevant, there is a premium for the retro style.

Personally I find it stupid, just buy a d600 or D800 and be done.

 

[D.P.]

Video 'may' be a choice to 'simply' the camera. If 1/4000 is a design choice, then someone at Nikon should have already been fired. I can not stress enough how idiotic it would be to leave out 1/8000 because the old film camera had 1/4000.

Probably someone should be fired but that doesn't stop it being true. Nikon make horrible decisions all the time. The shutter undoubtedly does 1/8000th (all the sensor stuff is taken straight from the D4). The thought of adding a 1/8000th position probably meant a different setting would need removing or a smaller font.

 

[D.P.]

Watch that takes pictures.



It can be. You're view of the world and what possible is very limited. I think you like being limited.

According to your logic since a smartphone takes photos we don'tneed cameras. Ironicly that is what most people do and they are happy with the compromise.


And no, I don't count mass produced electronics as art. My lg TV is not art, my phone is not art, and I haven't seen my toaster in an exhibition. Electronic tools can be attractive, but that is not art.

 

[D.P.]

If or more precisely When mirrorless meets/beats DSLR's all around performance. This will be when Pro's jump ship on-mass.

And then slowly but surely, where the pro's go, Joe will follow.

And that will happen when Nikon and canon simply remove the mirror from their DSLRs. Nikon has already shown DSLR performance capability in a small, cheap mirror less camera.


The mirrors will all disappear from all DSLRs soon enough, it just makes sense. That won't change the status quo of the canikon duopoly.

Sony has made many bold predictions in the past about being #2 in camera sales, they have failed miserably so far. And now they have a very disorganised and confusing choice of cameras based on different technologies.

Olympus and Panasonic have said similar stories if market sharegrowth but jhavegone in the oopposite direction.

 

[D.P.]

FF mirrorless is much more attractive that's for sure.

Only to some, bigger , heavier more expensive lenses is a big turn off to others.

Aps-c cams far outsell FF. The general public and most togs simply don't need FF so sales won't increase.