Nikon Digital RF - again.....???

snegron said:
Not to start a Nikon vs. Leica (or Contax) war, but there are already digital rangefinders on the market (Leica M8 and Epson's RD-1), so all Nikon would have to do is copy and modify the designs as it did with its original film rangefinder series.

As far as full frame goes, I would not see that as a problem if Nikon changes to a new lens mount instead of trying to revive the S mount. For that matter, Nikon could team up with Zeiss (better known as Cossina) and have them produce an exclusive new lens line up for the new rangefinder. If these new lenses have the Zeiss name stamped on them, most people will think they are quality optics.
Click to expand...

Unlike developing a roll of film, development of anything high tech requires long lead time and financial commitment. A company CEO , after board appropriation of seed/full budget [from operating profits or external/market financing] will have to see it through, raising more capital if necessary. [I know...been there, done that.] If you target Photokina 2010, starting now is already too late.

While it might be true that under yesterday's atmosphere in Wall Street financing is more difficult, but not impossible. Japanese investment mentality is far more long term than the Wall Street buy-today-sell-tomorrow finance geek mentality. If not, the Japanese would never have developed many of the wonderful things we now enjoy...or even dug themselves out of the hole after WWII. [The yen, a word meaning a round dollar, became a cent because of the war, not the A-bomb.]

Case in point, flat panel TV development started in the ugly eighties...debuted only in mid-nineties at $16,000 for a 42" model. I was there.

Developing a digital camera begins by addressing:
  1. Is there a sensor available?
  2. Is there a post-processing engine adaptable?
  3. Are there lenses with even enough illumination? [knowing full well that a stop or so might be lost to the cosine law and CCD shadow effects...]
Thankfully, memory chips, rechargeable batteries, LCD screens etc. are now proven commodities.

Nikon has access to DX and FX-size CCD chips, also owns the Expeed post-processing engine in-a-chip, has a full arsenal of F-mount lenses or knows how to make new ones. And, of course, has assured suppliers of CF/SD memory chips, lithium-ion batteries, best LCD screens...

The debate of whether the M-mount is more suitable than the S-mount or the F-mount or even the M43-mount is silly. Nikon can make and promote a new N-mount if they want...any time. The small die-hard legend of Leica worshipers is not a worthy target market anyway.

I personally believe Cosina could have emerge as DRF market leader if they had seized this market vacuum...upon the development success of the RD-1. Yes, Kobayashi-san would have to negotiate serious financing, and might even have to sell a piece of its own future to get it. To do nothing is simply unwise...or was it that he will sell no wine before its time.

If I worked in Nikon or CV engineering department, I would have, on my own dime/time, graft some left over digital camera guts onto an F or F2 or a ZM and try it out. The metal working is easy enough. Who cares if the prototype is held together with duct tape.

As I have written elsewhere, I don't need no stinking auto-focus, auto-exposure, millions of scene-modes, and idiot-proof auto-everything else... I would simply manual focus, bracket (film is cheap:)) and use my own experience. Just imagine the CCD as piece of reusable film, however poor.

Photography had started that way long ago.
 
Hmmm...

Sorry to have been out of posting on this forum for awhile but I have been somewhat preoccupied since I sold my S3 2000. Since then, I have used my F3/T exclusively and am getting better with it. I continue to push my professional work with the D2X and D2H.

I do have a question that probably only I can answer, I suppose, but why on earth would a Nikon RF enthusiast want a digital Nikon RF? For me, part of the charm of working with the S3 2000 was the fact that it was film based and my results were different from my digital bodies.

Yes, it is smaller, it is metal, it is more fun to work with but the resulting images are the payoff and film is one of the reasons I enjoyed the S3 2000. Try as I may, I have not been able to duplicate a number of my favorite images from the S3 2000.

YMMV, and maybe you like digital images. I do too, but, the images are different and if I am going to need a small digital body, well, I have the D40 and I can get a P&S. Or if I win the lottery, I will get the M8 even though it is a bit fat.

I don't know, a digital RF just doesn't interest me at all as I enjoy the film experience. Time to go back to my dark room and dream of making it a darkroom!:angel:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom