Digital Nikon FM2 on his way

[BJL]

What is the basis for believing this rumor, beyond a nostalgic desire for it to be true?
The original source http://nikonrumors.com/2013/10/20/breaking-new-nikon-full-frame-hybrid-mirrorless-camera-coming-soon.aspx/ does not [added missing word!] inspire confidence, since the original version starts by saying

The new full frame camera will most likely be mirrorless, but it will have some kind of a special (hybrid?) viewfinder.

but then an update flip-flops to

Standard F-mount
Pentaprism viewfinder (meaning the camera will not be mirrorless)

P. S. The idea of using the video-capable D4 sensor but not providing video is another hint that this is a retro fantasy, or someone trolling the nostalgic: once the sensor is capable of it, not supporting video has no significant benefits in cost, size, weight, etc., but will instead reduce the sales volume, and so worsen economies of scale, and thus if anything make the product more expensive, not less.

[OldRoy]

When I first saw this rumour I assumed that the camera would be significantly innovative, for Nikon. My guess was that it would roll out the first example of on-sensor PDAF for a Nikon FF camera - a precursor to what must surely arrive before too long, namely a mirrorless "pro" Nikon FF camera. Clearly the obstacle to designing something that can accommodate F mount SLR lenses is size - unless it incorporates a new lens format plus adaptor approach like Sony's; a truly dreadful solution. So it isn't going to be very small, unfortunately.

But it seems, from a quick reading of the recent posts, that this is just another DSLR - apart from a bit of OVF/EVF gimmickry - albeit a "retro" design intended to appeal to photographic nostalgics. As for it enabling the use of all the earlier manual lenses, didn't the vast majority of the previous pro-am Nikon DSLRs? OK, the pre-AI lenses need a simple conversion (I converted an F4 200 and even managed to get hold of an original Nikon kit), but really! What  has been stopping people using these lenses previously apart from the challenge of focusing them. Isn't there still a source of alternative focusing screens for at least some of these cameras?

I know that some people still love OVFs but I am happy to substitute an EVF which displays comprehensive shooting information. Like a histogram!

I still have an FM2n (an F100, a Nikormat and an FG too) plus quite a few manual lenses but on the rare occasions I wheel one out I quickly recall why I prefer AF and digital. The robustness and tactile quality of these cameras is undeniable, to say nothing of the longevity, but they are primarily attractive antiques. I'm curious to see what Nikon produce in November but if it's another DSLR it's a missed opportunity and I would say a blunder.

Roy

[BernardLanguillier]

Regardless of the look, many have been dreaming of a compact FF camera using the D4 sensor.

So it may be sees by those as the long awaited successor of the D700 (eventhough the D800 does better everything the D700 ever did).

Cheers,
Bernard

[joneil]

  Three thoughts about the "no video" issue here, take it any way you will;

1) I personally do not miss not having video on my D700;
2) A few  pros I know grumble about the D4 being more of a video camera than a still camera.   Some pros I know are sticking with their D3 while another guy I know is going Canon because he feels their top of the line FX camera is a better "still camera" than the Nikon D4;
3) Here in Canada for many years, when the military (army, navy or air force) wants a good still camera, they always seem to buy Nikon, but when they want a good video camera, they always seem to buy Canon.

   Everybody has different needs, but even on my D7000 which has excellent video, i seldom use it.    Also, and maybe you will all flame my butt for saying this, but why does every tool have to do everything?    If I buy a Jeep, I don't complain that it doesn't do the quarter mile faster than a Corvette.  If I buy Corvette, I don't complain that it's no good in off road, 4WD situations.   If I want a video camera, I'll go get a video camera.  Don't see what is wrong with that, and if the lack of video keeps the size and price down, well so much the better.

[Isaac]

... and if the lack of video keeps the size and price down, well so much the better.

What if --

... not supporting video has no significant benefits in cost, size, weight, etc., but will instead reduce the sales volume, and so worsen economies of scale, and thus if anything make the product more expensive, not less.

[TMARK]

Video, no video, whatever.  If you need motion move on, there are plenty of fantastic stills/motion cameras out there.  I'll let Nikon worry about their business model and marketing of this camera.  If they price it too high, for whatever reason, I'll pass.  If its priced right, I'll bite.  I suspect that any lack of video is due to the battery size.  When we used to use the 5d2s for B roll it ate batteries.

Now they say its more like an F3.  Still fine with me.  Just please have an F3hp like finder and I'm happy as a clam.

[AFairley]

Now they say its more like an F3.  Still fine with me.  Just please have an F3hp like finder and I'm happy as a clam.

And that yummy selection of focusing screens....

[bcooter]

Video, no video, whatever.  If you need motion move on, there are plenty of fantastic stills/motion cameras out there.  I'll let Nikon worry about their business model and marketing of this camera.  If they price it too high, for whatever reason, I'll pass.  If its priced right, I'll bite.  I suspect that any lack of video is due to the battery size.  When we used to use the 5d2s for B roll it ate batteries.

Now they say its more like an F3.  Still fine with me.  Just please have an F3hp like finder and I'm happy as a clam.

If Nikon wants to make a still only retro styled camera, then good for them, if like most people here say the viewfinder is large enough to manually focus  . . . and  . . . if Nikon finds some way to let the camera tether.

I love all the new retro styled cameras and evf innovations but I truly don't understand any camera that has professional ambition and doesn't tether.    OM1, the new Sony, this Nikon and Leicas of all stripes.

It doesn't make sense, because if you shoot for commerce your going to have to eventually tether.

I have to admit Nikon kind of surprises me in some of the things they do.  Obviously they have a huge winner with the D800, but why this FM?   Is it to out retro Olympus and Fuji, is it to compete with the new Sony, because the Olympus and Fuji are just different cameras than the rumored fm (f4?) digital and how are they going to compete with a 24 or 30 something megapixel sony, especially if it requires a new smaller lens set for this camera.

I also don't understand why Nikon doesn't have a whiz bang video camera.  They have zero ground to protect when it comes to video, unlike Canon, Fuji, Panasonic and Sony, so they could make anything they want, at virtually any price point, but they don't seem to be that bothered with it and video is an important part of almost any commercial photography production.

I'd buy an omd om1 today if it would tether because I have a large amount of m43 lenses and I love the format.   I'd consider the new Fuji's but they also don't tether, same with the Sony a7, though the Fuji and Sony's don't have the price or range  of 4:3 lenses.  (Well I have to admit the om1 menu like the om5 is more complicated than a new I-tunes browser so that kind of puts me off).

But speaking of video, there are numerous threads here where people  want no video in there still cameras.  That's fine by me, I personally do want it . . .  if the video is good, but with most still cameras the video is just not that good, though nobody should discount that video is important in commerce and client expectations on what good video is goes up every day.

When we first bought the RED's my clients looked at the footage and went ooh and ahh, today they accept it as normal.  The bar has moved that fast and Sony, Canon, and even Panasonic are racing like crazy to come out with 422 10bit 4k video cameras with professional features at small still camera prices . . . all but Nikon.

Anyway, I'm glad to see different still cameras coming out, regardless of features though I have to admit I don't really understand where this Nikon fits in.  Maybe it will be so good it can't be denied, but they are up against some very competent competition if they're just building a retro walk around camera.

IMO

BC

[jjj]

I also don't understand why Nikon doesn't have a whiz bang video camera.  They have zero ground to protect when it comes to video, unlike Canon, Fuji, Panasonic and Sony, so they could make anything they want, at virtually any price point, but they don't seem to be that bothered with it and video is an important part of almost any commercial photography production.

Because they are complete numpties?
It could be a win/win situation for them and yet nothing.

[DanielStone]

I'm 25, so I have probably been in this world less time than many of you 'old hands' have been shooting professionally

But to me, it seems that many folks just don't GET IT. If a company wants to make a product, simply to MAKE IT, what's wrong with that? Case in point: Bugatti Veyron. Fast as f***, but expensive(they lose a ton of money on each car sold):
http://www.worldcarfans.com/113093063599/volkswagen-losing-an-unbelievable-627m-usd-for-each-bugatti
.... But they made it nonetheless. I don't believe a camera company would do something as drastic as Bugatti did with the Veyron, but if a company wants to make a "no holes barred, "We're doing what WE like" " type camera, what's wrong with that?
Look at Leica. They make these special edition cameras that end up just sitting in collectors safes. What a royal waste(IMO) ! But they STILL make them!
Ya, we're spinning our wheels here talking about vaporware(currently), but I know many a photographer who yearns dearly for an F3-style digital slr. 95% of them couldn't give a hoot if it had video, as they primarily shoot stills. They want a big, bright OVF that handles like their F's, Canon A1's, K1000's, Minolta SRT's, etc... They want metal, sharp-cornered cameras that are like what they used to use. Not these black smooth-out blobs we call cameras today...

