Nikon retro-inspired camera

[Disappointed_Horse]

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.

Ah, now I think I get where you're coming from. You have the advantage of me, as I do not have a FF DSLR to compare with my 35mm SLRs. The viewfinders of my APS-C DSLRs are indeed shockingly small and dim compared to my FEs, but I always assumed the FF DSLRs were much better in this regard.

I would totally be down with a less bulky FF DSLR with a better viewfinder and no useless gadgets (which, for me, would be all of the video features packed into every camera theses days). With respect to size and weight, I think part of the reason Nikon's (and I guess all the other manufacturers') DSLRs are so bulky is that when the DSLRs were first designed, the size parameters were based on the F5 and F100. Having to pack in four to eight AA batteries resulted in big beefy bodies. With today's battery technology, I would think it would be possible to get decent performance/battery life with much less volume. Especially if the camera were designed for manual focus lenses (which of course will never happen).

 

[Armoured]

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.

On a slightly different angle/approach to this issue:

-My understanding is that mirrorless cameras are easier to build in a mechanical sense - more amenable to automated manufacture within very good tolerances - just as building a rangefinder with critical focus is physically extremely demanding.
-As you note, viewfinder experience can be 'upgraded' to handle manual lenses (software, not a different bright focusing screen that works for autofocus but not well for the human eye).
-Would it be a 'niche' camera? Sure. But nowadays, arguably most of the ILC camera ranges are niche. If it's a niche that is willing to pay a significant margin - welcome aboard! (And a bit like Sony, these are cameras that often share a large percentage of their components and so the A7miiiDelta4 - well, you can keep producing that for ages at the right cost...)

-Razors vs the blades: yep, I bet Nikon would make a lot more money from customers buying their lenses rather than the camera. But just as with razor blades - the whole game is the lock-in.

I am willing to bet real money that a very large percentage of those who buy a Nikon Z-series (niche or retro or whatever) with the INTENTION of using all their manual lenses, M-mount or whatever would buy a REAL z-series lens once every year or so. (And probably use the native Z lenses 80%+ of the time for actual photography).

Nikon is still capable of producing some pretty fantastic lenses. And I bet the people who buy too many lenses in various mounts (like people here, hint, hint) are exactly the ones you REALLY want to lock into your mount.

I am guessing that Nikon has learned a different lesson than what many expect from their success in the volume-driven digital market of the last 20 years or so: That competing to sell a ton of d3XXX aps-c who never buy another lens is actually a pretty crappy business; high volumes, not great margins, and customers who will never buy another lens after their kit lens. (And that those customers - one-time customers anyway - are now using their phones and most of them will never bother with a real camera again)

There are a fair number of risks and downsides to this approach - Nikon could really screw it up, definitely - but in one respect it seems to me they've learned a lesson that is very different than Nikon's history in mass-market - that they can get killed in mass-market consumer electronics.

I mean hey - if it's mass-market consumer electronics, Sony has deeper pockets.

Anyway I don't find this retro camera idea crazy - It's high-end based off of lenses and 'enough' electronics and automation rather than hand-building stuff.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Pentax can still do it... but good point about Nikon. I agree that it can be done, but I’m just not sure it’s easy as people think... and I still think it would be fatter than its film counterpart just due to battery size (i.e. bigger than two watch batteries) and the sensor and electronics (bigger than film).

 

[olakiril]

I agree that it can be done, but I’m just not sure it’s easy as people think... and I still think it would be fatter than its film counterpart just due to battery size (i.e. bigger than two watch batteries) and the sensor and electronics (bigger than film).

If they omit the back LCD, then it should be barely thicker than the film pressure plate of most SLRs.

Here is a video of RX1 being put together and you can see how small the sensor+processing electronics can be:
https://youtu.be/3ccFdB91siY?t=127

 

[JeffS7444]

As of 2021, products comparable to Sony RX1 and Leica M10 are maybe not the wisest use of Nikon's resources: Delight a handful of well-heeled enthusiasts at the expense of neglecting the Z-mount, which has potential for a lot more buyers? Perhaps best not to go there until company fortunes are more robust.

You can make a thin camera with large sensor if you are willing to sacrifice battery life and live with some overheating.

 

[agentlossing]

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'.

Film photography today should be more of what I do: 99% black and white, cheaper film stocks, self-develop and scan negatives. I think I have it down to the quickest and easiest ways to get what I want out of it. Darkroom prints would be nice but I don't have the space or time for an enlarger right now.

