Nikon in 2010: “We plan to surprise the market”
From an interview with Hiroshi Takashima (General Manger of Imaging Division at Nikon) at Photofair:
Q: What can we expect from Nikon in 2010?
A: We plan to surprise the market. We will concentrate only on better quality and better line-up of cameras. So you can expect surprises.
Me thinks the surprise will be the rumored Nikon EVIL system. What could be considered a “surprise” in the DSLR world?
Related posts:
- I don’t know anything about a surprise
- Interview with Nikon @ PMA 2010
- Thom Hogan working on a “special surprise book”
- Nikon press conference scheduled for February 3rd, 2010
- Nikon stock ticker, financial info missing for the US market – what’s going on here?
This entry was posted in Nikon EVIL. Bookmark the
permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
394 Comments
Great new !!!!
)
BTW, I’m firts
Bonnes nouvelles !
En passant, je suis le premier !
(My French is better than my English
même pas.
loser = perdant
hehe, reminds me of Dutch Voice-over: Arie and Bastiaan
(original, Bassie and Adriaan, some kids show)
WT???
You have to be Dutch, and look look for it on youtube
I really hope its a D900. Suspense has been killing me slowly by the day.
And for some reason, a rather popular camera store just a few blocks from where i live ran out stock for the D700 and apparently they don’t plan on bringing in anymore. They got some word from Nikon Singapore (local) to clear all stock of the D700 by the end of this month.
If Nikon wants to surprise the market – well what about two new DSLRs to the market. If I check the recent model line-up: this would surprise the market and the competition.
“Hello Nikon, please give us new models before the Winter ends.”
It would REALLY surprise me if Nikon actually gave us what we were asking for at prices we can afford and free from dust.
That would be a good surprise compared to last year.
Nikon needs to release DSLRs 1-2mth after Canon and superior to it. This way at least every 2nd year Nikon will top Canon.
Given it takes Nikon 2yrs to release a DSLR and Canon 9mths, the 7D will top the D300s series for a long time.
Since the D400 is expected end Q2, that about 2mths before Canon will do a 7D Mk2 most likely.
Yeah, and Canon would not notice that and try to adopt a different release strategy? Rather simplistic to think this would work.
But even more simplistic is the “7D tops the D300″ view. Most people upgrade to these cameras, and the actual brand selection for normal consumers is made with the more entry levels. The fact that people posting here seem to switch brands for 2 megapixels more or an extra cross-sensitive AF point, does not mean the whole market is equally insane.
Excellent post. “Equally Insane,” hehe.
It doesn’t do anyone any good to suggest that people wouldn’t or couldnt very easily switch platforms if the competition offers something better. Not that the OP made any sense. I’m just saying that most people who use a D40 don’t know how to use a DSLR. And they probably only have one lens, two at max. Its pretty easy for them to switch if they like what the other guy is offering. By the way, that kind of competition and consumer pressure is critical to keeping our chosen manufacturers in line towards doing better. It doesn’t make any sense to call people insane, when the point speaks to features and benefits as well as new customers — not just customers that switch. I don’t think Nikon is bad, they are great, of course. But they do make some bone-head moves occassionally and while i dont think the “s” vs. “x” movement is a badthing — i do believe that increasingly lax quality control, huge amounts of factory dust, and some dumb lenses will have impact on their potential market. Some people will try the other guys. Canon, for their part will screw up too. But now that Sony is in the field, its time to step things up a notch. Lowering quality control and being reaaaaally slow to adopt current technology and NEVER upgrading your software as promised OR forcing people to pay for the exact same software the competition gives away for FREE…….. well, Nikon is failing in some regards, even as it innovates in other areas. Don’t rest on your laurels, Nikon. No more dust. No more idiot lenses. For gods sake make a couple more decent P&Ss to save your reputation! And try to think about not being so poor in your software and so nickel and diming in your approach to accessories and ordinary features. Its really getting annoying. You say that people won’t switch for a couple megapixels.. but this thought goes both ways — even if there is a worse camera than Nikon — if that manufacturer offers and overall better value — no one is gonna complain over losing a couple hundred dollars to get out of a troubled system and try an alternative like Sony. Nikon needs to be aware that mature corporations in saturated industries with upcoming stars loaded in cash can easily have huge gashes taken out of their side.
If they would really surprise us they would relaunch new versions of the old old fixed focal length lenses…. A new high res video capable camera body would be how much surprise? Zero….
New DSLR are hardly a surprise, this is normal.
A DSLR that surprises? A built-in toaster? oh wait, these days… that wouldn’t surprise me. Exciting times ahead.
The Nikon D3Toast! It does everything, including toast your bread with it’s microwave emitting built in flash!
I lol’d x-D
yeah and don’t forget to set flash Channels otherwise it will toast every bread in 1 mile radius
waiting for 24 MP D700x/D900 and 18 MP D400(D95?). 24/1.4 is almost fact, 16-40/4 would match my set-up perfectly. More rumors please!
we will probably get an 18MP FF and a 16MP FX so they do not challenge the 7500$ D3X camera. Probably be 6k$ for the FF and 1600$ for the FX. My “WAG” and you can quote me as an unnamed speculation. ;- P
Ok, I’ll quote you:
‘1600$ for a 16MP FX camera’
… yeah sure! I’ll take ten!
You probably meant to type on the ‘D’ key instead of ‘F’ in your post, because you surely know that FX and FF is the same thing right?
If not, be aware that expecting a price tag of 1600$ for a Nikon FullFrame (FX) is like asking for a a reliable Canon AF… Just not gonna happen (anytime soon).
I do admire your enthusiasm though.
Why exactly can’t there be a $1600 FX camera anytime soon? Sony already has a $2000 FF camera with a magnesium body. Seems like Nikon should be able to produce a full frame version of the D90 for less than the Sony A850. Or even better yet, how about making a digital F3 for around $2000. I’d be all over that, I want FX, but I don’t want a brick of a camera as large as the D700.
they can surprise me by not being yet another year too late on delivering updated fast prime lenses. 24 35 85 105 135 and 180 all need AF-S motors and anything over 85 needs VR. It is no longer excusable, it is shameful. surprise me with that.
And you would buy all of them? Or do you just want to be entertained with new Nikon stuff? Really shameful that they don’t please you!
Mr nobody, huh has it right on the money! Nikon should be ashamed of losing its position in the world of leading edge optics!! The main reason many of us bought into the FX lineup was due to our belief the glass would follow. Granted, they did a phenominal job on their new f/2.8 zoom lenses, but where is the rest of their line up. Canon has got Nikon beaten in their selection of lenses. I also agree with huh, that any lens 85mm and up should have VR, the advantages are just too great to not have it. Owning the outstanding 135 f/2 DC lens, I know I would buy the next model if Nikon added VR II. Yes, the lens is that GOOD…As for the other focal lengths, I would prefer to see screaming FAST FX AF-S lenses, like f/1.2 at 24, 35, 50 and f/1.4 VRII at 85, 105, 135, f/2 VRII at 180. And for icing on my virtual cake, I want a super tele zoom from 300-800 at f/5.6 (like the Sigma) but with VRII and for under $7K. Naturally none of us will buy ALL of them, but I am sure enough of us would buy many of them to make it worth Nikon’s effort.
Yes nikon make us nikonians happy with 100-500 vr 2 3 or even the 300-800mm vr 3 f 5.6
Why does everyone on this website say the same BS after every posting in the comments. If you removed all the “I want…” postings there would be nothing to talk about on here.
I think it’s shameful that Nikon doesn’t just whip up new world class glass to save face. Too bad. I’m sure they could have all of those focal lengths WITH VRII and all at f/1.2 in a matter of two months, three months tops. Why does Nikon not just do what we all know they can do? Why do the engineers think they have to take years to get the optics right???????
LAME!!!! I HATE NIKON FOR BEING SLACKERS!!!!!!!!!!
Alright, I guess we (I) can’t hammer Nikon too heavily for lack of current glass. As I agree with Ron Adair about the need for them to get it right. However, with 50+ years of optics design in the same F mount, I am just a little upset that they don’t go back and dust off some of their great historical feats and refresh them by add focusing motors, new coatings, and electronics. They have had enough lead time for such development, it’s not like they just put the first full frame digital on the market today. Yes I know f/1.2 is ridculous, but hey why not, they could do it and they have done it. But in order to save them time, and still bring great stuff to market, I will revise my wish list to be more realistic.
1.) 24mm f/1.2 AF-S G ED N (with great coatings)
2.) 50mm f/1.2 AF-S G (easy update, would sell well)
3.) 85mm f/1.4 AF-S G VRII ED (easy update, would sell)
4.) 135 f/2 AF-S G VR II DC (easy update, would sell well)
They could drop the 180 f/2 since they already have the super chub at 200 f/2, they can drop the 35 f/1.2 because I can always move forward with the 24 f/1.2, they can also drop the 105 f/1.4 as I can just move forward again with the 85, or back with the 135, and finally they can also drop the 300-800 super tele, I will just buy the Sigma version.
Development of 4 lenses removed, easy upgrade paths for most others.
Again Dr. SCSI, that sounds simple enough—pull out the old designs and slap a new body on them. But then you must consider:
Internal focus? Major redesign.
Autofocus? Significant rework.
VR? Significant rework.
New Coatings? That changes lens design too (mostly because digital chips pick up different responses to the coatings than the old films)
1.2 aperture? Prepare to pay a serious premium
And this isn’t even considering the steps required for filing new patents, checking legal aspects, etc.
I could be remembering wrong, but I am pretty sure I heard that lens design can take literally years. But even more significantly, the development of a single lens can take months (or, I think I even recall hearing “years”) to fully manufacture. Either way, it’s not like companies are spitting out thousands of lenses per day. They are very limited due to the precision required to make sure the lenses are built correctly.
And yes, as soon you start talking apertures of 1.4 and 1.2 and lower, you drastically increase the number of elements you throw away due to defect. This inevitably will raise the cost of each finished unit (and the time required to make it).
So of course we can sit in our living rooms and pound away on our laptops that Nikon isn’t moving fast enough. But seriously, this crap takes time. I see a lot of parallels between winemakers and lens makers. There is a pretty big gap between the raw materials and the final product.
Ron Adair, your points are very well made and I couldn’t agree more with many of them. I too prefer the quality to quantity, otherwise I would just buy the Tokina stuff. You are right about lens design being a time consuming process which has taken years to perfect. However, computers have cut those development times down exponentially. I know that lens design used to be done on drafters tables with lots of math and science applied, and R&D was a trial and error process of hand grinding the glass to figure out what works and what doesn’t. Many decades later, we have computers which can simulate the effects of the radius cut on a lens, the effects of coatings, and how those lens elements play together. There are also new plastics with astounding optical quality that make Aspherical elements a reality in sub $1000 lenses. Every year, Nikon adds to their Knowledge Base, and they get better and faster at what they do. Also, new materials become available, new machining processes, faster processors, beter simulators all help reduce the development time of quality glass. If you take a look at all the lens patents filed for the EVIL camera, you can see they CAN bring out lenses quickly, albeit lesser quality most assured. I imagine all lens manufactures would like everyone to believe that 5 years of R&D go into every lens before they are brought to market; it helps them justify the price they charge. I think Nikon has just spread their engineers a little too thin, FX, DX, and now MX(?). But hey, they have to do what it takes to survive by keeping market share, so I guess I can’t blame them for making lenses based on economies of scale. Lets all just hope that FF trickles downward, or consumers desires for high quality FF lenses sky rocket. That way Nikon will be enticed into doing crazy stuff again, like 300 f/2!
It takes Nikon over a year just to test a lens design. Computer design and manufacture has speeded the process up, but getting the job done right takes time.
If you look at the recent Nikon lenses, they have all been superlative for the niche they are aimed at. There are inevitable compromises between cost, weight, performance and so on, but they make compromises that make sense to most of us.
If you look at the bulk of the lens demands on this site, they are for new versions of lenses that sell less than 5,000 copies a year. Maybe the fast primes will sell faster, but that 35mm f/1.8 DX has already outsold the legacy 35 f/2 AF lens.
The high end lens fan should not worry though. Within a few years they will have the DSLR field all to themselves, just like Medium Format has gone from being a snapshot format to a high end format, the same will happen with the DSLR
The first generation EVIL cameras are not going to be cheap enough or flexible enough to compete with a D5000 in the mass market. But within a couple of generations they are going to be the mass market format. The camcorder market and the still photography market will converge on the EVIL formats as the best compromise of performance and weight for 90% of use.
The EVIL format sensor is larger than typical video camera sensors. A dedicated video sensor with larger sensor sites is going to be able to easily support the type of insane ISO performance we get on the D3s. Who needs larger glass if you can get full HD resolution and ISO12800 response?
As a still format the EVIL sensor is going to support ISO 3200 or so. Which makes it like the D300, a pretty damn good camera for 95% of still shots.
And that is going to mean that the only people left using DSLRs are serious photographers. Which is why that high end glass is going to be important.
Well written Dr SCSI, I could not have said it better!
YES – we would buy ALL of them. Or most of them. And others would buy the rest. Don’t be so hateful on customer demand — its what SHOULD drive the market, not top down corporate preferences!
EXACTLY!
And that’s why you’re so wrong. The demand for primes is way way smaller than for zooms, and that’s why Nikons rather small R&D resources need to go where the market demand is – zooms.
Not that I like it that much, but we all need a financial healthy Nikon to delivers those icings on the cake.
Hey,
Many here seem to FORGET why Canon has so much problem with FOCUSING!
It is because of their focus on F-STOP superiority … duh!
Digital is NOT at the point NOW wherein you can reliably and consistently focus at F1.0 to F 1.2 … PLUS, most photographers DO NOT know how to focus at such a shallow depth of field – FACTS.
We want lots BUT can you really reliably use it or are you just dreaming?
I used the Nikon 58mm F1.2 NOCT on a F3T and F3HP years ago and trust me – razor thin focus plane.
Autofocus makes it even worse, so perhaps very few of you have used glass such as the DISCONTINUED Canon 50mm F 1.0 EOS lens. It was very hard to also focus and even when these lens do properly focus, the HUMAN EYE is now the problem as in ascertaining what you really focused on.
Cameras have become so accurate now, that perhaps WE HUMANS need an upgrade in our eyes and brain … LOL!
I’ve used over the years Nikon’s fast as well as ’slower’ glass and trust me, the faster glass is more difficult to use and PROPERLY get in focus. THIS has not changed in digital – facts!
I have used and looked through the 85 F1.4, 105 F1.8, 135 F2.0 (not the DC version) and my favorite 180 F2.8 ED plus the 200 F2.0 and even the 300 F2.0 -all difficult to shoot with BUT superb optics.
It takes time to UPGRADE digital cameras to do in autofocus mode what a skilled human can do with a fast prime PLUS now cameras are so fast that we humans need to be a better interface to the camera body as in interacting PLUS reacting to these new capabilities.
Anyone looked at the Canon video examples and realized that the persons who photographed/videographed lots of their examples DID NOT know about the PROPER F-stop to use for VIDEO??? I downloaded and looked at them myself!
You do NOT use F1.2 or F1.4 for much in video or it will be a blurry out of focus MESS (or just a small center portion is really in focus), as Canon aptly demonstrated. You use the F-stop required to increase the PLANE of focus needed to bring all things in focus in VIDEO.
LOWER F-stop for single subjects that FILL THE FRAME and HIGHER F-stops for multiple items or things that DO NOT fill the frame.
Learn that, perhaps!
Nikon KNOWS this while Canon seems clueless!!!
Photography and Videography are almost polar opposites in their F-Stop requirements and since I have done BOTH, I support Nikon’s approach.
24 fps is actually superior to higher frame rates in FILMING as we NO LONGER have analog Broadcast video which needed the higher frame rate to SYNC with the 60 hertz or cycle power in America.
Canon is pushing OLD ideals as attributes and most buy this, as they DO NOT know about VIDEO or Film making. Now, you see Canon backtracking and giving us 24 frames per second ALSO.
I’d like a 28mm f/1.4 AF-S at reasonable price.
Sweet dreams
Or Nikon could surprise us with a rocket high price
LOL.. no.. thats the trend. It wouldn’t be surprising.
I have just bought the 180 ED-IF, obviously not intending to buy the futuristic AF-S version any time soon. AF speed aside, which is not bad at all, focusing accuracy is very high and IQ is superb. One could only want marginally more.
But I would be pleasantly surprised if I see the 105 & 135 DC updated — not as much for a new AF-S but rather a correct and precise focusing (which is more important for those two lenses.) That, with a slightly better IQ wide open would let me bye right away a second copy (I’ve already got the 105 DC!)
Do you own any of those lenses? Then you probably won’t in the future, even if they do release them. If you realized how useful they were, you’d be using them now.
I’ve got all the glass I need/want. If they come up with something interesting to replace what I’ve got, I won’t complain.
I’d love it if Nikon made a 17mm PC-E. But if I really needed it today, I’d just buy or rent a 5d mkii and the 17 TS-E.
How many of y’all are asking for new versions of stuff that you don’t have the old version of? Hmmmm?
Now a new body…that IS needed.
Micah, being a new (started two years ago) serious amature photographer, I have quickly aquired some top Nikon glass. As I love low light photography, I naturally want ever faster glass, or insane ISOs that are actually useable. Since fast zooms are limited and quite costly, I would like to see Nikon update their primes to cover those same focal lengths, but at a 1 stop or more advantage. Yes, I am asking for versions of stuff I don’t even have the old version of, primarily because I don’t like buying outdated technology, or the older stuff just isn’t available anymore (think 28mm f/1.4). But I also have older primes like the 50 f/1.4 and the 135 f/2 DC. My most frustrating experience in buying Nikon has been the fact that my 70-200 f/2.8 VR I bought early last year was refreshed late last year. My latest aquisition, a 24-70 f/2.8 USED, because it has more value that way and I was afraid Nikon might refresh that one too. I think there are many users out there that are taking the wait and see approach, because they realize Nikon is overdue for product refresh in several of their lenses. Now a 17mm PC-E sounds interesting, but it also sounds insanely expensive as it already costs nearly $2k for the 24mm PC-E. A new camera body??? What do you want it to be? I think their line-up is pretty good now; the only thing I foresee Nikon doing in the near future is a D700X or D700S model. Price points, $4300 and $3200 respectively. A D4 won’t be anounced until Photokina in Europe in the Fall, with availability sometime in 2011, price point (if Dollar/Yen stay the same) $5400. Personally, I want to see the future D900XS at 18MP, with a MAX USEABLE ISO up to 12800, basically 1 stop under whatever Nikon says the top native ISO is. Never having done 35mm film beyond point and shoot cameras, I can’t trully appreciate the ISO capabilities Nikon cameras have brought to the table. I have been spoiled with the D3 and in my opinion Nikon’s published top native ISO of 6400 is overrated; it is too grainy to be useable, thus my term “MAX USEABLE ISO”.
I love buying used glass! I almost never lose money on lenses! It’s the smartest way to go. I’ve owned around 30 lenses in the past ten years and only bought 5 new. Every time I sell a used lens I break even or better.
I have only used the D3 in the studio and full daylight, so I can’t speak to the the higher ISOs there. But my D700 is excellent at 6400–I don’t have to massage the images in post at all because of grain–so good! So clear! 12800 is better than 6400 on my d300/d90 and I get easily useable results there as well. 25,600 is noisy rubbish unless exposed very carefully. But if done so I can make it work too. Just takes more effort.
Are you shooting JPEG or RAW? I couldn’t live with out-of-the-camera JPEGs at anything above 6400.
The 50/1.4 is still pretty good optically (I have had a couple) and the new G version is only marginally better. The old one still has the goods to get it done. If you feel the lens isn’t up to something I’m curious to hear what it is.
The 135/2 is splendidly sharp and now that I’m back to FX, it’s on my list. Screw drive lenses are quite fast on the better Nikon bodies. If I really needed it today, I’d buy it and not worry about what’s coming down the pipe.
I have the 70-200 VR as well and for what I do, I’m sticking with it and not upgrading. The extra reach when you’re close in is way more valuable to me than any sharpness gains on the newer lens. If I want to do landscape with it (which is pretty rare for me with something that long) then f4-11 are sharp enough for 24″x36″ prints.
If I had a 24mp body I’d happily dump my Sinar for good. Very happily. But I really don’t need it for my work, so a half price D3X would just make me very happy. But only happy. Doesn’t stop me from getting anything done today.
If I were you I’d jump on a D3s before the value on your body bottoms out. The files I’ve seen at 12800 and 25,600 alone are worth it. Well, worth it if you shoot ISOs that high for money.
a surprise too would be all DX lenses, woot!
Yes, Nikon will announce the roadmap for the EVIL MX system next week. Pure uninformed guess
.
I’m with you rhlpetrus, see my detailed post that substatiates your guess! The surprise will be bigger than most are expecting!
As a matter of fact, I’d like to be surprised with a couple of affordable DX wide primes.
Yeah, A 9mm 2.8 dx non-fish would we supperb!
“We plan to surprise the market. We will concentrate only on better quality and better line-up of cameras. So you can expect surprises.”
If say something like this, you’re actually admitting that your company has failed to improve their products in the past…
Nikon making that kind of leak is a little weird.
1: we will see D900/D700x at the PMA.
2: or they want us to keep the tax-back money, D900 coming this summer.
They didnt leak anything, but telling they will bring a surprise…
They also told us to expect something BIG last February. Heck, I’m *still* waiting to see what that’s s’posed to be
That was a disappointment. I suspect it was an idea that sounded great in the boardroom, but wasn’t thought out beyond that. A Blues Traveler concert? What relevance does that have to wedding photographers expecting the biggest announcement they’ve heard all decade? Too bad. It could have been a great lead in to something extraordinary.
(I do wonder if they were planning on a product launch but weren’t ready in time)
D3x is my guess (ie- your last comment). They couldn’t get it out the door in time, so they had to headline the band instead of the product. Ouch.
haven’t all of their releases recently been surprises?
who expected the .. . . .
35 1.8G in DX?
the redux of the 18-200 VR2?
the update to the 300 2.8 with VR2?
the 85 3.5 VR DX?
I mean, it’s all been a roller coaster. . .a nice one, but I think I’ll sit back and watch this develop for a bit. . .unless these bodies are high iso game changers like the D3s at a reasonable $1500 range, I’ll pass. . .
Exactly.
I don’t think people give Nikon enough credit—they’re making nice, steady progress. Additionally, they’re really setting the bar with some major steps forward. Too bad we photographers have such an insatiable appetite for so much hype and wow.
As I see it, Nikon is doing a fantastic job. Certainly they’re making more gear that I want than I can afford. And I don’t skimp.
So not upgrading their fixed focal length lenses for how many years is “a fantastic job”??? If you’re a DX shooter or just like zooms I’m sure you’re happy…
Two years since FX was introduced. Two. What are you expecting?
If Nikon were only a glass company, I’d understand your angst. But Nikon is competing in a very tight market, with huge amounts of R&D required to keep up, not just in lenses but in all sorts of tech.
Face it, digital cameras are 1000x more complex than the film cameras of last century. I’m sure Nikon is trying to figure out how to balance it all now that the game has drastically changed. That they now must put as much (or more) money into developing digital bodies as they have put into lenses in the past is a real shake up for them, I’m sure.
This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable analysis to me.
It-s not like Nikon was surprised by FX, they developed it themselves. Also before that thez had FX size film.. Hence they must know that quite a few professional shooters like to use fixed focal length lenses, still they havent upgraded many new lenses below 200mm since the film days. whereas Nikon was also famous for it’s excellent lenses back then it seems that the focus has been moved towards new camera features on the expense of for example primes. On the long term I’m not sure that is a good idea; Nikon has a reputation for pro-glass that they need to give some thoughts…. Only light has been the TS lenses…
are you crazy….?
digital cameras are far more easy to develop than film ones….consider also that most of the parts and soft are outsourcing now….think..not to mention also that most of the cameras use the same parts….in the past each camera was unice…think…
Right. Cause the F5 was remade very two years with virtually new tech. And all those processors, caches, busses, lcds, video features, blah, blah, blah. I see now how I was totally misled to believe that film bodies were actually EASIER to keep up on vs. digital bodies. I’ll try thinking next time.
“All is on the wind.”
Nikon is competing against not just traditional competitor Canon, but Sony (Minolta). Olympus, Panasonic and Pentax/Samsung among others. It is fair and accurate to say that, at the present time, only Canon represents a threat at the high end for the Pro PJ/Sports market, but all these other companies stand to siphon off sales of lesser models which contribute to the company’s bottom line and from which the company derives not just revenue, but experience in improving their design and manufacturing processes and then there is the technology that carries over (both ways). Just look at all the P&S cameras that Canon cranks out. That’s a lot of revenue to the company and a lot of customers who probably will look at Canon’s offerings first when/if they decide to move up because of a favorable experience with their P&S.
Panasonic and Samsung are a part of the new landscape of the industry (and they have considerable resources). Just look at the “hybrid” Samsung NX10. It has a 14 MP APS-C sensor, appears to be competitively priced to compete with the 4/3rds offerings and has fine IQ if one is to believe the early sample images posted. http://dica.dcinside.com/study_listN.php?id=10756&code1=23&code2=60 (down toward the bottom) True, it suffers from a limited selection of lenses at this point, but it is an example, I believe, of where Nikon should go with their EVIL project. The NX10 is not as small as the Olympus E-P2, but the potential IQ of the larger sensor provides a sufficient reason for it to justify the difference. Some people may say “both”. Frankly, the E-P2 with its pancake lens is a pocket camera whereas the NX10 would certainly take a larger pocket.
Anyway, the point is that Nikon is not just competing with Canon. If that is how they view it, they may remain competitive with Canon at the high end while losing the battle to the gathering mob of competitors who carve up the rest of the market. They may need to seek out other companies to give them access to greater choices in technology and so on. What would be so bad about working with, for example, Kodak on sensor technology and TI or someone else on DSPs and perhaps someone else on advanced processes for designing and manufacturing lenses?
And why do need those lenses updates? Do they really?
I’ve got quite some primes, oldies included, and most of them are plain excellent. And being light and small, AF-S is not going to bring all that much anyway.
Ron seems to be one of the precious few here who can think levelheaded rather than gear obsessed.
Thanks, Bla. It’s nice to hear some more of that flavor.
And for the record, I’m not saying I wouldn’t welcome the quality of the older high quality 1.4’s with the addition of some sweet AF-S and in some lenses, even VR. But it’s not like my life is over just because I have to use Nikon’s leading class lenses that also happen to be more than a few years old. It’s not like we’re talking cpu’s here that diminish in relevance within a year or two.
Its a reality that professionals will pick a fast sharp zoom over several primes. with the development of the trinity nikon has proved that zooms can meet or exceed prime performance. the people who scream for primes are on the fringe and not a main source of income for nikon. thats not to say that we wont see a few fast primes come out. but its not a priority.
well, I don’t thing you’re right about the pros using zooms fotosniper. However, I feer that you’re right about Nikon not updating them at any reasonable paste…
I know how they will surprise us. Since everyone want Nikon to make a 5D mk2 with Nikon AF and build quality.
D900 will be a 21mp camera with the same sensor as the 5d mk2 improved by Nikon.
OH ya it will support 1080p. So everyone is happy?
It says “better quality AND better line-up of cameras”
To me it goes well with tom’s prediction of the mirrorless format with a new, smaller sensor along with the renewal of the line with changes such as the D90 evolving into a D7000..
However, the “better quality” part could bring us very interesting things…
Surprises in DSLR world could be better video and more manual control over the video… or a D900 with 24mpx but with the high ISO performances of the D3s…
Even better AF, bigger viewfinder..
I would have been first post but meh.. forgot to post comment.
FYI, admin started the EVIL rumor and reported the patents with the smaller sensor and lenses months before Thom’s prediction – just check the link above
At least you didnt do first post, but you had some sensible things to tell instead
Kudos
Will a smaller sensor mean more noise and lower ISO capabilities?
Physics.
True for fixed technology, but that advances and has advanced fast lately, just check D3s at 5MP (DX crop) compared to a D40’s sensor or even Canon 7D at 18MP.
I did a quick calculation: if Canon’s 18MP APS-C sensor were cropped to a diagonal of 17mm it’d be about 7.2MP. Increase that to 8 or 10MP and you’d have a very good EVIL, better than anything we had in DX or FF just 3 years ago.
Looking at samples, Canon 7D is no dream when it comes to high ISO noise.
I understand the point you’re making about the advances in technology. Of course there will be a day when a 50mp sensor on DX looks like a dream at 102,000 ISO.
But to borrow a moment in history: 7+ years ago most of the great cameras sported a CCD sensor. However, due to the cost of manufacturing, the industry switched to the much less expensive CMOS sensor tech. However, CCD was known for being higher quality, and it has taken years for CMOS to really be able to stand up to the CCD in terms of image fidelity (color fidelity, dynamic range, etc). We’re still struggling to match the CCD read response with the current CMOS sensors, and this too will certainly get to a suitable point where CMOS is just as good or better than where we left off with the CCD.
But the point is that these things DO take a lot of time, years of research, tons of trial and error, and most of all huge amounts of money. To tell yourself that computers can do all that in a fraction of the time for next to nothing is misguided at best. Sure, many processes are hugely expedited by automated programs—but advances in technology bring other unanswered challenges as well.
Ron:
CMOS, even though in principle not as good as CCD for noise, had some advantages that eventually, letd to all dslrs using it. The main one was the read speed, since it doesn’t need the parallel read like CCD. The noise issue was dealt with using in-sensor circuitry, also something you can’t do for CCDs in the same way. The higher DR sensor out there is the D3x’s, at same level as the best MF CCDs.
Color, actually, has nothing to do with sensor technology, just quality of CFA and algorithms used to turn RGB data into pixels. The reason MF cameras tend to have better color is because they use stronger CFAs and slower algorithms, besides high grade electronic parts (actually, some of the MF sensors one sees around were designed and spec’d for military use by Kodak).
rhlpetrus—clearly you know more about sensors than I do, and I’m not afraid to admit it.
But I really hope my point isn’t lost on you or others. There still was the time when CMOS was just crap compared to CCD. That has changed, but not overnight. Of course there are advantages to both, and given enough time the disadvantages can be reduced or eliminated. Again, given enough time.
Nikon has to bump up a DSLR at least to 18MP. They need a camera with 1080HD and they need to keep it under $2,000. They also need a new FX. D700x or D900. They can’t just make Coolpix.
shmobviously dude, of course they aren’t going to JUST make some p&s.
Seriously, I love it when people tell Nikon what they need to do.
But really, chances are you’ll be disappointed, so jump now or get used to their process. For example, I would not be surprised AT ALL if they came out with the D400 and it was hitting 14mp DX. Not at all.
Nikon’s progress is all about incremental in specs, monumental on quality. If you don’t like this formula, (and prefer more of the Canon approach—exactly opposite) then you might just be more happy with Canon gear. But telling Nikon they should do this or should do that is like telling Toyota they should make more Fords.
they are telling them what to do, obviously people realize that Nikon is going to do whatever the hell they want, they just offer feedback and suggestions and all sorts of sh*t, it is what consumers do, and SOMETIMES the business listen to their consumers.
aren’t *
Reminds me of folks who come to the US from the Middle East (for example) because the US offers greater opportunities, then proceed to complain that the US isn’t more like their old country.
If you like Nikon, then realize they work in a manner different from the other players. If you don’t like Nikon and how they work, then switch. Offering feedback is one thing. Making unreasonable demands that go against the grain of the company’s philosophies and approach is just silly ludicrousness.
Telling somebody what to do implies you know better.
Most people who post here “I want 35 megapixels, APS-C sized body with D3 durability for less than 2 dollars” do not know better. They seem to believe their wish is the market. Or that people who post here represent a valuable slice of the market. Well, sorry but no. Nikon makes mistakes, but less than the average poster here (obviously including me).
+1. Órale, vato!
A surprise in the high-end DSLR-world would be a sensor that does away with the Bayer-sensor limitations. There are also limitations with the RGB color space as represented by a three-color sensor (Bayer or otherwise). If you wonder what I mean: try getting a decent image of those deep-blue Christmas lights that emit outside of the peaks of an RGB sensor. This lights are always more spectacular to the eye than what a camera can render. An expansion of the RGB space would be a real surprise.
I heard about a new 7 colour system being developed about 1 year ago, but at that time I did not think it was likely, now I’m not so sure. 1st one to the market would steal all.
7 colour system is whats being used in satellites. but they capture Infra red and ultra violet as “visible light”
It take tweaking in post, but the information is there in RAW with Adobe 1998 space.
Even the reds that looked clipped in Raw are usually all there. Just gotta know how to work with the information the camera gives ya.
It’d be nice if the profiles were more dynamic and better out of the box. Then again, I’d lose my edge if the camera did that for me, because it’d be doing it for my competition too. : D
I just want to see the 100-500mm that is rumored to come out. We already got too many bodies already (D300S and D3S?)
A few really good prime lenses and Nikon is set to go. Yea…. I was dreaming about that f1.2 or the supposed rarer f1.0 Canon prime lens….. if only Nikon made them….. 24mm 1.4 rumor is still good but faster would be even better.
idk duder, they might hold off on that. the 1.2 50mm is MF and i rarely see people using it. in this economy they are looking to produce sh*t that will fly off the shelves, not collect dust. but dont get me wrong, i’d love to see an AF-S 1.2 50mm, that’d be epic no doubt, I just have a feeling that that is the least of Nikon’s concerns. I hope I’m wrong though.
My understanding was that the reason Canon can make f/1.2 lenses is because their lens mount is slightly larger in diameter than Nikon’s.
I could be wrong.. but I think that the reason we haven’t seen f/1.2 lenses from Nikon is because they physically cannot make them and still have them fit the F mount of all our DSLR bodies.
Anyone got any thoughts on this?
I’ve heard the same thing on a podcast
I am no engineer, but I have spoken to a few, and I’ve read up what others have said about lens design/construction. The wider the aperture, the more area of the lens elements (and larger piece of glass) you end up using. As you approach the edges you greatly increase the number of points from which the real image is translated into the projected image. Here is a link to an illustration which hopefully helps explain the dynamics of what is happening when you look through your lens:
http://blog.iamron.com/photography/lens-design-is-not-trivial/
As you can see, it’s not trivial. The diagram isn’t even accounting for the variables introduced by spectrum range between the different RGB wavelengths.
I personally believe the old 70-200 2.8 VR lens is a prime example of poorer lens design. None of the samples I used were ever tack sharp, including my own copy. Comparing the old 70-200 VR to the new 70-200 VRII, it becomes clear that Nikon fixed the flaws in the new lens, and made sure the second version was done right this time.
And we wonder why it takes literally years to design a perfect lens.
Also, don’t be fooled by Canon’s 1.2 lenses. They are simply more prone to chromatic aberration when shot wide open. Canon knows most people don’t understand that at certain focal distances, those lenses CANNOT create a sharp image. I laugh when I hear things like: “the focus is so shallow, if you move a millimeter the subject is soft”. Ahhh….
Well said Ron Adair…as for your 70-200 VR issues, at what focal lengths is it soft? Short end, middle, long end, or all the above? I have the 70-200 VR, and I have yet to notice the out of focus issue yet; but then again I don’t use the lens that often.
SCSI—It was pretty much at all focal lengths, though I didn’t do strict tests. I do believe part of the problem was back focusing, which could have been the D2x/70-200 VR combination.
Still, even manually focusing I couldn’t get the same sharpness as my 80-200. I quite often got the smudgy look that I’ve seen exhibited on other sites (caused by chromatic aberration) when that lens is shot at 2.8.
I realize it’s not always reasonable to expect to shoot a lens wide open and expect tack sharp images, but I must say the 80-200 2.8, 17-55 2.8, 17-35 2.8, 28-70 2.8, etc are all excellent at wide open sharpness. The 70-200 2.8 VR seemed to be a blip in that legacy.
And lenses designed for f/1.2 usually perform less well in the best range (f/5.6-f/11) as compared to an f/1.4 or f/1.8, one has to make compromises. Besides, what’s the big difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2? Either in speed or in DoF. If that comes at expense of any IQ aspect, I’d wouldn’t get one. The Canon f/1.2 performs less well than the f/1.4 in the mid f/number range, even though in some other aspects, unrelated directly to just optical issues (like, built, bokeh and flare), it’s the best normal lens by Canon:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Ron, I went and checked your blog, unfortunately I think your diagram is over simplified with the single lens example. Nikon has a lens (200-400 f/4) with 24 optics in 17 groups to bend and shape the light the way they want. Nikon is trully the master of light, and their other division that specializes in lithography supports this claim. They are manipulating light in the 3-5 nano meter range for making highly integrated circuits, like Intel’s latest processors. I am absolutely convinced that Nikon could make insane optics (f/1.4 at 105mm for example) for the F mount with astounding quality, but I don’t think they are willing to go bankrupt doing so. Just look at SIGMA for what is possible on a Nikon F mount, 200-500mm f/2.8 (only $30K). I have seen pictures taken with that lens and they were very impressive. But at 35 pounds you either need to look like Arnold Schwartzeneger or Popeye. It is as you say, no trivial undertaking, but I don’t think it is as difficult (anymore) as everyone is led to believe.
Dr SCSI, I am hoping that people understand that the diagram is HIGHLY TRIVIAL, as the title of the diagram suggests. I realize it is being way oversimplified, but I wanted a diagram that was :
A) Readable and principle based, (not too complex for non-techies to look at)
B) Not the resolution of a D3X sensor
C) Quickly made to post to the blog so I could link to it from here
Also, realize I know next to nothing about lens design—just more than the average bloke due to my courses on lens dynamics at Brooks and my research on the web, etc. No doubt there are principles I don’t understand. But I do understand that the reason there are more than 10 elements and numerous coatings in most high quality lenses is due to the fact that when you have light at different wavelengths (between 400nm and 700nm), you have a mess when trying to resolve all of them to the same exact spot across a wide plane. It really is mindblowing.
And my diagram doesn’t even address different wavelengths of light, just light as a whole.
Ron, you are obviously much knowledgeable than I in the science behind lens making. I fall into the average bloke category.
But having a background in metrology, I understand the technological break-throughs in the last 30 years which have brought manufacturing costs down, yields up, and the time to market down. I also imagine that many of the previous complex lens problems that plauged lens designers in the film days, have been easily been corrected in the digital world. I am sure Nikon engineers are using complex tables in the camera that are auto correcting some lens imperfection, based on the lens the camera knows is attached. I’ll take your word on the complexities of bending visible light waves so that they all resolve at the desired location. I just wanted to point out that I don’t believe it takes Nikon nearly as much time to make a lens as it did 30 years ago. As for your diagram on your blog, kudos goes out to you, but you may want to take it to the next level in another follow-on diagram that highlights the complexities of multiple lenses in multiple groups. Something like that would definitely warp the heads of most people (mine included); but it would help stress your point about the complexity of lens design.
i love how you bash everyone on here as being stupid assh*les and that you are the only competent individual. narcissism for teh win. god i love photography.
ryan Loewy—
Touché on the narcissism comment; you very well could be right. I’ll take that to heart.
But I’m not here trying to tell people that they’re wrong just so I can say I’m right. I’ve spent quite a few years hearing about how Canon craps all over Nikon, and Nikon can’t hold a candle to Canon’s omnipotence. I’m sorry, but that’s just silly. Likewise, it’s just as silly to complain that Nikon isn’t doing this or that well enough. Sure, there are valid gripes. As I stated below, I would probably be as concerned as the next guy if I had purchased a 70-200 VRII for $2,500 and found it had a visible aberration inside the lens. But it doesn’t stop at concerned. It turns into a “the sky is falling” carnival. People go nuts before they even know what they should be mad about.
Likewise, so many people claim that Nikon is not doing enough to satisfy the market, but in reality it’s hard not to think that it’s the whiner’s wet dream that isn’t being satisfied. Of course you want a 30mp camera that shoots 204,000 ISO with the noise that looks like last years 400 ISO. We all do. But do you need it? Really? I am shooting pro work at 12mp just fine, and nobody is questioning my results. No doubt there are others that can truly put more, better, and bigger to good use. But when it comes down to the meat of the matter, most people’s arguments are based on sheer appetite, not need. I am just trying to balance out the silly. Sorry if that’s offensive.
Mr. Adair:
Your explanation is very troubling. You said:
” I personally believe the old 70-200 2.8 VR lens is a prime example of poorer lens design. None of the samples I used were ever tack sharp, including my own copy. Comparing the old 70-200 VR to the new 70-200 VRII, it becomes clear that Nikon fixed the flaws in the new lens, and made sure the second version was done right this time.”
Until the introduction of the 70-200 VRII, the Mark I version of the lens was considered to be among Nikon’s best. What about the other older design lenses that were not as highly regarded as 70-200 VRI? Are they worse or more “prime examples of poorer lens designs.” In other words, what you are suggesting is not buy the older lenses until they come out with the new designs.
Ubiquitous: I’m not sure I understand your question. It seems you’re extrapolating quite a bit from my post. I have not mentioned any “other older design lenses”. I was speaking strictly of the 70-200 2.8 VR (original). It was definitely not up to standard for the line of lenses it was replacing, the 80-200 2.8 series.
The 70-200 was definitely not designed as well as its predecessors. At least as far as I’ve seen the new version has significantly higher resolving power, and overall better OOF rendering and sharpness.
That’s the long and the short of what I was saying, nothing more.
Matt, D90 guy, please go take a look at an article by Ken Rockwell, as he busts this rumor with hard facts. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/f-095.htm) FYI, Nikon makes a 50mm f/1.2 lens already. Large aperatures like f/1.4 or f/1.2 are very expensive to make, especially as you increase the focal length. Its all about economics; what good does it do to introduce a lens that a.)costs more than most people earn in a week at 50mm f/1.2, b.)costs more than many people earn in a month at 85mm f/1.2, c.)costs more than many people earn in a year at 300mm f/2. or d.) the quality is sh!t, the pictures suck, and nobody buys it.
Quoting KR might not do your argument any good. Not everyone believes his opinion means much o’ anything.
It is kind of hard to argue that Nikon can’t do f/1.2 because of the lens mount, especially since they still a 50mm f/1.2 and they built an experimental 5cm f/.95. Also their most outrageous lens was probably the 300mm f/2. When you think about aperature, you should realize it is a function of the focal length. The aperature diamter = focal length of lens divided by the f stop number. So for a 300mm f/2, we would be talking about an aperature diameter of 150mm!! But since the opening diameter of the F mount isn’t 150mm, Nikon achieves wide aperatures in other means, as Ken Rockwell points out. I quote KR, because he makes much sense in many cases, especially the maximum f stop argument. Many people who don’t believe much of what KR says, is because they get turned off by his in-your-face attitude. It is his knowledge in lenses which gives him the confidence to present what he knows in the manner he does. If someone doesn’t believe him, they just need to go find substantiating facts to disprove him. Everyone needs to be civil and keep the intelectual debates going, and to continue to challenge others when they think they are wrong. But if you are going to challenge someone, at least be willing to make a case or reference someone else who has.
Not arguing your points by any means
Just saying that you presenting the facts would gather you more listeners than by mentioning KR’s name 
(just my not-so-humble opinion there, tho’)
Would love to see Nikon make some more outrageous lenses. They want to give us a “surprise?” Ok, then DO it! Surprise us! No more of the Blues Traveler bullcrap.
Point taken Fried Toast, feedback is welcome and encouraged.
Although I like to hear myself (hmmm, is that possible) blog, I often find it easier to just paste a link to someone else’s well written explanations. I just linked to KR’s website, since that article was still in my memory bank and easy to find. I doubt we will see outrageous lenses from Nikon any time soon. I think we will see high quality, reasonably priced glass, that fits well into the DSLR segments they have cut out for themselves. Just follow me down my rabbit hole for a second….think how Nikon would think, which lenses are currently available and match up to their DSLRs for the purpose in which they were built. How much inventory did Nikon have in their older style film lenses, which work perfectly well on their new digital cameras, at the point in time when Nikon released digital. “Oh crap, we have a surplus of film lenses, so lets hold off on marketing the digital lenses.” Now that the older lenses are drying up, and the customers are screaming for new glass, let us give ‘em what they ask for. 
It is a pretty silly claim, Canon once made an f/1.0 lens. It was rubbish, they changed to an f/1.2 which is much larger and more expensive than the f/1.4 that Nikon chose to sell.
There is such a thing as too little depth of field. The f/1.2 is already pretty constraining. The f/1.0 appears to have been practically useless wide open – and whats the point of having such a lens if you then stop it down?
It isn’t as if a half or a third of a stop is going to be a major game changer for low light photography. The only reason to pay $800 extra to get the f/1.4 version of the 85mm over the f/1.8 is that you want the different optical treatment, the bokeh, the depth of field. The Nikon f/1.4 is a large lens for a prime, but no bigger and a lot lighter than most zooms. The Canon f/1.2 on the other hand is a monster, it is heavier than the camera and big.
Canon has to resort to gimicks. Nikon design for what they consider the best combination of weight, size and optical performance.
A-F*CKING-MEN
Amen PHB. Sound arguments—look at my post above yours for some more technical reasons why Canon’s 1.2 lens is a misleading product, or check out my blog post here (with an illustration):
http://blog.iamron.com/photography/lens-design-is-not-trivial/
i dig this.
Whether the Canon lens has too little DOF might be debated, but posts by users I have read indicate that it is much too slow focusing and is a generally difficult lens to use well…in other words just not worth it.
Canon’s f/1.2 lens is designed to win bragging rights rather than to fulfill a photographic need.
Nikon also went after bragging rights back in the day. Only the lenses they produced tended to be exquisite pieces of engineering that were only impractical because of the insane cost and weight. Lenses like the legendary 13mm f/5.6 or the 1200-1700 zoom.
At this point, Nikon does not need to make showcase lenses designed to sell a few hundred a year. And as Canon’s efforts demonstrate, trying to make optics that extreme for a sane price merely ends up creating expensive trash.
I expect that after Nikon launches some fast primes we will see Canon launch another lens whose principal purpose is to be something that Nikon don’t make. It will sell maybe a thousand copies a year but the Canon fans will tell us that it is the absolute must-have photographic essential – much as they used to bleat on about the tilt-shift lenses.
It is really easy to make this stuff if you have computer aided design and manufacture and don’t much care about the quality of what you produce.
Well said, PHB. Well said.
Nikon plans on surprising the market by producing an FX camera called the “Kryten” that has all the episodes of “Red Dwarf” ready for instant playback. Ahhhh…nothing better than taking photos and then relaxing to some British comedies. LOL!!!
Hitting hitting the Mango Juice a little hard, Nathan?
Urrrrpppp…..
The surprise would be coolpix cameras that pro’s would actually want to buy!
The surprise would be Coolpix cameras that amateurs would want to buy!
Ha ha ha! Good one!
If he really wants to surprise the market then have Nikon come out with DSLR’s and lenses that are CHEAPER than all the competition. Would you be surprised? Heck yeah!
FFS.. bring on upgrades for the ultrafast FX lenses already. Couldn’t care less for new bodies. And don’t get me wrong, old lenses are great, especially some AI(S) lenses. But seeing how most of them being manual focus, it sometimes could be pain in the ass.
I don’t care about surprises; I am still waiting for the mid-range zoom. Why am I *not* surprised by the interview?
what “mid range zoom” do you speak of…. if Nikon doesn’t have a zoom lens that is suitable for you, I think you are being unreasonable.
24-120 mm or 35-105 mm or something similar. As it is you would need two zooms to cover this range. The 24-70 mm is too short for my needs, the 70-200 mm is too long, the 24-120 mm is, according to all reviews, a terrible lens. There is nothing usable in this range.
I would hesitate to label *anyone’s* wishes “unreasonable”. For example, I do not share the desire of many photographers for fast primes (or any primes, for that matter), yet I would never say it is “unreasonable”. It is just different from what I need.
No, VeronikaB is completely right, Nikon don’t have a standard zoom that matches the D700 body regarding size, weight, and quality.
The 24-70 is a match regarding quality. But it’s as big and heavy as a 180mm f2.8, that’s too big and heavy as a standard lens for the mid-sized body.
The 24-85 and 24-120 are matching regarding size and weight, but their quality is not in the same league as the D700.
Nikon really need a fairly compact high quality zoom, maybe 28-105 f4, with VR and Nano coating, good enough for 24mp. I hope it’s coming soon!
(28-105) That would be a very sweet lens. I have used a 35-105 in another format and always found myself wanting it to be a little bit wider. I would not argue if it came out as a 28-135, but there probably would be some compromises to get that zoom range.
The nikon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. It exists.
But oh nooooo!!! No nano coating, and you have to keep it steady yourself!
Otherwise, it’s a well regarded lens and cheap 2nd hand.
+1
Nikon will really suprise everyone (in the sense of actually releasing what has been asked for for such a long time) by selling an entire range of highest-quality F4 VR zooms at prices matching (OK, slightly more, as usual) those in the Canon lineup.
With the D700 and even more the D3s type sensors, an F4 lens is really all you need, even for most indoor photography. If things go really dark, use an 85mm F1.4 or similar, which will be better than an F2.8 zoom anyday.
But here is the problem: Nikon know that by introducing an outstanding line of F4 zooms they will immediately reduce the number of the more profitable F 2.8 zooms. And so, if we ever see an F4 line, it will probably be quite lower in quality than the F 2.8 versions. (it is just the reverse for Canon, the 70-200 F4IS being better quality @ F4 then the F2.8 versions @ F4).
Gerry, based on another post by VeronikaB, I think she is talking about an all around mid-range zoom; one (just one) you mount on an FX body, go walk about and take pictures. She asked for a 24-120, but I upped her anty to 135. I think everyone would benefit from such a lens. 24-135 with f/3.5 continuous (or f/3.5-f/4 for cost reasons) and VR II optimized for FX. FX shooters would get their all arounder, and DX shooters would get an outstanding 36-200 lens with a 1.5 stop advantage over the 18-200 at the long end. The problem with FX zooms is the weight and space factor. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a monster and the 24-70 f/2.8 is also quite large. But for outdoor, walk about shooting, most of us don’t need the f/2.8, where 1/2 stop (or even a full stop) loss would still be ok. In low light, boost your ISO and you still have a VERY capable all arounder.
A modular system DSLR
That would be a nice surprise.
(Pick your sensor)
RED
But that said it would be a surprise, and something I think Nikon could consider for its more “professional” grade of cameras.
I’ve researched the RED gear. It is video gear first, photo gear second. So it isn’t a direct comparison. A direct comparison is a Hassie H1.Yes, MF is a bit bigger, but it is a modular dslr.
Totally agree that it is video first, photo second. But if you look at what there new sensors and offerings planned for mid-2010, its getting close.
They had better…I’m ready to leave to another maker. D300s maybe??? D700 replacement with a reasonable price. or evil if it can compete or excel over the competitors.
A lens that doubles as a fleshlight.
hahahaha this! this right here!
“fleshlight”
officially rated M for Mature
So which “Nikkor fleshlight” one would you guys buy? The 35mm f1.8 or the 200mm f2 ?
well the “SURPRISE” as a bitter taste now… it really has to be “surprising” in the good way , otherwhise…
He also claimed D3000 is very well accepted camera.
Thom Hogans says “The D3000 gets the first Not Recommended rating I’ve given to a Nikon DSLR.”. Ken Rockwell says about D3000: “It’s a good camera all by itself, but it’s the worst DSLR Nikon has ever made.”
So it is just a boring PR stuff. No news.
There is a difference between the rating of reviewers and actual sales figures. I think a CEO of Nikon is more referring to the sales figures than the findings of reviewers.
I’m waiting for D90’s successor. The rest are (is) not interest me.
Haha, quite clear what he meant: the surprise will be definitely no DSLR with a higher resolution.
They will go 6MP from now on
Considering most of the interview is about the India market and the India market mostly consumes the lower end Nikon models, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the “we’ll surprise” comments. the salesman doesn’t sound too tech savvy, so a ’surprise’ by his standards is probably not much to talk about to us gearheads.
+1
This interview was specific to the Inida marked – where he says only slr is the d300 many dslrs sold in other markets may be a “surprise” to that marked.
ok for for the dslr market..but I d like to see a surprise for MY mini-market ..a little digiback that outputs .nef files…with two d3x sensors paired, 36×48 ..just a back..with various conversion options….not a complete system…but i know its impossible..given the recent interview with Mr. Tetsuro Goto..
a surprise: RAW VIDEO.
That wouldn’t be a surprise. It would be caviar.
a nice surprise would a full frame under 2k for christ’s sake. get on that sh*t.
D40s would be a nice surprise.
A suprise for me would be a smaller Body (like D90) with an FX sensor or some improvements in sensor technology like super-ccd in nikon cameras.
“We will concentrate only on better quality and better line-up of cameras. ”
give me some primes , damn it !
Yes – DX
The surprise probably is an update to the D3X and D700 along with D90. Higher resoloutions and iso for the first two, higher video and better proccessor for all of them . Maybe better iso capabilities to the D90. . D3s and D300s would remain for sport photographers pros and amateurs. Maybe an intrusion of the D3X to the medium format. D700 would replace D3X in high resoloution FX format. That is why they name it D900 and may have lower fps than the D700 so can’t compete with D3s, D300s. A cheap good quality D3x replacement. They will throw GPSin camera , wi-fi, mobile internet, mini hard-disk in modules etc.,
e-reader
mobile telephone as well lol
And I’m sure Nikon doesn’t mind losing money on the cameras, either.
Asking for higher resolution and lower noise is like asking for higher quality crap at walmart for an even lower price. Neither are likely to happen anytime soon.
Big whoop. What else is he going to say.
Yea, dandruff 70-200 VR II with focal lenth shortage was a real suprise. I hope he did not mean more of this kind of suprise.
I think the big surprise here was someone from Nikon was allowed to actually say something in public. Yeah, no more surprises like the 70-200 pixie dust.
D900
18mp FX
1080 HD
11fps
dual CF slot
That would be a suprise.
lol
MM, you just described the upcoming D4, but you forgot to mention the tilt swivel 1.2 million pixel display back with greater color bit depth. I miss tilt swivel on my D3.
Surprise? It would have to be a min-blowing announcement to be outside the realms of the imagination of the Rumors forums. Seriously, seriously crazy.
“Surprise! A Nikon EVIL!” Well no, it’s a hugely lucrative market area that someone else has already dipped their toes into first.
“Surprise! A Nikon classic manual focus digital body!” Well no, it’s a quietly lucrative market area that Leica has already dipped their toes into first (I do have my fingers crossed for this one though).
“Surprise! All the FF fast aperture lenses and f4 zooms you can eat!” Well no, it’s a moderately lucrative market area that Canon has been splashing around in on lilos, wearing pirate hats, for over a decade.
“Surprise! More pixels/better high ISO performance (delete according to personal taste), less money!” No no no no no, this is EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE EXPECTING YOU TO DO! And have been for YEARS! That is NO surprise to ANYONE!
So what’s left? Leaving Bayer? Leaving F-mount? Medium Format? 3D? A useable Coolpix (heaven forbid)? Go on Nikon, shock us. Do something revolutionary.
Well said!
+1
Well, Nikon’s very strength in this market grows from all the excellent lenses available even for newest DSLR bodies. So leaving the F-mount behind would surely be not a good idea. Even though I do not believe in a tremendous technical change, a black silicon(1) based sensor would be a great deal.
(1) http://www.sionyx.com/advantage.html
If nikon ditches the f-mount i am going to be f*cking furious, and I’m sure a good amount of other Nikon shooters would be too.
Wow. Relax. A little conjecture isn’t reason enough to get one’s panties in a bunch.
uh, it is buddy, it is. cause, apparently unlike you, i cant afford to ditch all of my glass. just cause you know how ever bit of nikon technology works in their systems doesn’t qualify you to tell me not to be pissed off at a possible mount redesign. one of the reasons i shoot nikon is that i can use older, manual focus lenses on my digital body. so, sorry, mr. know-it-all, i just can’t afford it, thus, i’d be f*cking pissed. so, please, go cry about how people here suggest things to someone who will actually care to listen. this is a rumor site. people speculate. people b*tch. people moan. get used to it. if you dont like it, don’t read/post here then.
Wow, touchy!
But yeah, of course after 50 years of keeping compatibility as much as possible, Nikon will suddenly loose the F-mount for not a single good reason on DX and FX DSLRs.
Moaning is fine, but use your brain first please, then your enormous ego does not have to take such substantial blows if somebody disagrees with your ramblings.
+2
My vote is with Thom for a Redesque modular system, thus “making obsolescence obselete.”
Surprise!
We switched to the darkside.
Cankon D700s with ef mount.
Because our lens line up is old and mostly outdated.
Ohhhhh…! A D700 with EF mount? Half of Canon’s userbase’ dream-come-true? No, this has to be left to Canon. Their D700 will be as good as the Nikon’s. In 10 years’ time. With only minor problems with the AF by then… And yes you guessed it right, I use a 5D…
Why are so many people on about DX primes? I don’t get it! Outside of price point what are the benefits? FX primes work equally well on both systems. DX on FX, not so much. Why limit yourselves? Sigma has a great 30 1.4. I doubt a 16 1.4 DX will be cheap (24 mm equiv’t). And we are all aware Nikon has 5 DX zoom lenses that are f/3.5 at 18 mm. Clearly, wide fast FX primes are a bigger need than anything DX right now. A 24 1.4 AF-S is going to be expensive regardless if it’s DX or FX, why not just make it FX and keep it relevant for the next 20 years?
Why are so many people on about DX primes?
Many reasons.
1. crop factor (i guess)
2. weight issues (i guess)
3. obvious price point (i guess)
4. they have no need for fx (i guess)
5. and well most photographers are not professionals and dont need fx lenses nor fx cameras.
I think the reason so many people are on DX primes, is because so many more people own DX cameras. Nikon will focus their efforts on economies of scale that bring them the most buck for the least bang.
1. crop factor (you have the 1.5x crop factor on DX and FX)
2. weight issues (i’m not so sure, compare equally when using the 35mm equiv. focal lengths and aperatures and you will find there are small weight differences in many lenses offered.)
3. Price point (you get what you pay for; rugadized FX lenses with better coatings, optics, and resale)
4. they have no need….(I can’t argue with that)
5. don’t need fx, as most people aren’t professionals…(amatures may not need fx, but their photography can definitely benefit from it; even though it isn’t the equipment that makes a photograph, its the photographer using the tools that are available, better tools help achieve better results.)
I would like to see Nikon market both the DX and FX lenses specific to their targeted audiance; that way everyone is happy.
Select FX Primes and then select DX Primes!
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/positioningmap/index.htm
LOL, I have Nikkor Lenses that aren’t even listed there…
Its only logical that there are more primes for the FX format, as Nikon has only been working on it for 50 years! Many of the FX prime lenses were made before digital was a reality. The problem many FX users have is that their prime lenses for digital are slow and outdated.
Isn’t this what they said last year?? They said they were going to support the high-end, not worry about market share, but worry about margin, implying more expensive equipment. Well..they did produce more expensive equipment and they did lose margin.
everything that TH predicted. that would be a surprise! :O whaaaaaaaat????
Nikon floors us all by producing the first full-frame digital Twin Lens Reflex! The sensor is 56mm a side with 42 megapxels and, to everyone’s amazement, 2160p video! Heck, I’d dump my Rolleicord in an instant for that!
BTW, my brother in law has a Nikon 55 f/1.2, so I don’t think the F mount keeps Nikon from making f/1.2 primes. I think back in the old days, the Pentax scree mount (M42) was too small. Fuji announced a 50 f/1.2 for the Fujica ST-801 but never released it. Word at the time was the mount was too small.
What would be great is a Nikon FE sized FX camera.
I got the 58mm f/1.2, so yeah. There is even a f/0.95 if memory serves me correct, so I agree, its not the F-mount that is stopping them.
I’m surprised by your face, Nikon. You’ve been served BooBoo-style.
usual marketing talk…
Hey Nikkon, If you don’t like the weather in Seatle, wait five minutes and then shoot your face off. You have been served boo boo style
When I couldn’t afford a D700, I wanted one, and when I could, I lost interest. Ditto with the upcoming D900. Truth is, my D200 is still a far better camera than I am a photographer and a 900 isn’t going to do all that much about that
The money’s gone on a nicely spec’d Macbook instead 
But it is all very exciting. Nikon has been the comeback kid these past few years!
Kim, I know exactly what you are saying….I have been on an aquisition frenzy since I seriously got into photography two years ago, and I can’t wait until the day that I am worthy of it all. LOL
Nice to know I ain’t in this boat alone!
Comeback kid maybe, but I don’t pay a premium for out of date technology, especially if I’m upgrading from something that still works (just doesn’t meet my ever-growing needs).
In my opinion, Nikon really needs to step up and start delivering on specs with its new cameras and lenses (adding AF to old lenses isn’t rocket science).
I’m starting to seriously think Nikon is in the dark with which way the market is going, that is why they release really awesome low-light abilities in their cameras and nothing else.
What would really surprise me is if they gave the market a roadmap of what’s coming out, so our budgets weren’t surprised by surprise purchases.
Either case, I would prefer Nikon NOT make budget items. Lower cost lenses/bodies do make sales but Nikon should continue the reputation of “you get what you paid for”. Ok Ok, the latest 70-200mm flaky on the inside was….. a turn-off but I would like Quality instead of Quantity. Of course, the better it is, it’s gotta cost more right?
I see no problems with tiny holes magnified by a huge ass piece of glass. I think that was way overblown by the Nikon crowd.
+1 Ron…I think most people who got upset about it don’t own or have never seen the results of photos the 70-200 VR II makes. In the end, its all about the final product which comes out in the targeted medium. Along the way, it is all about the useability and reliability of the tool.
Well said. For those of you who have the 70-200 VRII, I will say that I probably would have been concerned as well—especially after paying such a hefty sum for that piece of glass. But people jumped the gun and called it flaking when in reality it was not a flaking issue, but a pitting issue, and probably tiny at that. And for those STILL carrying on, those are the ones that should be hung.
i think we’re going to see a f1.2 lens this year
Yeah, the Nikon AF-S 60mm f/1.2 N VR _DX_
I would buy one nice fast portrait DX lens that would be comparable to 85/1.4 on FX.
Hi People:
I would not put too much into what Mr. Hiroshi Takashima, General Manager of Imaging Division, has to say. He is not listed in Nikon’s top management or Officers and not even a member of Nikon’s Board of Directors. In other words, he has no real power in the company. It is also another indication on how Nikon has become a financial driven corporation and no longer a technology driven one. The people directly in charge of Imaging have no power; the finance people do.
It does not mean that Nikon is not coming out with groundbreaking news. However, I would be more attentive if Mr. Michio Kariya (President) or Mr. Ichiro Terato (Exeutive VP and, imho, the real power in Nikon) had been interviewed instead.
Well put…one point I would like to add….what if Mr Hiroshi Takashima knew what that next great Nikon product was going to be, but he wasn’t at liberty to say. If he was an photo enthusiast, he would be bursting at the sides to tell us the insider stuff, but he can’t. Heck, I would be interested if Mr H.T. still had his job after the interview, as he may have released too much as it was.
Nikon will come out with more $2K+ lenses instead in 2010, and that will surprise markets.
Can you explain how the D3, D3x, D3s, D700, D90, D5000, and various lenses make Nikon a non-technology driven company? Sheesh, making waves isn’t enough anymore.
Mr. Adair:
Very easy. The technology of the cameras that you mentioned were developed before the new people at Nikon took over in June 2007. You even said that it takes time to develop new technology. Most of Nikon’s head of departments were appointed in June 2007, June 2008, and June 2009
Nikon belongs to the Mitsubishi group of companies and Mr. Ichiro Terato’s background, the all powerful Executive VP, is with the Mitsubishi Bank. The takeover is now complete. Just study their Board of Directors to realize what is happening. Nikon is not what it used to be two years ago.
I read a lot of your comments and they could have been said about GM 20 years ago: “How dare you tell GM what to do?” Well, the last I heard was that GM came to the American people (their consumer base,) and the American Government on their hands and knees begging for loans and money to stay in business. Is that the direction you want Nikon to follow by disregarding their base just like GM did?
I have bought a lot of lenses lately and they are not Nikon: ZF 25, ZF 35, ZF 50, CV 50 and my next one is Tokina 11-16. I follow my own timetable and not Nikon’s. Hey, I’m the one with my purchasing money and not Nikon.
Sorry. I meant CV58 and not CV50 – the Voigtlander 58mm Nokton f/1.4.
It would be cool to see Nikon FX camera with EOS mount! That would SHAKE the market.
Also please do away with mechanic shutter. Electronic shutter must be ready for now (video mode works without shutter, right?)
OK, here it is….the SMALL surprise from Nikon…
Nikon introduces a new (MX, M for micro) format, thereby establishing a whole new market segment. Its closest competitor will be the Four-Thirds open standard system. The new sensor is smaller, 17mm diagonal vs the 21.6mm diagonal found in the Four-Thirds system. This gives the camera a crop factor (CF) of about 2.5x vs. a CF of 2x in the Four-Thirds, thereby allowing smaller lenses which are cheaper to produce and easier to market. This camera format is meant to close the huge gap between the point and shoot systems and the Four-Thirds systems, and it is targeted specifically at amatures that want more than a point and shoot but less than a Four-Thirds system. Want proof…Nikon’s current camera line-up goes for anywhere between $550 and $7500, Four-Thirds cameras fall between $425 and $1250, and point and shoot cameras go from the $25 “Hello Kitty” Camera to $1000 for a Casio Exilim Pro blah…blah… Where are the interchangeable lens cameras that fall under the $400 mark? There isn’t any that I know of, unless you go with Ken Rockwell’s theory of buying a close-out D40 because it is the most that most amatures will need anyway. Go check this wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format) about this untapped market for a graph which demonstrates the gap. The new MX format will not be an SLR in the traditional sense, as the mirror and prism will go away in favor of a digital view finder. This should put the entry price between $400-500 with an entry level kit lens. Want more proof, go look at all the patents Nikon filed for the EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) System. Pay close attention to the patent filing dates, as this will suggest the order the lenses will be released. If you follow the link here (http://nikonrumors.com/2009/10/16/its-a-nikon-patents-friday-nikon-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera.aspx) you will notice September 2008 filings for two zoom lenses with 35mm equivlent ranges of 22-105 and 26-270. I suspect we will initially see this MX camera debuted with two kit offerings of those aforementioned lenses. Its what all amatures will desire, 5x and 10x zooms in an interchageable lens camera from Nikon, at a price point which fits the budget of the masses. With a Sep 2008 patent filing for the lenses and a Dec 2008 filing for the EVIL camera, you know Nikon should be ready to release it very soon. Most likely they will anounce this MX camera on the 3rd of February and have demo models at PMA 2010 later in the month. Its anybody’s bet as to how long it will take before they start shipping to retailers. AND NOW THE BIG SURPRISE…keeping with Nikon’s 50+ year tradition of interchangeable lenses, this new camera will sport an F mount for backward/forward compatibility. I know this sounds crazy, but its not really. The FX bodies automatically drop the sensor resolution when mated with a DX lens, and the DX body benefits from the sweet spot of all FX lenses (even when they are shot wide open). Therefore we should expect to see the same effects of mounting an MX lens on a DX camera (DX cameras automatically crops for MX lens as its already in your firmware), and when an FX or DX lens is on an MX camera, the MX camera benefits from the better glass, especially at wide apertures; and let us not forget the 2.5x crop factor advantage for the long shots and all the compatibility of third party lens manufacturers like Sigma, Tokina, etc. I should also mention the greater DOF with the new MX sensor, but I will save that for another posting. Final thoughts….like any company, Nikon needs to make money, they want to make money, that’s what they do and in today’s economy the new MX sensor couldn’t be better timed. The only thing to debate about now is the megapixel count of the MX sensor and its ISO capability. With a sensor area about 1/3 of DX or 1/6 of FX, the whims of amatures, marketability, and Nikon’s dedication to quality, I foresee 10MP with useable ISO up to 1600. Are you surprised yet?
