Pipe dream: Nikon digital FM-style camera

Yeah, no doubt it'd be a D-X(XXX) style body if they ever produced anything in this vein--I was imagining a slightly smaller D300/D700-type deal. Retro for the sake of looking retro isn't really commercially or technically smart, and would probably make for uselessly expensive camera.

I also believe modern construction techniques can make tougher, lighter products than old-school metalwork...just ask Glock.

And you're right, I was thinking of my Canon S70 point and shoot when I wrote that and lazily looking to abbreviate aperture- and shutter- priority.
 
A D3000 kit now is the same price as an F75 kit used to be 6 years ago. To me, that signals that we've more or less reached the bottom price possible for a DSLR. I can't see how stripping functionality away from a D3000 can lead to an SLR that can undercut that.

Actually, the price of a feature stripped FM3a was more than 3x that of the F75.. So, my guess is that a digital FM3a look-alike would be at least as expensive as a D300..
 
Pipe Dreams

Origin

pipe dream ... The allusion is to the dreams experienced by smokers of opium pipes.
Click to expand...


More opium please ... we need this camera. Or maybe a digital version of the OM! :D
 
Keith said:
Pipe Dreams

More opium please ... we need this camera. Or maybe a digital version of the OM! :D
Click to expand...

While I would prefer Nikon I would would be just as happy to swing the OM way;)

If they would put a pentaprism in the D40/60 body, get rid of the AF and extra electronics stuff I'd be fine.

B2 (;->
 
AgentX said:
Yeah, no doubt it'd be a D-X(XXX) style body if they ever produced anything in this vein--I was imagining a slightly smaller D300/D700-type deal. Retro for the sake of looking retro isn't really commercially or technically smart, and would probably make for uselessly expensive camera.

I also believe modern construction techniques can make tougher, lighter products than old-school metalwork...just ask Glock.

And you're right, I was thinking of my Canon S70 point and shoot when I wrote that and lazily looking to abbreviate aperture- and shutter- priority.
Click to expand...

Nikon will never cut the bells and whistles out of an inexpensive entry level camera because they sell those cameras to people just getting into DSLR photography and those folks make use of those features.

There are already plenty of entry level DSLRs that are small, capable, fairly durable, and within the price range of a student.

A DSLR with a throwback body would simply honor Nikon's camera making heritage and be more of a collector's item more than anything. I'd still buy one and use it since I find the older bodies much more satisfying to use much of the time.

I don't always want a big ergonomic grip, autofocus, or a built in motor drive--the three things that add the most bulk to modern cameras. I want something like my older film cameras that I can throw in a large pocket and go about my business.
 
pvdhaar said:
A D3000 kit now is the same price as an F75 kit used to be 6 years ago. To me, that signals that we've more or less reached the bottom price possible for a DSLR. I can't see how stripping functionality away from a D3000 can lead to an SLR that can undercut that.

Actually, the price of a feature stripped FM3a was more than 3x that of the F75.. So, my guess is that a digital FM3a look-alike would be at least as expensive as a D300..
Click to expand...

I never suggested an FM look-alike/retro camera, just something that fits the same niche the FMs carved out in the film lineup.

If there was an FX sensor camera around the price of the D300, especially a simple, tough, light one, I'd be all over it. It's still a lot less than the D700.
 
I'd settle for a DSLR with a dedicated shutter speed dial, lenses with aperture dials, and a slimmed down manual. Basically a Nikon DSLR that acts like a Leica Digital M.
 
Pipe Dream... Nah!

Pipe Dream... Nah!

We should be able to get one of those about the same time we can order a fully functional "Stepford" wife on-line.
 
jsrockit said:
I'd settle for a DSLR with a dedicated shutter speed dial, lenses with aperture dials, and a slimmed down manual. Basically a Nikon DSLR that acts like a Leica Digital M.
Click to expand...

What this guy just said. :D Full frame as well. Digital camera makers just don't seem to understand the subtleties of mechanical tactile feel any more.
 
jarski said:
they probably would learn fast, if enough people were willing to pay for it :)
Click to expand...
True. Although I'm not even talking of Leica-like precision. Heck, I like the feel and position of dials on my wife's AE1; something along those lines would be fine. Camera makers just need to give photographers "like us" (whatever that means) control over shutter speed, aperture, and focus (and white balance, I suppose). Those are what make a picture. And they should all have a dedicated mechanical ring/dial for each of these. At least, they should in my world. ;) Would that really be that expensive?
 
Me too. (And I'm also making do with the D300.)

One idea I'd really like to see pursued, and mentioned by the OP, is a digital camera without the rear LCD screen. If a future camera produces high quality files similar to film, and the automatic white balance ability is accurate, then there's really no need for a screen. I would expect that this would reduce the cost of the camera significantly.
 
Yes.

My FM is my favourite camera (because of it intrinsic qualities and because it is smooth and well cared for).

I consider the Nikon FM2 the best camera ever made, period. Have one of those too. It is terribly battered and even bent, but still works perfectly. I bought it in its current state.

I could regurgitate my experiences with other gear and photography ad nauseam, but a digital FM as proposed I would buy in a heartbeat.
 
Well, the LCD is also there to use the menu-based navigation which seems sort of unavoidable with digital cameras--things like image format/resolution and some other options might not be available with dials or other analog controls. Then again, maybe a rear door with small sliders/buttons/dip switches or something could work for the basics...?

Does seem a bit willfully stodgy, though, and gets away from a commonality of function that the FMs shared with other film Nikons...
 
Last edited:
There is a huge market for something along these lines ........ the problem is that AF is necessary.

Take a look a micro 4/3rds. I just traded a CV15 for a Olympus EP-1. For all intents, this is just about there. Two control dials, one for aperture, the other for shutter speed. So darn close to what I really want, but the egronomics are off by just that much .... ( holds thumb and forefinder together )

No viewfinder, but if they had started from a FM body, that would be a given. I have an EPSON RD1, and the EP-1 would easily fit inside of it, so cramming all this stuff into an FM is not a technical challenge.

With Few exceptions, Nikon APS-C sensors are just fine for many many photographic needs, while I have had the cash laying around for FF for a while, I just cannot justify the improvment over what I get from my current stable of cameras ( Pannisong G1, Epson RD1, Nikon D300 and a Casio for high speed). The wides do suffer, but from 30mm effective up, there are few issues ..... The point of a rig like this would really be the 35mm effective 50mm anywway. Nikon is good to go from FF 20mm-100mm in legacy primes any way.

Anyone got a D40 they want to send to SK Grimes for a chop job?

Dave
 
hipsterdufus said:
Would that really be that expensive?
Click to expand...

It would. Besides, the bulk of the camera depends on the number of supported modes in a one knob per function design. Consider the price of cameras still designed to that principle (e.g. the Nikon single digit F and D series, or the Leica M's), and their size or lack of features, compared to cameras with menu style controls.
 
Market is too small for a profit no matter how cheap.

We need someone to modify and existing SLR for Leica R, mount and diaphragm automation.

In the mean time, I use viso lenses, 65 to 560, one my D700 with Camera Quest mount.

Last week I converted my 28 and 35 PC lenses with mounts from Fotodiox. There is no automation anyway on these so they work just like always. BTW, they shift just fine and illuminate the sensor just as they do with film.

The only problem is the Nikon lens files look muddy in comparison.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom