Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
- Thread starter verysimplejason
- Start date
Woody said:
1. No one really knows the price. The 3K is just speculation as far as I can tell.
2. It will compete because there are A LOT more Nikon users with lenses invested than there are Sony users with lenses invested.
Upvote
0
weixing said:Hi,
Hmm.... just wonder will they remove the rear LCD to complete the retro look...
Don't really care about the retro look... anyway, 20 years down the road, my 6D will be the retro look camera... if it's still working.
Have a nice day.
True
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
We are talking about - possibly, maybe - the first current DSLR (1) to not have video. Out of what, 2 dozen current DSLRs which all are "video-enabled" or even "video-optimized" (especially Canon). In a market, where (an estimated) 80% of DSLR-purchasers do NOT capture video AT ALL. Other than possibly a short "test clip" after purchase. We are not talking about "a camera only for me or for you". We are talking about strills-optimized cameras for the majority of stills-only photographers. Video-folks have PLENTY of choice. No need that EVERY camera has to be "video-enabled" or "video-optimized". Especially when a camera's basic construction principle (mirror flapping in lightpath) is absolutely "not optimized" for video capture.
As far as the upcoming Nikon is concerned, I am not interested. To me it appears to be a butt-ugly downscaled D610 with a last generation low-resolution sensor. Fixed shutter-time dial on top instead of a much more useful and ergonomically placed multi-purpose thumb wheel (as on any other decent DSLR). Plus a retro-version of a lens that boasts an absolutely functionless chrome ring. But let's wait and see, if Nikon is going to offer more than much ado about nothing.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
AvTvM
Would you like a camera without live view?
If so I'll get you canons product development address and you can write to them.
The 1DC is the only Canon DSLR that I can imagine as being described as 'video-optimised' and thats a niche product for a niche market where I imagine 100% of users will want the video (or they'd just buy a 1DX)
You have it all wrong mate. The technologies being developed for video users will have a dividend for stills users, and if you don't fancy them, hey, don't use them. I just don't buy this arguement that video detracts from the stills capability of DSLR's.
I suggest you don't buy a 1DC. Otherwise, just get out and enjoy your photography, your obsession is verging on the autistic spectrum now.
Would you like a camera without live view?
If so I'll get you canons product development address and you can write to them.
The 1DC is the only Canon DSLR that I can imagine as being described as 'video-optimised' and thats a niche product for a niche market where I imagine 100% of users will want the video (or they'd just buy a 1DX)
You have it all wrong mate. The technologies being developed for video users will have a dividend for stills users, and if you don't fancy them, hey, don't use them. I just don't buy this arguement that video detracts from the stills capability of DSLR's.
I suggest you don't buy a 1DC. Otherwise, just get out and enjoy your photography, your obsession is verging on the autistic spectrum now.
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
I love to use liveview for static subjects and when my EOS 7D is on a tripod.
Liveview is exactly the amount of video useful in a stills camera and for stills shooters.
And I will not buy a 1DC, don't worry. However, I would like all video guys to buy video cameras and/or the 1Dc, because its for them. And not pestify regular DSLRideo crap and demands for ever mor zebras, headphone jacks, steroeo micropühones, better video codecs, marked-in-red "start video" buttons and whatever else. And whatever the videots say, I know, that the overwhelming majority of DSLR users see it exactly the same way and never use video capture. They are just not as vocal about it.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
I use my DSLRs for video - ML does what the Philip Bloom wannabes want, it's not a stock canon feature.
Zebras etc can be added on external monitors also.
I've not asked for either. Ok. a headphone socket would be really really really nice, but my beachtek (at extra cost to me, not developed by canon or detracting from canons work) largely solves the problem.
Video is 99% live view.
It's really not worth going on so much about.
Zebras etc can be added on external monitors also.
I've not asked for either. Ok. a headphone socket would be really really really nice, but my beachtek (at extra cost to me, not developed by canon or detracting from canons work) largely solves the problem.
Video is 99% live view.
It's really not worth going on so much about.
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
No, Video is NOT 99% live view. Video on a DLSR means a sensor which is compromised because it is "optimized" to being ON for 30 minutes at a time and longer. Not needed for liveview or stills. Video is about all sorts of awkward hardware and firmware manipulations on a DSLR that are not needed for stills capture or even in the way. Video means, R&D funds are misappropriated for something only a tiny minority ever uses in a DSLR, rather than being directed at the issues, Canon should be solving and which would be beneficial to the overwhelming majority of stills photographers: fully competitive sensors! Vastly improved DR at low ISO! Far less banding/noise, better S/N at high ISO!
Personally, I really don't understand why you and other avid videographers are not buying a true videocam. If I was into video, I would definitely NEVER EVER put up with ANY DSLR to capture video. Not even a 1Dc. I'd rather buy a C500 or something along those lines then. And I would beat on Canon to sell those video gagdets at more reasonable prices. Since obviously lower price is the sole reason why people would ever consider buying large sensored DSLRs and (ab)use them to capture video.
If Nikon brings their new DF DSLR without video, that will be the only feature about it, that I will commend them for. Otherwise I don't care for that camera not at all. I hate retro looks on modern gear, whether it be cameras or cars.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Given that video was first introduced as a gimmick enabled by live view (on the D90 and the Mark II), I'm pretty sure it is 99% live view. The only camera that's been in any way "compromised" by it is the Mark III, to the extent that the resolution was designed to downscale conveniently to 1080p. That's about it. That and the 1DC. (Not the 1DX.) In fact Canon has pretty terrible video relative to some of the competition! They certainly haven't compromised stills performance for video, despite the fact that Mark II and 7D sales were driven STRONGLY by their video features.
Sony's advantages in sensor tech are not related to a lack of video. The D800 has video. The Alexa IS a video camera. They all benefit from superior dynamic range because Sony has better sensor fabs and has patents on on-chip ADCs that Canon refuses to license.
But yes, I would rather have a C500 than a 7D! I would not, however, rather BUY a C500. It's $30,000. If anything including video helps dSLRs be more competitive and drive a larger base to buy them, making them cheaper for still photographers.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
AvTvM said:
And hey, guess what, these would also benefit video!
AvTvM said:
I'm not an avid videographer, I am a cameraman and editor with Europes largest publishing company. My work is on TV as part of programmes or as commercials on a regular basis. If you see an advert for the Mirror, People, or Daily Record etc then I've probably had some kind of hand in it.
As such I have access to or own a number of cameras, from GoPros to XDCAMHD's. DSLRs and HDV in between.
I'm currently deciding what to replace our ENG with, another ENG or a large sensor camera, such as a C100 or BMD (thus my interest in m43 lenses and attendance at the OM seminar) ENGs are great for some jobs. DSLRs are great for some jobs. GoPros are great for some jobs. iphones are great for some jobs. You use the tool for the job. I'm not suggesting to anybody that a DSLR is the be all and end all, and I doubt any fellow professional would accept such advice.
AvTvM said:
I'll send them an email just now. 'Dear Canon, please sell your gadgets at more reasonable prices. Fanks. Love Paul'.
I'll let you know how I get on.
Here's some other reasons:
Choice of lenses, particularly lenses like Tilt Shift, where the effects are difficult to otherwise replicate.
Compact form. Saves my back from breaking. Discreet.
They work. Better than any other cameras for some situations.
Large sensor look is difficult to achieve on other cameras at similar prices. Yeah we could use the old red rock mounts with interted mirrors etc, but em. Naw. Naw thanks.
AvTvM said:
You see you call it retro. Some might call it functional. Aperture rings and shutter dials work fine with gloves in the cold winter. Electronic dials can be hard to manipulate in the cold.
We lost these external controls because of electronic operation, i used an SR-T up until 5 years ago and still miss it. I spent most of my time looking though it rather than at it. It wasn't a design or fashion statement.
Retro for retros sake alone is a bit naff (new minis, new beetles) but some things are just classic and I prefer to think of them as a relaunch. The thing with making a blanket statement is that there are exceptions to every rule.
Upvote
0
L
Lichtgestalt
Guest
rumored 3000$.... without video? no way?
yeah.. well.. thanks but no thanks.
from the logic some here have developed.... this camera has to be dirt cheap.. because it has no video.
for how long we have heard "canon give me a DSLR without video. i don´t need video and i don´t want to pay for it". :
im curious how cheap this "no video" nikon is.
and yes, it makes sense to congratulate nikon for NOT INCLUDING features in camera. sarcasm off
as if the missing video features will make the camera a better photographic tool. ;D
but im sure some twisted minds here will find a way to explain why that makes absolute sense.
i still prefer to have a feature and make no use of it 90% of the time, then missing a feature when i may need it.
yeah.. well.. thanks but no thanks.
from the logic some here have developed.... this camera has to be dirt cheap.. because it has no video.
for how long we have heard "canon give me a DSLR without video. i don´t need video and i don´t want to pay for it". :
im curious how cheap this "no video" nikon is.
and yes, it makes sense to congratulate nikon for NOT INCLUDING features in camera. sarcasm off
as if the missing video features will make the camera a better photographic tool. ;D
but im sure some twisted minds here will find a way to explain why that makes absolute sense.
i still prefer to have a feature and make no use of it 90% of the time, then missing a feature when i may need it.
Upvote
0
L
Lichtgestalt
Guest
MrFotoFool said:
nomen est omen?
so let´s say there are two identical models except one has video functions, the other not.
both cost the same.. you buy the one without video features. that´s what your saying?
you can not just ignore the video features?
there is a inner voice that forces you to do video when it´s available?
or what is the problem you have with video features on a DSLR?
Upvote
0
I can't remember ever waking up in the morning and thinking "Gee, what a nice day to go shoot a video",
but do enjoy the morning walks with a still camera looking for a new perspective or a simply wonderful
sight. My canon lenses are like old friends and have been carefully selected for tasks that I enjoy. I don't
need all the "bells and whistles" of the current cameras - not a selection of 21 "scenes", video capability,
or whatever. I'd really like a camera body where canon disables all the "stuff" they think users want, and only
give me good, fast autofocus and low light performance. Course, if they're going to take out 75% of the
"function", they probably could lower the price by 50% and we'd all be happy.
but do enjoy the morning walks with a still camera looking for a new perspective or a simply wonderful
sight. My canon lenses are like old friends and have been carefully selected for tasks that I enjoy. I don't
need all the "bells and whistles" of the current cameras - not a selection of 21 "scenes", video capability,
or whatever. I'd really like a camera body where canon disables all the "stuff" they think users want, and only
give me good, fast autofocus and low light performance. Course, if they're going to take out 75% of the
"function", they probably could lower the price by 50% and we'd all be happy.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
Disables.
Like the 10d in a plastic shell the revolutionary rebel.
Why disable. Why not just ignore?
There is light that makes me want a camera, sometimes a video camera, sometimes a still camera.
I call this photography lark a broad church. Others may call it a broad chapel. A broad mosque. A broad synagogue. A broad temple.
Whatever you call it, can we have less doors?
Like the 10d in a plastic shell the revolutionary rebel.
Why disable. Why not just ignore?
There is light that makes me want a camera, sometimes a video camera, sometimes a still camera.
I call this photography lark a broad church. Others may call it a broad chapel. A broad mosque. A broad synagogue. A broad temple.
Whatever you call it, can we have less doors?
Upvote
0
OMG ... we are talking image capturing gear here, not religious stuff.
Why can't video folks not understand and accept the fact, that a very substantial segment of the market wants cameras for "pure stills photography". At a price significantly lower than cameras offering "stills and video capture"? Why do videogrpahers expect stills photographers to just put up and shut up and pay for the video capture crap in any camera, including any DSLR?
If the Nikon DF will really be "pure photography" only, without "videography" [=video CAPTURE] and comes at a price siginificantly lower than the Nikon D610 ... it will be a BIG SUCCESS.
If Nikon would offer the DF at an "incredible" 999 USD/Euro it would be a HUGE SUCCESS like the "Canon digital rebel" in 2003 re-visited. This time by the team in yellow and ... in full frame. 36x24mm - as it was always meant to be for "pure photography". Not 16:9 or some other ugly towel-shaped TV/video format. And Canon would really take another hit. Would love to see how stupid they'd loook with all their expensive stills-AND-video stuffed-down-your-throat-DSLRS. I'm afraid, Nikon is not smart enough either to make the DF a true and "Pure stills" home run.
And .. even a pure-stills "FF-rebel" Nikon DF at 999 would be the last hugely succcessful Nikon DSLR before mirrorless cameras of the Sony A7/R type quickly kill off all "affordable" DSLRs [= up to USD 2000].
If Nikon charges more for the DF than for the D610, it will be just another niche product that will sell very poorly.
hehe!
Why can't video folks not understand and accept the fact, that a very substantial segment of the market wants cameras for "pure stills photography". At a price significantly lower than cameras offering "stills and video capture"? Why do videogrpahers expect stills photographers to just put up and shut up and pay for the video capture crap in any camera, including any DSLR?
If the Nikon DF will really be "pure photography" only, without "videography" [=video CAPTURE] and comes at a price siginificantly lower than the Nikon D610 ... it will be a BIG SUCCESS.
If Nikon would offer the DF at an "incredible" 999 USD/Euro it would be a HUGE SUCCESS like the "Canon digital rebel" in 2003 re-visited. This time by the team in yellow and ... in full frame. 36x24mm - as it was always meant to be for "pure photography". Not 16:9 or some other ugly towel-shaped TV/video format. And Canon would really take another hit. Would love to see how stupid they'd loook with all their expensive stills-AND-video stuffed-down-your-throat-DSLRS. I'm afraid, Nikon is not smart enough either to make the DF a true and "Pure stills" home run.
And .. even a pure-stills "FF-rebel" Nikon DF at 999 would be the last hugely succcessful Nikon DSLR before mirrorless cameras of the Sony A7/R type quickly kill off all "affordable" DSLRs [= up to USD 2000].
If Nikon charges more for the DF than for the D610, it will be just another niche product that will sell very poorly.
hehe!
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
You've yet to convince me that any camera that has video is compromised for stills, or video adds substantially to the cost (over live view, which was introduced on the e330, no video, and canons 4od, no video)
I know a few medium format guys who would challenge your 6x4 'pure photography' claim.
I've a dolution for you: go buy and EOS 3.
Cheap. So called full frame. An image capture device with resolution throretically as high as you can sample it (i got 40mp scans from my minolta 5400 scan elite) and greater dr than most dslrs depending on the film you use.
No overheating. No live view. Just pure photography.
Or you could, yawn, JUST NOT USE THE VIDEO FUNCTION on your current DSLR.
'
I know a few medium format guys who would challenge your 6x4 'pure photography' claim.
I've a dolution for you: go buy and EOS 3.
Cheap. So called full frame. An image capture device with resolution throretically as high as you can sample it (i got 40mp scans from my minolta 5400 scan elite) and greater dr than most dslrs depending on the film you use.
No overheating. No live view. Just pure photography.
Or you could, yawn, JUST NOT USE THE VIDEO FUNCTION on your current DSLR.
'
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Which unfortunately is likely to happen if they put in their best AF module, rugged body, etc. Though this is likely to create a contraddiction with the supply of a revamped 50mm 1.8 as kit lens.
The unclear thing at the moment is: who is this camera for? Consumers are unlikely to fall for it, and enthusiasts need some considerable perk to put aside their D600/D800. I liked the rumour of hybrid viewfinder because it would have made this camera very good with manual focus lenses - not only Nikon, but also Zeiss, Samyang and Voigtländer - though it seems that it's not going to happen.
I like the idea of a camera that has no video and concentrates on stills, but as Paul Walnut said, I need to be convinced that removing video is actually going to give me an advantage in term of still photography. Otherwise it's just poor marketing.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
