You are assuming they want to make a body for manual focus lenses and do not want to provide a big battery. There are a few technical obstacles I would think or we would have seen it done by someone already.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
John, as you know, the Fuji X-E line of cameras provide quite a lot of capability within the svelte form of the Nikon FE style body (i.e. small-ish battery).
willie_901
Veteran
Even if Nikon decides to market this camera, based on every camera design since the D100, it's unlikely those who enjoy manual focusing will enjoy this camera.
Right, and it's APSC... we've seen numerous APSC small cameras. However, DSLR form factor is fat for some reason... why? Is it based on how far these lenses must be away from the sensor to work properly? The mirror box? Mirrorless has helped that, but the grip is a huge part of the appeal of these cameras now. Believe me, people who don't like grips are far outnumbered by those who do. Also, some people actually like big cameras. Could they do it? probably... will they? nope. Small mirrorless cameras are out there, but small full frame DSLRs are not. A true Nikon FM/FE style body is an SLR.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Many of these ideas seem sort of the same, no offense meant. How about Nikon making a full frame, smallish mirrorless M mount body? That solves all the “the mount and resulting lenses are too big” complaints. And they wouldn’t need to devote resources to making an entire new lens array unless they wanted to, nor would they have to listen to people braying “there are not enough lenses” for the mount. There are many non-Leica companies, which have made M mount bodies, so there’s no inherent practical reason Nikon couldn’t. Nikon could, and would, make one with a better sensor than whatever the concurrent Leica generations are, as they always have done so, and it would be half the price. Seems like a win-win. Put a red scale elmar on it and, presto, retro.
And, no, “Nikon wouldn’t be able to figure out the sensor microlenses” is not a reality.
Corporate pride kills this idea, I’d guess. Then again, they did make ltm lenses, so maybe not.
And, no, “Nikon wouldn’t be able to figure out the sensor microlenses” is not a reality.
Corporate pride kills this idea, I’d guess. Then again, they did make ltm lenses, so maybe not.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Hey Larry, Nikon already does make a mirrorless camera that fits M mount lenses, the Z6 & Z7 and their successors. I've been using my Z6 with Nikkor rangefinder and Leica rangefinder lenses for over two years now. Unfortunately for my M9 and Monochrom, the Z6 just seems to do a better job.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Tim,
Oh, I know. I use M lenses on my Z7, and, other than anything wider than a 50, they work better on the Z7 with an adapter than they did on the Leica SL I had. Regardless of the supposed benefits of the in body profiles the SL provided. Am also finding that they seem to work better on the Z7 than on a recently acquired M246, but not quite sure of that yet. That might not be “better”, but just equally as good, but different.
But, a Nikon M mount body could dispense with the adapter, and perfectly utilize all the wides as well. Focus peaking without a Visoflex. No need for an external viewfinder for any focal length. Etc.
I wish Nikon, or Canon, or Fuji would do this. You’d miss the “rangefinder experience”, if that’s the kind of thing one would miss, but the photographic experience might be pretty nice.
Just a thought.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I figure the total market for more seriously de-featured, classic-style digital cameras is tiny and easily saturated. But the market for practical modern cameras with a classic vibe is somewhat larger, even if, or because, they have control wheels, 4K video and an LCD.
Highway 61
Revisited
They can very well make a small, sleek FF DSLR body for AF lenses also accepting Ai and Ai-S lenses, with at last a good 100% VF (no ridiculous dioptric correction gadget but a high magnification instead, like before) with real interchangeable focusing screens and a metal shell with very few buttons, control screens and knobs. No pop-up flash, no video, no live-view. Mechanical, not motor-powered DOF button. No molded plastic everywhere, no huge grip. Etc. The big battery is a no-concern thing. Small batteries made today are as powerful as big batteries made ten years ago. And a DSLR requires way less energy than a mirrorless body with an EVF.
The lone obstacles are marketing rules. No, we wouldn't have seen it done by someone already because the only company which could do it was Nikon, because of all their legacy MF lenses still out there (and still produced new, for some of them, until recently). But, Nikon will never make it. So, we will never see it.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
The problem with Nikon making a digital SLR that exactly mimics the size and shooting experience of its film SLRs is that such a camera would be a tiny niche market item and would have to sell for $2,500 or more. Plus, everybody who would be interested in such a camera probably has a shelf full of 35mm SLRs already, and $2,500 buys a lot of film and developing.
shawn
Veteran
I doubt it is corporate pride that would kill this. I think it would be more of the body being the razor, the lenses are the blades. That is why they wouldn't do it.
Shawn
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
For sure, that’s possible. It wasn’t that I thought it would happen, more that I thought it would be nice. Nice for me, maybe not for them.
Still the blade/ razor marketing analogy only applies if Nikon doesn’t make, or actually loses, money on bodies and make a profit on lenses only. The answer to which I don’t know.
But, sure, I understand it’s not happening. Just daydreaming.
Highway 61
Revisited
Your post is borderline of the ex aeternum old and irrelevant "film vs digital" debate so I don't know whether it's worth an answer or not, but let me make you notice that times have changed since the Kodachrome blessed era, and that any serious approach of color photography nowadays cannot go through film like it did before. I don't know which normal people would spend $2,500 at the poor color films market we're left with, and at the as poor quality developing job the few remaining labs now screw us with, and for very high prices.
So, "film photography" nowadays almost means "black and white film photography with home processing 100% from developing to printing", which is a bit different isn't it. As for the $2,500 retail price of the daydreaming camera Nikon will never make although they could very well have made it to stand out of the plastic fantastic world : it's probably in the good ballpark, true, and, by the way, the goofy Df was more expensive than that when it got marketed, it's not cheap, true again, but if you consider the price of the Leica M10, well, it's 50% cheaper.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
This is an interesting comment. Of the film photographers I actually know (most of whom are 'digital natives'), I'd say the vast majority shoot colour neg and get a lab to develop and scan. Few are shooting black and white, fewer are developing their own, and far far fewer are doing darkroom prints.
In my experience 'film photography' nowadays means a 'Portra400 two stops over with lab scans shared to IG/FB'.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Highway 61 and nickthetasmaniac—I don't disagree with anything you are saying. I certainly did not mean to ignite any "film vs. digital" debate; I have both, use both, and like both, although I consider myself more of a film shooter than digital shooter. Most of my film shooting is black-and-white. With respect to color, while I don't know that I would describe current color films as poor, I'm not particularly wowed by any of them and if I was pursuing color photography as a serious endeavor (which I'm not), I would definitely choose digital. Frankly, if the price increases in black-and-white film (approximately 30% increase in the last 18 months or so alone) continue, I will probably start shooting digital more in the future. Even if I don't particularly enjoy the experience of shooting digital, my Nikon DSLRs get the job done.
My point, which I probably did not articulate very well, was that I don't know how much sense it would make for Nikon to invest heavily in a DSLR that recreates the experience of shooting a film camera when everyone who wants the experience of shooting a film camera already has one or can acquire one for 1/10th the likely cost of an "analog experience" digital camera. Or to look at it another way, if you want the "analog experience" and need digital output, then instead of buying a Df or our hypothetical new and improved "analog experience" niche market digital camera for $2,500–$3,000, you could buy a D750 or D780 and have enough left over to buy a real analog camera and a good supply of film.
My point, which I probably did not articulate very well, was that I don't know how much sense it would make for Nikon to invest heavily in a DSLR that recreates the experience of shooting a film camera when everyone who wants the experience of shooting a film camera already has one or can acquire one for 1/10th the likely cost of an "analog experience" digital camera. Or to look at it another way, if you want the "analog experience" and need digital output, then instead of buying a Df or our hypothetical new and improved "analog experience" niche market digital camera for $2,500–$3,000, you could buy a D750 or D780 and have enough left over to buy a real analog camera and a good supply of film.
kram
Well-known
A new Nikon F7 would supply the retro film experiance, for those that want that. and a state of the art film camera for those that want that, a doubl bubble, and cheaper than a new film Leica: 
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
The things that we have imagined here in this thread will, almost assuredly, prove to have been much more interesting than anything any large corporate entity will be willing to produce.
If this were an automotive forum, in response to hints about “something different”, we’d have been the ones speculating about, not only flying cars, but what kind of flying car, two passenger or four passenger, convertible or coupe. If Nikon does anything, which they likely will since they’ve teased it, we’re likely to be solidly underwhelmed. The only things “retro” enough to be stunning are too impractical for any company to contemplate, though we are free to. As we’ve shown.
If this were an automotive forum, in response to hints about “something different”, we’d have been the ones speculating about, not only flying cars, but what kind of flying car, two passenger or four passenger, convertible or coupe. If Nikon does anything, which they likely will since they’ve teased it, we’re likely to be solidly underwhelmed. The only things “retro” enough to be stunning are too impractical for any company to contemplate, though we are free to. As we’ve shown.
Highway 61
Revisited
Looks like you've not gotten it yet. It's not a matter of mimicking the "analog experience" (a concept which would still need to be defined, by the way) with digital output, it's a matter of using a FF DSLR being a bit smaller, thanks to no useless gadgets and redundant buttons arrays, and at last an excellent viewfinder up to the normal 1960-1990 standards for normal people SLRs, instead of using a DSLR being bulky for no good reason and with lots of useless gadgets, and still a mediocre "tunnel like" viewfinder with too bright a focusing screen not allowing critical manual focusing. I have a D610 (same sensor, same body size, same viewfinder as the D750 and also the Df) so I know what I'm talking about. It's a remarkable FF DSLR with the same sensor as the one of the Leica M240 for a fraction of the price of the latter, my Ai and Ai-S Nikkor lenses perform outstandingly well on it, but each time I look through my old Nikon F2 viewfinder I am shocked with what Nikon have installed behind the eyepiece of their FF DSLRs. Take a Nikon F2 body, whatever the prism is installed on it, DE-1 plain prism or Photomic series, this is the same thing you will see in it but for the meter needle / LEDs (or not), install a Nikon F4 "Type R" focusing screen in it, look through that "old" viewfinder and compare with what you see in your DSLR, especially if you wear glasses. This is day and night even if you look through the VFs of the most expensive FF DSLRs made by Nikon today, D850, D6 etc.
olakiril
Well-known
My experience is exactly like yours. Even though getting such an OVF seems unlikely, having EVFs that get close to that experience is quite possible (see Sony A1, A7sIII).
Looks like Nikon is going for a budget oriented APS-C line to compete with Fuji so I wouldn't bet on the new camera getting a great EVF.
kram
Well-known
Looks like I am sticking to my F2S and F6 . I have sussed it, retro inspired will mean chunky dials and thats it.
. I have sussed it, retro inspired will mean chunky dials and thats it.