Digital Nikon FM2 on his way

[jjj]

The switch in question also turns the camera on or off.

This puzzled me then I wondered do you have a Canon where if you move the on/off switch to it's second position it then means the wheel on the back is functional?
If so, I have several Canons and that switch is quite hard to move accidentally and always have it so wheel works because the camera is hobbled without it.
Otherwise I have no idea what you mean, maybe the camera being turned on is a function you do not want. 

Hmmmmm... I guess 8 years of practice isn't enough.

Obviously not. So are you using an 8 year old digital camera then?

It's a good strategy if it's a subset of their production and doesn't restrict the company's production of mainstream cameras.

Well that makes zero sense in response to what I wrote.

[BJL]

A lot of the comments here seem to be craving a 35mm format digital SLR that is small and light like film SLRs in the good old days, instead of being a brick like modern digital ones. Anyway, the rumor says nothing about OVF details like image size, magnification, focusing aids or interchangeable screens, so I guess "less bulky" is the major hope, and the rumor does claim some precise dimensions:
143.5 x 110 x 66.5mm, 765g (not stated whether this is with or without battery or memory card)
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/10/20/breaking-new-nikon-full-frame-hybrid-mirrorless-camera-coming-soon.aspx/#ixzz2imC8eode

Compare to Nikon's latest 35mm format SLR, the D610:
141 x 113  x 82mm, 760g without batteries or memory card, 850g with battery and memory card
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d610/spec.htm

Given that the 15.5mm of extra depth is probably from the deeper grip of the D610, with no effect on the size of a working camera with lens is attached, I do not see that this rumor-cam offers any significant advantage in bulk over the existing D610.

Or is the excitement is about the claim of using the lower resolution ["less high resolution"] D4 sensor, without the high frame rate that is the main reason for the existence of such a sensor?


P. S. Just for fun, the actual FM2 specs:
142.5 x 90 x 60mm, 540g without battery or film.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/slr/fm2/spec.htm


P. P. S. Sorry, I just noticed that "Dale Cotton 2" had already posted similar data.

[bcooter]

As to your other point, I still don't get it.  I've used everything from ancient Linhofs to Leica's and many flavor of 35mm camera in very high pressured commercial environments.  I figure out what the problems is or could potentially be before I am face to face with a "photographic opportunity", or in my case a gaggle of clients.  I familiarize myself with how the thing works before any production starts, otherwise I won't use it.  When I was a photo J I knew the cameras inside and out before I went on a job.

Other than the point we're all talking about a camera that doesn't exist, most people on this thread would do well do take the quote from T and tattoo it on their arm.

Anyone that considers themselves close to a professional learns "all" their tools and how to work around the issues, because every camera has issues.

In fact the gh3's and the omd I bought I learned front and back and kept away from everyone on the crew.  

They literally traveled in my bag across two continents because they were set exactly as
I wanted and honestly the gh3 which looks not pretty and non retro has mostly analog dials and buttons and is a snap to set up.

I personally think Panasonic is the most down to earth camera maker around and until you've used them
in high pressured situations I don't think you'd ever understand how good those little cameras are.

The Olympus which is a beautifully built and retro looking camera has the most maddening digital interface and oddly placed dials and
buttons of any camera I've ever owned, though it looks so pretty
and om like it's kind of hard to believe how horribly wrong they wrote the menu system.

But I would like a little better still quality and the Sony A7 seems like a good idea.  The samples look nice, the camera won't be a video king,
but it will shoot good stills.  The only issue I have is I love having those small 4/3 lenses
in one bag and even though we carry 4,000 lbs of equipment with us, it's nice to have my personal cameras that shoot video and stills with me.  

It's like the old days where I was responsible for everything.

Though if the Sony eventually comes up with a lens set and allows some type of robust tethering I'll give it a try, as long as it will track focus as well as my gh3's.

For Nikon, I hope they sell their camera, but I don't think for a moment it won't end up full featured with some kind of movie play, not if it comes in at $3,900.  

Whether the diehard "wanna shoot film guys" on this forum like it or not
the world has changed and a camera that is single purpose becomes harder to sell every day.  

Let's face it, smart phones have ripped the heart out of the camera industry and they're only going to get better, because they have more than huge developmental money to put in R+D and feature sets.

For real cameras to survive, in the consumer world they're going to have to offer much more than ok quality video and detailed stills.  
They're going to have to have large in camera processing feature sets, sync up to smart devices, maybe even have wi-fi or 4g for their
own uploading as you shoot and they are going to have to produce an image that not only has more detail but looks bloody beautiful out of the can.

They are going to have to out smart the phones and the pads.

IMO

BC

[jjj]

The Olympus which is a beautifully built and retro looking camera has the most maddening digital interface and oddly placed dials and buttons of any camera I've ever owned, though it looks so pretty and om like it's kind of hard to believe how horribly wrong they wrote the menu system.

The Sonys had a menu system that was even worse by all accounts, but I seem to recall reading that they've actually redone it because it was so bad. So maybe Olympus will do the same thing.

[BernardLanguillier]

For Nikon, I hope they sell their camera, but I don't think for a moment it won't end up full featured with some kind of movie play, not if it comes in at $3,900.  

Whether the diehard "wanna shoot film guys" on this forum like it or not
the world has changed and a camera that is single purpose becomes harder to sell every day.  

I believe that the people targeted by this camera didn't care about video 10 years ago, they don't care about video today and will still not care about video in 5 or 10 years.

The fact that the world changed around them is not relevant to them and I believe that there are enough million of those guys for a camera addressing them to be a screaming success.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Telecaster]

Whether the diehard "wanna shoot film guys" on this forum like it or not
the world has changed and a camera that is single purpose becomes harder to sell every day.  

The more I think about it the less interested I am in this "retro" Nikon. I have a lovely FTn sitting in its bag with a nice set of old Nikkors to keep it company. I have a freezer with lotsa rolls of Provia, Astia & Velvia and I have some mailers for easy processing. If I want the look & vibe of an old film camera, why not just use one?!

The truth is, I like having video capability in a stills camera. I bought my Blackmagic jobbie for "serious" stuff (well, really to make myself jump in nearer the deep end of the video world) but I've shot far more video over the past few weeks with the Panasonic GX7 than with the BMPCC. It's fun, challenging & different. My friend Jeanne & I were at a live performance of the public radio show Radiolab two weeks ago, during which I took many pics and also shot a couple video clips. The video is what Jeanne & my other friends glommed on to. The pics weren't ignored but the video was certainly appreciated. The Radiolab folks get that a visually kinetic presentation of their show gives it an extra zip...that's why they're doing it. Similarly I think in many situations video can give still photography an beneficial kick up the arse. In any creative pursuit I don't wanna do what I did before. I wanna do something new.

-Dave-

[Hulyss]

Meanwhile, in Scotland :

http://youtu.be/gc1GYoLhT5o

[bcooter]

The more I think about it the less interested I am in this "retro" Nikon. I have a lovely FTn sitting in its bag with a nice set of old Nikkors to keep it company. I have a freezer with lotsa rolls of Provia, Astia & Velvia and I have some mailers for easy processing. If I want the look & vibe of an old film camera, why not just use one?!

The truth is, I like having video capability in a stills camera. I bought my Blackmagic jobbie for "serious" stuff (well, really to make myself jump in nearer the deep end of the video world) but I've shot far more video over the past few weeks with the Panasonic GX7 than with the BMPCC. It's fun, challenging & different. My friend Jeanne & I were at a live performance of the public radio show Radiolab two weeks ago, during which I took many pics and also shot a couple video clips. The video is what Jeanne & my other friends glommed on to. The pics weren't ignored but the video was certainly appreciated. The Radiolab folks get that a visually kinetic presentation of their show gives it an extra zip...that's why they're doing it. Similarly I think in many situations video can give still photography an beneficial kick up the arse. In any creative pursuit I don't wanna do what I did before. I wanna do something new.

-Dave-

Dave I think you hit on it.

Still photography and "video" don't have to be exclusive, in pleasure or professional photography and finally the camera makers are somewhat starting to realize this.

Olympus introduced the em1.  Beautiful camera, good quality for mft, and olympus has tremendous in camera stabilization (really incredible) but marginalized video.  

But the problem with Olympus is they are selling into a ever decreasing market (still cameras) with a somewhat marginalized format (mft) with a camera that is listed as pro but has no aspirations to sell to the sports photographer or produce excellent video (olympus' words, not mine).   Now they realized they missed the boat and will concentrate more on video in combination with stills.

I personally think they missed it by not offering a continuous focus sports camera, because if you've ever lugged a 400mm and 300mm and 70 to 200mm zoom lens on three bodies, for 12 hours you'd sell your soul for three micro 4/3 cameras and lens set.

Anyway.

Camera companies are trying to reach everyone and where they miss is not being complete.  The Sony A7.  How many more people would be interested if they had a complete lens line of e-mount zeiss lenses setting in glittering case ready to go?   The Olympus OM1, beautiful camera but hobbled in video, somewhat in stills and olympus still doesn't offer a fast 25mm lens (a 50mm in 35mm terms).

Olympus has a 35 to 150 lens that won't be out until next year.  

Your the market, not me.  You own multiple cameras, multiple formats and use all of them.  You enjoy photography and want the cameras to match your vision.   When a camera, any camera stops you from producing whatever you want, then you drawn to something else and here is where smart phones come in.

They get closer every day to being able to shoot anything, steadicam video, high rez stills, all with the ability to multitask as a phone, an uploader and a viewer.  This is what worries the camera companies and if this new nikon sells a million copies ok, but I bet they'd like to sell 15 million.

IMO

BC

P.S.  The one feature I think all makers need to add is the ability to automatically change the format ratio when you go vertical to horizontal.   I love the 4:3 shape for vertical, 2:3 for horizontal, but it takes a stop, a menu change and then shoot. Since most cameras already have a sensor that detects vertical or horizontal, why not just have a setting that allows the crops to work in auto?

P.S.2,  But other than cameras of the past I want a camera of the future.  A 30mm x 30mm frame with multiple ratios, 5k video, 5 or 6k stills, detachable viewfinders, articulating lcd, multiple lens mounts from Canon, Nikon, Sony, to PL.  XLR inputs, sdi out, hdmi out, ethernet still tethering out, Panasonic's amazing touch screen autofocus, Olympus 5 axis stabilization, built with connectors and attachments for rods, rails without having to go to heavy cages, calibrated monitor to match the computer, and built in ND in a form factor kind of like this.



This is a type of camera Nikon could make because they have no video territory to protect.

I don't believe it will ever happen, but to me this is a camera that would easily cover every medium.

BTW:  This would drive the traditionalists mad.

IMO

BC

Just a thought.

[barryfitzgerald]

Mixed view on this, honestly I couldn't really care much about video as I don't use it often at all. I've never really cried some of my older bodies can't shoot video.
I suppose being blunt I don't see a problem with an FM2 type body that "does do video"

As long as they don't mess around handling and ergonomics.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

...
BTW:  This would drive the traditionalists mad.
...

My impression increasingly is, that the whole discussion is more or less about the effect a tool has on your mindset when working.
And people start to blame the tools, because they don't know what they want.

Some people easily tend to be confused by too much clutter in their way and I can understand well they want a reduced set of options.
When I had a loaned 4x5 Sinar camera it was a great joy to use and I remember being in quite a different state of mind than when being on a stroll with my compact.
Others can filter away what they don't need and such do not care.

When thinking gear, I see myself switching between fascination by 4x5 technical cameras, Digital back solutions, multifunctional modern DSLRs and super lightweight compacts or CSCs for street photography.

In no time in history  we had so many choices on what type of tool to use which makes it harder to find what suits us.

But If you know who you are and what you really need and want you'll have a great time to live in as a photographer.

Cheers
~Chris

[bcooter]

I think a lot of the difference in wants is where we come from.

I've always been a commercial photographer and never knew anything about what fine art or advanced amateurs did.  Never even knew one.

To me equipment was always about what I needed.   If I need to pull focus on a still life or straighten verticals then I bought and used a view camera, if I needed fast action it was 35mm, and when I shoot on figure fashion it was usually a medium format film camera.

I bought what I could afford and I never saw or thought that one had anything to do with the other.

I also never overbought.  The FM's worked fine for me, same with the F3 and I held off forever on autofocus until I bought a F5 hooked to the kodak dcs 760 digital.  Now that was a camera I loved and wish they had continued up that path, but it's Kodak and we know how that story goes.

Digital changed it for me and I'm sure the non professional set.   At first digital was limiting, it was either a 1ds or a medium format back and both had their limitations but both were the two digital still workhorses.

Now 35mm cameras produce an image almost as good as medium format, apsc almost as good as full frame 35mm, mft almost as good as aps c.

Then motion imagery came into our life.  I started the moment I saw the internet, because I knew that no longer would professional imaging be limited to only still imagery.  There wasn't you tube, brand videos or facebook, because the bandwidth wasn't available, but it was coming and I knew it.

I remember I had a contract with a large stock agency for a brief period and I begged them to up the production to shoot motion and they said they didn't see the point.  What a missed opportunity.

Anyway,

Things have changed for professional image makers.  

I sometimes get the feeling that 1/2 of all the people I use to compete with now do seminars, training, teach, or have contracts with camera companies.  I find nothing wrong with that I just find it kind of strange to see someone that I know would never shoot a small camera that wouldn't tether or work 100% professionally stand on stage holding a point and shoot promising the world that the Samnikcan 100zx is just as good as any camera he/she has used.  I know thats BS, they know that's BS, but today since 90% of what we shoot is distributed electronically it probably doesn't matter.

i also know that there is a group that says their overburdened with tech.  E-mails every twenty seconds, text messages, voice mail  . . . hell I carry two cell phones and and sometimes feel I'm tethered to the world.

So I can see the simplicity of a Nikon that just takes a still and has a manual focus lens, but then again I kind of don't get why because Leica has that territory covered and actually so does all older digital cameras, but there may be a market, because I'm still shooting for a living and will be the first to admit I don't really know what the other side wants. 

