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

An Exception said:
D4 does not have better ISO as I have explained to you before Link. Only people who don't have a practical grasp of this stuff judge two camera's ISO with vastly differing resolutions by comparing files at pixel level.

For weddings I import 36mp files. I straiten/crop (36mp allows generous cropping even at moderate ISO's) as necessary then export 20mp files for delivery to clients. All the files are the same size, not some 10mp others 16mp etc. as that would drive me nuts.
Click to expand...

The D4 sensor has nearly 1 stop more dynamic range than even the D800E at all ISO levels over 800. So yeah, it really does have more than your insane cropping and downsizing can manage in terms of IQ.
 
1 stop dynamic range really isn't a big deal. The times you are mostly going to be concerned about DR is when you are at low ISO's. In this instance the D800E's sensor is superior.
For normal high ISO pictures, the D800E is on par. The D800E has finer/smoother grain and a bit more detail, the D4 has less white noise and this extra stop of DR you mention.
 
XE11 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
James J said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
This will have a normal f-mount flange distance. If it was shortened then the old lenses wouldn't work.
Click to expand...
that's what i saying. the micro lens will allow the flange distance to be lowered because the micro lens will correct the image as it falls onto the sensor. abit like those screw-on macro filters, except this one is between the main lens and sensor. this will allow older lens to work with the lower flange distance and new lens wont need special designing to cater for new bodies.

traditionally this would not be economically possible in the past because the micro lens would be expensive to produce in order not to bottle neck the performance of the whole package. but i think development over the years now made this possible. :)

[im just re wording what the sony engineer said in their A7r design note and think this is possible on a nikon machine to lowered f mount flange distance :)]
 
Yeah, after seeing that my plan to get a D800 remains unchanged, since I doubt it's any smaller in a meaningful way. Looks a lot nicer in black though.
 
Last edited:
I think the A7/r looks much MUCH nicer. The shutter button (if isn't the one near MASP button etc.) looks as awkward to get to like on the Sony yet there is no reason on a body this size. The dials look like old stacked coins/money. Also I'm not particularly happy with the sensor choice, the A7r is going to beat/match it in most situations. Nikon should release an equivalent to the A7r with a D800E sensor.
Once Sony's FE system matures (Native AF lens choice) I think Nikon/Canon/Sony A-mount is in Serious trouble as I think the whole market will shrink exponentially. Mirrorless is the future imo. I think Nikon/Canon need their own FF mirrorless mount to take over the EF/F mounts as they increasingly become obsolete. We should see a repeat of the 80's when Canon moved to autofocus eventually.

Mark my words. Canon/Nikon are already in serious trouble. Perhaps they don't realise yet. The whole DSLR market is going through a mirrorless renaissance. If Canon/Nikon don't or choose not to see this coming. When the market shifts under their feet, they will be late to the party with immature camera systems going up against superior mature systems.

Nikon/Canon can't be any later to market than Fuji imo. Fuji know how to make sexy camera's and lenses. They also know how to make exceptional sensors. They will make life extremely hard for Canikon, even if Sony doesn't as it has a habit of shooting itself in the foot.

I know it's hard to imagine a change in the status quo, but the innovators will win out. How I see it is, Canikon are the equivalent to Microsoft and Sony/Fuji are just starting to release ipads. How many people here own a M$ surface?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
What were Nikon thinking. It's overpriced by at least £1000 and underspecced considerably with bad ergonomic layout of the knobs and they have locking pins so a nightmare using on location as a tool.

So that goes back to what's been said earlier, fashion statement, not a photographic tool.
 
It is a tool, technically yeah but not really as a photographic tool as far as operability goes.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom