Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look

[Lichtgestalt]

NR reports it will cost 2750$

that price will make a lot of nikon fanboys unhappy.
they hoped it will be cheaper then the D610.

 

[AvTvM]

NR reports it will cost 2750$

that price will make a lot of nikon fanboys unhappy.
they hoped it will be cheaper then the D610.

I am just laughing my head off. I fully expected Nikon would price it higher than even the D800. Nikon Df .. or rather: the new Nikon DOA. lol.

Hope this cures Canon of any and all "retro-crap" plans they may have. Go and build my FF mirrorless now!

 

[Albi86]

NR reports it will cost 2750$

that price will make a lot of nikon fanboys unhappy.
they hoped it will be cheaper then the D610.

Fanboys are actually the only ones who are going to buy it. It's about all others that I would worry.

This camera, at this price, is just an EPIC FAIL.

Someone at Sony's opened a good bottle tonight.

 

[RomainF]

Once you get the way the manual focus works, it may even be faster and more accurate than an AF camera.

1) Leica iq sucks at high iso
2) manual focus can be faster and how many shot you miss?

1) You're right. I wouldn't say "sucks" but it ain't good above 3200, i concede.
2) I don't miss no shot anymore. For the first weeks, i've been missing lot of shots, but therefore my hit-rate is about 100%. It's only about practice.

 

[preppyak]

This camera, at this price, is just an EPIC FAIL.

Someone at Sony's opened a good bottle tonight.

Agreed. Hell, you can almost get two Sony's for that kit price.

Unless it's got something truly magical, I don't see the reasoning behind this for Nikon. It's not really noticeably smaller than a D610, and yet it costs 40% more? Especially after updating the D600 with the "basically just a price increase" D610, its a series of odd moves from them.

If Sony can fill out a lens lineup in the next year or two, they are golden

 

[unfocused]

Two initial comments:

Funny that when Nikon decides to emphasize image quality they use a 16.2 mp sensor. First in the D4 and now in the Df. Gee, maybe those high megapixel Nikons and Sonys aren't as great as DXOMark seems to think.

And, all those who complain about having to "pay" for video can have their non-video camera and save themselves some money...looks like $50 off the D800. Knock yourselves out.

 

[paul13walnut5]

If Sony can fill out a lens lineup in the next year or two, they are golden

I think Sony would be quite happy for you to adapt your existing lenses. Sony inhereted Minoltas lens division, and otherwise have used ziess designed or canon produced lenses in their camcorders and compacts..

Sony ain't that into making lenses. NEX has been around for a good few years now and SHOULD be whipping up a storm as their bodies are pretty good, and interchangable lens large sensor camcorder that handles and operates like a camcorder, for very modest money. Why don't they rule the world? The same reason they don't make their own lenses for the F65 etc.

I wouldn't hold your breath for any interesting Sony lenses. Look out for adaptors.

 

[Hillsilly]

This camera, at this price, is just an EPIC FAIL.

Someone at Sony's opened a good bottle tonight.

It's only one model in their line-up. Even if it doesn''t turn out to be a huge success, good on them for trying. I like seeing camera companies doing new things, even more-so when they know that it won't appeal to the mass market. And Canon's no stranger to this. Just look at the 60Da. Despite all of the doom and gloom about DSLR makers, to me the 60Da suggests that Canon does look to niche markets and tries to supply what people want.

Nikon have done exactly the same. They've identified that a lot of people want simplicity, and this is their take on it. And I think it should do well.

I'm also surprised/exicited to see that everything (including ISO) is controllable manually (if using a lens with an aperture ring). While I'm not really a "retro" design person, I know I prefer direct access dials to buttons, LCD screens and menus, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Another big positive for this camera.

 

[dolina]

I would like to see Canon make a competing model.

 

[sanj]

What does 'pure photography' imply? To me, it means no video. Could be wrong though...

I was right!

 

[AvTvM]

I would like to see Canon make a competing model.

no thanks. I would rather like to see Canon make a killer 7D 2 and a Sony A7R-killer.

 

[pulseimages]

Two initial comments:

Funny that when Nikon decides to emphasize image quality they use a 16.2 mp sensor. First in the D4 and now in the Df. Gee, maybe those high megapixel Nikons and Sonys aren't as great as DXOMark seems to think.

I know a guy that has a D800E and the images are amazingly detailed but he doesn't care much for the plastic feel of the body.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

I would like to see Canon make a competing model.