Though there might be some validity in the almost analog digital world, because you can't find a Leica M9 for sale anywhere on this planet that's not overpriced and the M9 is a strange duck because it's not modern, truly not fast, not automated and has low iso, but when right it shoots a hell of a beautiful image, so maybe I'm wrong about the fm2.

Actually this forum is the first time I've had real experience with the not for money photographers and I enjoy it.

I just know what I do, what I need and it's like they say, when your a hammer the whole world is a nail.

IMO

BC

[BJL]

Putting aside the debate about whether having one more or less setting on the mode dial (which is the only noticable effect that adding video needs to have) would impair the experience of a stills-only photographer, and looking just at what the rumor sites plus "Scottish" videos show us, what are the likely virtues of this D610-sized "Nikon DF"?  What I see so far is hints of an old-style user interface, with just enough knobs and dials and buttons to allow the most common traditional adjustments to be made by touch, without needing to look at a screen or dive into menus. If so, that could be fine, roughly following the spirit of some recent Fujifilm and Olympus models.

[Telecaster]

P.S.  The one feature I think all makers need to add is the ability to automatically change the format ratio when you go vertical to horizontal. I love the 4:3 shape for vertical, 2:3 for horizontal, but it takes a stop, a menu change and then shoot. Since most cameras already have a sensor that detects vertical or horizontal, why not just have a setting that allows the crops to work in auto?

P.S.2,  But other than cameras of the past I want a camera of the future. A 30mm x 30mm frame with multiple ratios, 5k video, 5 or 6k stills, detachable viewfinders, articulating lcd, multiple lens mounts from Canon, Nikon, Sony, to PL. XLR inputs, sdi out, hdmi out, ethernet still tethering out, Panasonic's amazing touch screen autofocus, Olympus 5 axis stabilization, built with connectors and attachments for rods, rails without having to go to heavy cages, calibrated monitor to match the computer, and built in ND...

Hehe. I've thought square format sensors were a no-brainer since getting my first decent digicam. Hopefully we'll get there, and it'll include a bunch of the other stuff you mention, sooner rather than later. Damned legacy restrictions...

Just found this old (and very brief) post, probably my first public comment on the subject:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/3124955

(BTW, the G2 was the first camera I owned that offered RAW output.)

 

-Dave-

[bcooter]

Hehe. I've thought square format sensors were a no-brainer since getting my first decent digicam. Hopefully we'll get there, and it'll include a bunch of the other stuff you mention, sooner rather than later. Damned legacy restrictions...

Just found this old (and very brief) post, probably my first public comment on the subject:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/3124955

(BTW, the G2 was the first camera I owned that offered RAW output.)

 

-Dave-

Great minds think alike Dave.

Not that anything I've written is really related to this thread because we know where most stand on an almost analog camera, but how great would it be if somebody did do a square sensor with automated crops.
Vertical, horizontal, 4:5, 4:3, 2:3, 2:1.

Kodak's early digital back shot square and you could set in the software the crop you wanted and even though you captured the whole frame you would only see the crop.  Very cool, very easy.

Kodak had some close to great digital stuff, but kind just dropped it all, the rest of the story we know.
IMO

BC

[telyt]

Great minds think alike Dave.

Not that anything I've written is really related to this thread because we know where most stand on an almost analog camera, but how great would it be if somebody did do a square sensor with automated crops.
Vertical, horizontal, 4:5, 4:3, 2:3, 2:1.

Round would be a better match for the image circle than square and would allow the maximum use of the image circle with each crop.

[Hulyss]

Meanwhile, in the forest :

[jjj]

I've also been hankering after a square format camera. But rather than wanting auto crop when turning the camera vertical, I would enjoy not having to turn the camera. Which usually results in a less ergonomic grip/camera.  Being able to overlay a crop through a simple toggle button or dial would be fine and dandy though.

[Telecaster]

Right...a square (or round) sensor eliminates the need to physically rotate the camera when switching from horizontal to vertical framing (or vice versa). You press a button, or tap a virtual one, instead and the frame of your chosen aspect ratio rotates in the VF. You could also have an auto-level feature that, rather than showing you an orientation line you straighten out by manually leveling the camera, would adjust the entire frame in the VF to maintain that straight line. Better make that an option you can turn off, though.   

-Dave-

[jjj]

More ad teasing going on.

.

[jjj]

Right...a square (or round) sensor eliminates the need to physically rotate the camera when switching from horizontal to vertical framing (or vice versa). You press a button, or tap a virtual one, instead and the frame of your chosen aspect ratio rotates in the VF.

Or you simply shoot square/FF and crop if need be later. Handy if you need to shoot a shot that is hard to repeat and then you get the option of vert or horizontal layout for design purposes.