The silly overemphasis on "film colors" is a passing fad, based on the popularity of filter software like VSCO and Fuji's JPEG marketing, it's been a trend that's gathered steam for a decade or more, but it does bring some people into authentic enjoyment of film, so we can't snark at it too hard.

 

[gavinlg]

It's real.

I'm crossing my fingers that it's a full frame body, not APS-C. They may have done it APS-C to be able to leverage smaller lenses to suit the body.

 

[JeffS7444]

It's real.

Looks like a Fujifilm X-Pro exposure compensation dial, right down to the backwards "C", what are the odds?

 

[jsrockit]

Hmmm, who’s the original source (not Nikon rumors)? Looks fake unfortunately.

 

[gavinlg]

Looks like a Fujifilm X-Pro exposure compensation dial, right down to the backwards "C", what are the odds?

Hmmm, who’s the original source (not Nikon rumors)? Looks fake unfortunately.

I'm thinking it might be real guys, I went and double checked all the exposure comp dials on the later Fuji bodies and none of their specific markings match up exactly to the one on the Nikon. And check the little metal cutout on the rim of the shutter speed dial between 1/8 and 1/15 second - not present on the DF. These would be pretty specific things to photoshop in...

 

[shawn]

I'm thinking it might be real guys, I went and double checked all the exposure comp dials on the later Fuji bodies and none of their specific markings match up exactly to the one on the Nikon. And check the little metal cutout on the rim of the shutter speed dial between 1/8 and 1/15 second - not present on the DF. These would be pretty specific things to photoshop in...

But also looking at the exposure compensation dial the face doesn't look like it is centered in the chrome ring. More scrunched on the + side and too far from the side on the - side.

Shawn

 

[lcpr]

Apparently it’s going to be a DX/APS-C body? Disappointing if true, might as well stick with Fuji if that’s the case.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I’ll believe this when I see an official announcement from Nikon.

If it is legit, I think including video is a categorical error.

 

[jsrockit]

I have no issue with it being APSC, but then they have to make lenses for it. As far as video, how could they not add it? It’s in every single camera these days that’s not a Leica. It’s standard...

 

[lcpr]

I have no issue with it being APSC, but then they have to make lenses for it. As far as video, how could they not add it? It’s in every single camera these days that’s not a Leica. It’s standard...

Oh I have no problem with APS-C, it’s like you said, the lenses. If it’s full frame it’ll be a straight swap for my FM3A, I can use my CV 40mm and Nikon 28mm AIS. But Fuji (which I also shoot) have the best APS-C lenses out there and I don’t really see a reason to move from them to this rumoured body.

 

[Archlich]

The mount will be gigantic compared to the body.

 

[jsrockit]

The mount will be gigantic compared to the body.

Like the Z50?

 

[olakiril]

But Fuji (which I also shoot) have the best APS-C lenses out there and I don’t really see a reason to move from them to this rumoured body.

Won't disagree with the quality of the Fuji lenses, but the manual focus implementation in most of their lenses is a big reason for me not going all in on Fuji. Doubt it will different with Nikon.

 

[farlymac]

It's real.

I'm crossing my fingers that it's a full frame body, not APS-C. They may have done it APS-C to be able to leverage smaller lenses to suit the body.

What we have to remind ourselves here is that the creator of this image states it is a mock-up, not a real camera. He has posted several other images, some showing the full top, and some with lenses mounted for comparison (Z and F/FTZ). Even a couple with rewind cranks (miniature generator for when the battery dies?).

His later images delete the crank, but it shows he is just putting things together to get an idea of what Nikon might come out with. None of it is official, but is generating a lot of comments which hopefully Nikon will take into consideration.

If it is an APS-C model, and all indications point to that, then at least I have a nice group of DX lenses I'd be able to use on it. So do I wait for this to make the light of day, or go ahead and upgrade from the D300s by purchasing a Z50 and FTZ now? Or maybe a Z5 and give up on the APS-C system? I like the thought of not having to buy in to what would be a whole new system for me at this late stage of my life by going Z FX because I currently don't have many lenses (if any) that could take advantage of the mount (I'm using D lenses on the D610).

But if the retro is a DX body, I could justify it as a back-up to a Z50 as I would still be using the FTZ. I just wouldn't want to buy one right away until all the bugs are worked out of the body first.

PF

 

[jsrockit]

Won't disagree with the quality of the Fuji lenses, but the manual focus implementation in most of their lenses is a big reason for me not going all in on Fuji. Doubt it will different with Nikon.

Yet Fuji makes a few lenses with a manual focus clutch which you can’t really say about anyone else...