Sorry, but knowledgeable digital RF rumour...

[kjoosten]

Thom Hogan's 2009 predictions:

A limited edition Nikon: [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]likely a D3 sensor in an SP-like camera, but a possibility of a D3 sensor in a Nikon F 50th anniversary body. Potentially both.[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Likely a 10,000 copy run, mostly sold in Japan[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Very high price, probably the highest-priced Nikon ever[/FONT]

http://www.bythom.com/2009predictions.htm

 

[amateriat]

A nice thought, however (un)likely and/or simply unaffordable. I do like that kind of audacity, though.


- Barrett

 

[dazedgonebye]

I can't believe that ... I'm going to check and see what Ken Rockwell says! 😛

Rockwell went back to film recently. He'll just tell you how useless such a camera would be.

 

[Burlap Jacket]

I guess if it's a limited run it will probably be S mount and not M mount. Too bad (not that I could afford it anyways).

 

[Roger Hicks]

A D3 sensor in an F-like body is one thing; it is quite another to develop a whole new technology (or greatly to extend the existing Kodak/Leica technology) to allow full-frame with a short flange-to-film distance, and then only make a limited run of cameras.

Edotors love end-of-year predictions, and journalists sometimes catch the disease from them. I've been asked to write many over the years. Mostly they are either statements of the obvious, or wild fantasies. Either way, their entertainment value tends to be higher than their predictive value, and to lie in the author's skill as a writer rather than as a soothsayer.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[fergus]

Hasn't there been some type of hint-advertising by Nikon about 'something big' that is coming and will be released in February 09 at a conference? I might have read that somewhere here in the forums, can't remember.

 

[infrequent]

A D3 sensor in an F-like body is one thing; it is quite another to develop a whole new technology (or greatly to extend the existing Kodak/Leica technology) to allow full-frame with a short flange-to-film distance, and then only make a limited run of cameras.

Edotors love end-of-year predictions, and journalists sometimes catch the disease from them. I've been asked to write many over the years. Mostly they are either statements of the obvious, or wild fantasies. Either way, their entertainment value tends to be higher than their predictive value, and to lie in the author's skill as a writer rather than as a soothsayer.

Cheers,

Roger

kinda like your prediction of leica never producing a dMF?!

 

[Fred Burton]

I'm not sure "digital medium format" means any more than "digital 35mm." That said, Leica's timing for introducing the big slr doesn't bode very well for its success. The recession has got to take a lot of the wind out of those sails.

 

[Roger Hicks]

kinda like your prediction of leica never producing a dMF?!

Not quite the same thing, because the technology of digital MFs existed already. I said I'd be surprised, and I was.

But the technology of FF (24x36) RFs doesn't, and the idea of developing something that expensive, just for a limited edition, seems odd.

Sure, I can be wrong. So can he...

Cheers,

R.

 

[wintoid]

The RD1 was a run of 10000 wasn't it? If so, sounds like there'd be no shortage.

 

[NIKON KIU]

Not quite the same thing, because the technology of digital MFs existed already. I said I'd be surprised, and I was.

But the technology of FF (24x36) RFs doesn't, and the idea of developing something that expensive, just for a limited edition, seems odd.

Sure, I can be wrong. So can he...

Cheers,

R.

Back in the 1990s, Nikon & Fuji developed a full frame digital camera, it was crude and inefficient but never-the less it was full frame!
Didn't sell too well either as the price was beyond the reach of most Photo junkies.

Picture courtesy of Nikonweb.com


The technology may not be available now but you never know what engineers could come up with to overcome "impossible" as we think of it today.
I am not much of an engineer but I can have wild imagination, sometimes that's all it takes for those engineers.

Kiu

 

[M. Valdemar]

That was not really full frame, it used an internal lens to reduce the image to fit the sensor.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am not much of an engineer but I can have wild imagination, sometimes that's all it takes for those engineers.

Kiu

Not really. The laws of physics have a say too. Flange-to-film (sorry, flange-to-sensor) distance is the important bit. Look at the depth of that body!

Yes, the difficulties can be overcome. But to do so is not a trivial exercise, and to overcome it for a limited-production camera seems unlikely.

As I say, I could be wrong. It's happened often enough before. But I'll go with the probabilities.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[BillBingham2]

The form-factor was not a traditional 35mm SLR. Much more MF SLR (e.g. M645).

What would you call Leica's first digital?

You could do a FF DRF but the size of the lenses would be very different from film. Take a look at the first generation of the ZM glass, large (longer) for it's focal length when compared to CV glass.

B2 (;->

 

[kbg32]

Always a great thing when something special hits the market when the chips are down.

 

[BillBingham2]

....Yes, the difficulties can be overcome. But to do so is not a trivial exercise, and to overcome it for a limited-production camera seems unlikely......

What about the way the viewfinder was with the Pen F? I wonder about a using a mirror to bend the light to the side rather than just straight back?

B2 (;->

 

[Roger Hicks]

What about the way the viewfinder was with the Pen F? I wonder about a using a mirror to bend the light to the side rather than just straight back?

B2 (;->

Dear Bill,

If you have a swinging (or even fixed) mirror, how much does it matter where the sensor is? The mirror box will be much the same size anyway. All you're suggesting here is replacing the focusing screen of an SLR with a sensor.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The form-factor was not a traditional 35mm SLR. Much more MF SLR (e.g. M645).

What would you call Leica's first digital?

You could do a FF DRF but the size of the lenses would be very different from film. Take a look at the first generation of the ZM glass, large (longer) for it's focal length when compared to CV glass.

B2 (;->

Dear Bill,

No, they'd just be further away. Build an RF body as deep as a Nikon (43.5mm flange-to-film/sensor, from memory, over 50% deeper than M flange-to-film/sensor -- or is it 46.5mm?); put a cam on the Nikkors; add a rangefinder...

Uncomfortably big camera, though.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mackinaw]

The RD1 was a run of 10000 wasn't it? If so, sounds like there'd be no shortage.

It also took Epson several years to sell these 10,000 cameras.

Jim B.

 

[NIKON KIU]

It also took Epson several years to sell these 10,000 cameras.

Jim B.

Look at the Nikon S3 2000,many are still available. Didn't stop Nikon from expanding to the Nikon SP of 2005.
As Fred said, Nikon is known to do FUNNY(Cool in my opinion) things!

Kiu