Me too..... come on Canon.... give us DAE1

 

[RAKAMRAK]

This camera, at this price, is just an EPIC FAIL.

Someone at Sony's opened a good bottle tonight.

It's only one model in their line-up. Even if it doesn''t turn out to be a huge success, good on them for trying. I like seeing camera companies doing new things, even more-so when they know that it won't appeal to the mass market. And Canon's no stranger to this. Just look at the 60Da. Despite all of the doom and gloom about DSLR makers, to me the 60Da suggests that Canon does look to niche markets and tries to supply what people want.

Nikon have done exactly the same. They've identified that a lot of people want simplicity, and this is their take on it. And I think it should do well.

I'm also surprised/exicited to see that everything (including ISO) is controllable manually (if using a lens with an aperture ring). While I'm not really a "retro" design person, I know I prefer direct access dials to buttons, LCD screens and menus, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Another big positive for this camera.

Canon will give us DAE1.... someday....

 

[Woody]

Too heavy, too expensive and no video.

A sure misfire!

 

[aj1575]

NO! Again, Nikon now also has a small FF camera, with retro look, like Sony has. Olympus has also cameras that look like they did 20 years ago. Canon is again lacking behind, I will switch to something else than Canon, just because, and anyway, Canon will go down if they continue like this....


Well, actually I don't mind if canon doesn't have such lifestyle products. These are mainly overpriced toys for photogeeks. At first I liked this retrowave (like when the new beetle came out, and all these other retro cars), but now it is time for something new. I like to see new more revolutionary approaches to camera design in the DSLR range. So far everything "new" is just an implementation of new tech in old designs.

These cameras offer nothing more (actually less) than a normal DSLR, but cost still a lot (actually too much for the specs), mainly because of their looks (toys for photogeeks with too much money to spend)

 

[sharka23]

Too heavy, too expensive and no video.

A sure misfire!

misfire????
---> misunderstood!!!!

too heavy???: its a camera not a toy: have you ever got a 1d in your hands?? or a hasselblad?
even a 7d is heavier - and for sure not better - sorry i need to say

too expensive???: ok its not cheap, but it is probably the d4-sensor, so it is in not far away(in quality) of the 1dx -
and it will work perfectly for lowlight!!

and yes it is not a videocamera - finally.

and as a canon fan, its hard but I need to say: it is very good looking!


for all you grudger out there: acceppt it, its a great, good looking camera, unfortunately not branded with CANON.

 

[Albi86]

for all you grudger out there: acceppt it, its a great, good looking camera, unfortunately not branded with CANON.

I'm a Nikon user too, and many folks around here know I have no love for Canon (nor any other brand). They are manufacturers of tools and I am the customer and the user of those tools, that's all as far as I am concerned.

This camera had all the chances to be a successor to the adored D700. It failed in one thing: the AF system. You can't put in a 3000 USD camera the same AF module as the D5300. You can't have the cheapest prime as a kit lens. You can't say "no distractions" while asking people to buy a wi-fi module, a gps module, etc etc.

Also, as far as the sensor is concerned: the D4 has less MP because is a photojournalists' camera and they don't care about high MP count as much as high fps. I have no knowledge that the D4 sensor offers any better IQ or is more expensive to produce - actually I would say the opposite. If someone is more informed in this sense please let me know. I have to say, I would have liked the 24 MP sensor much much better.

It's yet another example of a camera that was close to be fantastic, yet is not, and you wonder what made Nikon overlook such fundamental aspects. The camera ends up feeling like a fashion accessory for loaded vintage-loving hipsters and nostalgics. That is, more a marketing novelty than a photographic one.

 

[Sporgon]

I would guess the D4 sensor could be cheaper as it was developed in house as opposed to being a Sony.

Maybe they havent sold as many D4s as forecast and have some spare sensors in stock...........

Agreed; the D4 is about speed and convenience. A Press camera really.

 

[MLfan3]

could not care less about a retro looking camera.
all the knobs and dials... it looks like some steampunk camera.

and retro gets lame fast....

: : :

+1

The problem is that if you really really make the perfect camera and you price it nicely, it will be the last camera you're going to sell. Just look at how many Nikonians are still so happy with their D700/D3X/D300s that they don't feel the need to upgrade. Let's be honest, if the 5D2's AF wasn't crap and the 5D3's great, how many people would have upgraded?

+100, all agreed.