Is a DSLR as capable FOR VIDEO as a professionally-designed MOTION(ala Red, Alexa, Panasonic, Sony, etc.) camera? Probably not as versatile. Will it work(and probably work well)? Most likely so.

But it seems that a company having to justify it making something, rather than making it because they want to make it.

Heck, what did ya'll who shoot/shot motion before dslr's do? You used a dedicated motion camera that was designed for that, not for stills. If you shot stills, you used a stills camera. Nothing has changed.
If this new 'retro' Nikon indeed lacks a video mode, then so be it. I'm still interested. I don't shoot motion enough to warrant bogging down a simply-designed camera with "more features, more, more, more". Less is more in my book. Simple. Dead simple. Less variables and confuddling b***sh** to go through just to set a few settings up for how you like it. Set it and go make pictures. Less tech to get in the way.

Give me a nice hi-res screen, a bitchin OVF with user-interchangeable focusing screens(ala F-series w/ interchangeable finders like on the F's) and NO BUTTONS but those on the back of the camera. Leave the top plate bare except for a shutter speed dial, and maybe a ***small*** window showing remaining frames and shooting details(WB, ISO, etc.)

Simply simple is what I'd like to see in this Nikon

A digital F3 would be brilliant! Price it @ $2k or under, and I'd bet it'll sell like hotcakes. It just has to perform well, and BE TOUGH AS NAILS. Not that hard I see.

-Dan

[TMARK]

Yes to this.

And for motion prior to the 5d2, we used Sony PME3s and a Bolex.  16mm TriX is pretty nice.

I'm 25, so I have probably been in this world less time than many of you 'old hands' have been shooting professionally

But to me, it seems that many folks just don't GET IT. If a company wants to make a product, simply to MAKE IT, what's wrong with that? Case in point: Bugatti Veyron. Fast as f***, but expensive(they lose a ton of money on each car sold):
http://www.worldcarfans.com/113093063599/volkswagen-losing-an-unbelievable-627m-usd-for-each-bugatti
.... But they made it nonetheless. I don't believe a camera company would do something as drastic as Bugatti did with the Veyron, but if a company wants to make a "no holes barred, "We're doing what WE like" " type camera, what's wrong with that?
Look at Leica. They make these special edition cameras that end up just sitting in collectors safes. What a royal waste(IMO) ! But they STILL make them!
Ya, we're spinning our wheels here talking about vaporware(currently), but I know many a photographer who yearns dearly for an F3-style digital slr. 95% of them couldn't give a hoot if it had video, as they primarily shoot stills. They want a big, bright OVF that handles like their F's, Canon A1's, K1000's, Minolta SRT's, etc... They want metal, sharp-cornered cameras that are like what they used to use. Not these black smooth-out blobs we call cameras today...

Is a DSLR as capable FOR VIDEO as a professionally-designed MOTION(ala Red, Alexa, Panasonic, Sony, etc.) camera? Probably not as versatile. Will it work(and probably work well)? Most likely so.

But it seems that a company having to justify it making something, rather than making it because they want to make it.

Heck, what did ya'll who shoot/shot motion before dslr's do? You used a dedicated motion camera that was designed for that, not for stills. If you shot stills, you used a stills camera. Nothing has changed.
If this new 'retro' Nikon indeed lacks a video mode, then so be it. I'm still interested. I don't shoot motion enough to warrant bogging down a simply-designed camera with "more features, more, more, more". Less is more in my book. Simple. Dead simple. Less variables and confuddling b***sh** to go through just to set a few settings up for how you like it. Set it and go make pictures. Less tech to get in the way.

Give me a nice hi-res screen, a bitchin OVF with user-interchangeable focusing screens(ala F-series w/ interchangeable finders like on the F's) and NO BUTTONS but those on the back of the camera. Leave the top plate bare except for a shutter speed dial, and maybe a ***small*** window showing remaining frames and shooting details(WB, ISO, etc.)

Simply simple is what I'd like to see in this Nikon

A digital F3 would be brilliant! Price it @ $2k or under, and I'd bet it'll sell like hotcakes. It just has to perform well, and BE TOUGH AS NAILS. Not that hard I see.

-Dan

[Hulyss]

Here is the first teaser about the thing :

http://youtu.be/2CDWV6o1o4A

Here is the crop I made out of a tiny pic found in China :



and here are my first impression based only on the sounds in the video :

#1 >> Exposure knob clicks.

#2 >> Shutter cocking sound.

#3 >> Actuation.


I think they pushed hard on the "energy saving" point by arming the shutter manually. The hybrid term employed in the rumors can be about that. Either you use it ala old school way in the "low power" mode, either you switch in full power mode and it take the control of the shutter and all (Video, rumored 5.5fps...).

Just my wild guess.

[jjj]

and here are my first impression based only on the sounds in the video :

#1 >> Exposure knob clicks.

#2 >> Shutter cocking sound.

#3 >> Actuation.

Ah, it's a film camera that can work with no battery or it's the usual completely unrealistic sounds that are useful in film to tell the story.
Here's Lloyd explaining actual sword sounds.

[Hulyss]

Ah, it's a film camera that can work with no battery or it's the usual completely unrealistic sounds that are useful in film to tell the story.
Here's Lloyd explaining actual sword sounds.

Naaa As I said, I'm pretty confident that the sounds are "real" and give indications. Its marketing after all. Nothing said in the clip, only "it's in my hands again". The only indication are the sounds and there is no gimmickry about it. If you can use it over VERY extended period because of the low power mode (who might only use battery for metering, essential infos in the OVF like telemetry and sensor read/card recording) then this is very clever. Really clever especially for travels/reportage. The battery might last a veryyyy lonng time in this mode.

Now I'm pretty confident too that you can use it full throttle too, allowing all modern innovations such as AF with G lenses, video and all.

And... I think the price will be in accordance with the prophecy >>> high

[bcooter]

I don't understand the Veyron analogy with a low cost retro camera.

The closest car analogy would be a new  vw beetle that may look a little like your father's old vw but is a front wheel drive, airbag laden, computer traction controlled, blue tooth rigged economy car at a medium price point.

Same with this fm2.  It may look retro, but the only thing analog about this or any camera today is the box it comes in.  Cameras today are I pads with lenses and you can take off all the features you want and pretend it's an analog camera but it's not.

And the thought of coming in at $2,000 (and $2000 being cheap) shows you where we are today on camera prices.  In 2003 a Nikon F5 which really was the Veyron of cameras came in a $2,000 when 2 grand was worth a lot more than 2 grand is today.

So $2,000 for a fm digital which is a stripped down FF dslr is kind of expensive, if not almost funny.when you consider you can buy a used d3 for 1/2 to 1/4  the price of this rumored nikon, all for the pleasure of pretending your shooting film.

But to answer the question of what did we use to use for video? Dedicated video or film cameras, but the convergence of a still and motion shoot wasn't that prevalent.  Back then there were no ipads and the supermarket magazine rack was half an isle long.  Today it's 36" in the corner of the store.

But "back then" there was no ipad and you didn't introduce new still cameras with web videos on youtube, facebook, vimeo and in dedicated electronic documents.

If people think that holding an electronic camera that is clothed in analog takes them back to a more simple time then great  . . .  but everybody knows that 99% of the photos taken with this or any other camera will never become ink of paper, they'll be on the web in some kind of portal.

Personally, I have no interest in this camera.  It doesn't offer me anything I don't already have, doesn't break new ground, doesn't add to my art or commerce, it just looks good and as much as I appreciate good industrial design, I try to produce what the market demands.

I have no interest in going back in time, because the world is now condensed.   I travel as routinely to London as I did ten years ago to NY and it's not that big of a cultural leap.   I work in multiple mediums, multiple markets and working final cut pro and DiVinci  is no more foreign to me than photoshop. 

Today I view it all as imaging equipment, built to tell stories.

Buried deep in the back of my brain is the thought of how simple it was just shooting stills and how easy it was to have a week to deliver film, wash my hands of it and go on to the next project or even a drive up the coast instead of running servers and backup drives, thousands of web galleries and multiple computers. Also in my heart I love still photography and always will.

But I keep those thoughts buried in the back, because I know if I don't go forward I don't have a working future and I really do love to work.


IMO

BC

[TMARK]

I see your point, and certainly when I was shooting for commerce I would not look twice at this camera, for work.  Now that I'm not shooting (much) for commerce this camera makes sense, in as much as the rumours are true. It looks to be a reasonably sized, (supposedly) fine looking camera with a D4 sensor, but without an AA filter.  If the VF is near the quality of the F3hp/F4/F5, I'm in.  And if it has a CFA that is different than the D800, more like a D700, D4 or better yet, a 5d2, I'd be very happy.

Now retro is a term often pregnant with negative conotation.  I don't think that is right.  Retro for styling or marketing is certainly vapid, but if retro means resurrecting the functional aspects of the old cameras that worked so well for 50 years, like a better VF, direct controls, etc., then retro is a positive.  For shooting stills, which is what I do now, I want good color, intuitive controls, and a large viewfinder.  I shouldnt have to use a giant and aging 1ds3 or D3x, or an MFD camera to get there.  What I've been doing is using an M9, and sometimes an X100.  I rarely use the D800 anymore, because of file size and the time in post color grading is killing me.  If Nikon can hit those points (smallish, good VF, good color), I'm in.  Latest rumor is $3000, $3,300 with 50 1.8. 

I don't understand the Veyron analogy with a low cost retro camera.

The closest car analogy would be a new  vw beetle that may look a little like your father's old vw but is a front wheel drive, airbag laden, computer traction controlled, blue tooth rigged economy car at a medium price point.

Same with this fm2.  It may look retro, but the only thing analog about this or any camera today is the box it comes in.  Cameras today are I pads with lenses and you can take off all the features you want and pretend it's an analog camera but it's not.

And the thought of coming in at $2,000 (and $2000 being cheap) shows you where we are today on camera prices.  In 2003 a Nikon F5 which really was the Veyron of cameras came in a $2,000 when 2 grand was worth a lot more than 2 grand is today.

So $2,000 for a fm digital which is a stripped down FF dslr is kind of expensive, if not almost funny.when you consider you can buy a used d3 for 1/2 to 1/4  the price of this rumored nikon, all for the pleasure of pretending your shooting film.

But to answer the question of what did we use to use for video? Dedicated video or film cameras, but the convergence of a still and motion shoot wasn't that prevalent.  Back then there were no ipads and the supermarket magazine rack was half an isle long.  Today it's 36" in the corner of the store.

But "back then" there was no ipad and you didn't introduce new still cameras with web videos on youtube, facebook, vimeo and in dedicated electronic documents.

If people think that holding an electronic camera that is clothed in analog takes them back to a more simple time then great  . . .  but everybody knows that 99% of the photos taken with this or any other camera will never become ink of paper, they'll be on the web in some kind of portal.

Personally, I have no interest in this camera.  It doesn't offer me anything I don't already have, doesn't break new ground, doesn't add to my art or commerce, it just looks good and as much as I appreciate good industrial design, I try to produce what the market demands.

I have no interest in going back in time, because the world is now condensed.   I travel as routinely to London as I did ten years ago to NY and it's not that big of a cultural leap.   I work in multiple mediums, multiple markets and working final cut pro and DiVinci  is no more foreign to me than photoshop. 

Today I view it all as imaging equipment, built to tell stories.

Buried deep in the back of my brain is the thought of how simple it was just shooting stills and how easy it was to have a week to deliver film, wash my hands of it and go on to the next project or even a drive up the coast instead of running servers and backup drives, thousands of web galleries and multiple computers. Also in my heart I love still photography and always will.

But I keep those thoughts buried in the back, because I know if I don't go forward I don't have a working future and I really do love to work.


IMO

BC

[Hulyss]

Hey bcooter I think you get very sensitive about it in your analysis

"Retroing" things isn't a bad thing in a logical way. By retro, many people see "toughness", "reliability", "compactness". Even the D700 is considered as a "retro gear" by today standards. After come the ones who care about the look of the device.

Nikon aren't dumb. They need to feed the "need" of the photographers who want "modern old school hard core" devices and the others, who need the look on top of that.

There is nothing wrong about that.

So it seems they decided to mix it in one body : Compactness, reliability, analogue manipulations (for the ones who need to save battery on field and for the ones who only want to use it in a sort of hipster mode) and full modern manipulation (for the ones who do not have time to set up all the knobs).

There is nothing wrong about that too. Actually it is pretty smart because you do have the choice. Having this choice on a single well crafted device is kind of awesome.

 

[G*]

Actually I’m not sure the FM2 (or whatever) analogy is about cast-iron bodies and fake leather grips. I think it might be just about dimensions and weight. A similar need for space in your pocket and in your hand. And that would be really really really nice to have with a FF Nikon!  :-)

[jjj]

Retro is a stylistic term, it's neither good nor bad, just an object or clothes whose looks hark back to a different time. Not from a few years back as a D700 is certainly not retro in any way.
The Olympus Pen/OMD cameras and the Fuji x100, now they are certainly retro as their appearance is very much derived from cameras from 30/40 years back.

[AFairley]

The robustness and tactile quality of these cameras is undeniable, to say nothing of the longevity, but they are primarily attractive antiques.

+1.