ADMIN – How about survey on the sensor pixel density and ISO capability of the EVIL camera? This way we can see how close everyone gets to the official anouncement on 3 February.
+1
Best, most well-reasoned, analysis, by far. And no whining or silly wish lists from the author!
Best comments here so far are from Dr SCSI.. Thanks…
Dr. SCSI,
The more I think about it the more I think that you are both right and wrong. (How’s that for straddling the fence?)
What I actually mean by that is that I think there is a distinct possibility that Nikon may adopt a Mx (Mini) format and an APS-C format. Wouldn’t that be a surprise?
Let’s face it, Nikon’s offerings in the P&S market have not exactly set the world on its ear. The Mini may be an attempt to lure customers who would otherwise purchase somebody else’s P&S to buy a Nikon, just a different kind of Nikon. It fulfills the “cute” factor, is pocketable and should make adequate 5×7 prints (perhaps even 8×10) as well as “looking good” when sent by email or posted on the web. I seem to recall that something in the neighborhood of 95% of all prints made are 5×7 or smaller so the Mini would cover that market and the APS-C body would cover the enthusiast market.
The APS-C would be aimed at people who want something “like” the 4/3rds cameras, but better in IQ (not that the images I have seen posted of the 4/3rds and µ4/3rds cameras are bad). You would have more pixels for cropping/editing and Nikon benefits from having some ready-to-go sensors of a known to them technology and (keeping the F Mount) some ready to go lenses while they fill in more specialized lenses, a pancake, for example.
This not only fits with the various rumors, but fits the “plugging the holes in the market” issue.
Richard, based on the following quote, are you suggesting two EVIL camera types, one with a 17mm diagonal sensor and one with an APS-C sensor, both without a mirror or pentaprism?
“What I actually mean by that is that I think there is a distinct possibility that Nikon may adopt a Mx (Mini) format and an APS-C format. ”
That is a very interesting concept, as it would address why Nikon went to the trouble to design a new set of smaller lenses with a 17mm imaging circle. I agree with you absolutely about the fact that Nikon will have lenses a plenty for both types of cameras, and the “cute” factor plays a bigger roll than most people realize. I guess the only question I have is, “at what price point do you bring in the APS-C EVIL camera?” I guess it would come in just a tiny bit above the cost of a 4/3rds system, because of sensor size and image quality, but below Nikon’s lowest price entry level DSLR. I think you may be onto something, because this would mean Nikon would be jumping into two new segments, one above and one below the 4/3rds, while managing to leverage their lens lineup in both forms!
Dr. SCSI,
I certainly have not done any sort of cost analysis, but just looking at an APS-C EVIL camera “side by side” with a DSLR APS-C camera it would seem to me that it should be possible to price the APS-C camera below comparable existing DSLR cameras, if for no other reason than the “missing pieces” which would reduce costs in manufacturing and, probably, warranty costs because the pieces you leave out can’t break. I would expect that there would be some cost differentials in the live view screen and I do not have a good idea of the cost of the electronic viewfinder vs. a conventional pentaprism and mirror system but I suspect that, over time, their costs would fall below those of the conventional DSLR parts. This would also give a stair step pricing structure which would separate the product lines a little bit.
Specifically, I think that this strategy would be one aimed at taking P&S sales away from other manufacturers with the Mx format and taking away from the 4/3 & µ4/3 camera sales for people who find them just a bit too big. (I remember when Canon introduced the Digital ELPH. People at various gatherings were reaching into their pockets and purses/clutches and snapping away having a grand old time creating mementos of the even…and they were the center of attention answering all the “what’s that?” questions. The APS-C EVIL camera can, at least potentially, be something with the panache and style of a Leica (obviously without the high price) and deliver superb images. As a reminder, I point to the Leica M8 which had an APS-C sensor. There were problems with the M8 which reflected it being Leica’s first effort at such a camera, but the concept was nonetheless a valid one in my view. It is just that they solved enough problems to be able to put a full size sensor in the M9.
Who amongst us would not lust for an EVIL camera like that with a couple of specialty lenses aimed at low light shooting on the street or in clubs or meetings (or even in weddings and such) which were as unobtrusive and quiet as a Leica? (And no, I do not mean a $10,000 f0.95 50mm ASPH lens such as the new Leica.)
Not only that, but, with the F Mount, you could hang a big lens on it any time you wanted and have it focus accurately with a lens longer than 135mm!!!
I doubt that such a camera would kill the DSLR market any time soon, but I can foresee a day when EVIL-like cameras come to dominate the market.
There is an interesting article, “Focusing Follies”, which talks about the potential for more accurate focusing systems using new technology. If you have a few minutes, take a look. It is not that long. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
Regards
Damn!!! I hate surprises!!!
D4 please.
What, no lenses, just cameras?
all rumors will be missed
well..they already did surprise people…with bad manufacturing process on 70-200mm vr2..caught everyone by surprise..paying $2.4k with crap inside the lens..
As much as i hate it, ive gotta agree with you on this. I still think their being dodgy telling people its “Normal” in the manufacturing process. That never happened on any of my other lenses.
Can you show one image where quality is actually diminished by the micro spots which are amplified by a huge magnifying glass on the front of the lens? I think people are looking for a reason to complain.
If Nikon needs to charge more (for better products, mind you) to keep afloat, then I will go along for the ride. It’s not like they’re pocketing trillions in profit on the gear we’re buying. Look at their freaking financials.
Mr. Adair:
How do you know for certain that all the debris reported inside the 70-200 VRII won’t affect the functioning of the lens down the road? Talk is cheap! Are you willing to refund the money or repair the lenses, out of your own pocket, if the lens develops more problems in the future? Wasn’t this the job of Nikon Central to assure the 70-200 VRII owners that there is nothing wrong with the lens by issuing a categorical statement instead of sending their surrogates and underlings with non-denials denials?
Mr. Adair, it is good that the bubles in the glass were noticed. I suspect over time, those bubles won’t matter a hoot. With that said, should they become a problem in say 5 years, I am sure there would be enough lawyers willing to fight a class action lawsuit against Nikon for a known flaw discovered in 2009. Also, I imagine Nikon would replace any of the lenses which have a problem because of the bubbles, long after the manufacturer warranty expired just to avoid a class action. Just my two cents….
Debris, ubiquitous? Have you read anything re: bubblegate? So far, it sounds like a terrible non-issue.
SCSI—Sure, it’s good notes were made on the issue, but really only if there indeed is a problem after X years. I suppose only time will tell. But I still have yet to see anyone show any image degradation whatsoever from the bubbles.
This just in: http://photorumors.com/2010/01/28/fuji-hs10-will-steal-the-show-pma-with-its-cmos-sensor/
This is what Nikon should release @ PMA
Is there more information available about the sensor? What does the author mean by “Back Illuminated”? I think your previous posts about the EVIL camera and lenses is going to be the BIG thing at the next PMA show. My lengthy post above re-caps several of your points and is strengthed by economical logic. There just isn’t a capable system available that fills the gap between Point&Shoot and Four-Thirds.
Back illuminated is an approach to use the sensor’s backside after making it thin enough.
This spares the photocells from the shadow of the electronics, especially at CMOS.
In former times this was done mechanically with very low yield and high costs. These days it is done by etching to some stop-layer and polishing. Sony claims to do it better now than anyone else so it finds its way into consumer cameras.
Not for better quality, of course, but to shrink the pixel-size even more.
Doesn’t seem like it’ll be an EVIL camera based on the interview with Tetsuro Goto:
“In the near future, it is possible that we will also use electronic viewfinders, but for now the quality is not there yet.” – from http://nikonrumors.com/2010/01/20/interview-with-tetsuro-goto.aspx
Won’t be medium format also, based on the same interview.
Surprise can be even smaller DSLR, large sensor compact, new SWM or underwater equipment.
Gusto, I remember that comment from Mr Tetsuro Goto, but your also relying on google translations to get it right. Also, what was the applicability of his statement? Maybe what is meant, is that in professional DSLR cameras, where quality expectations are high in the $5K plus category, the quality is not there yet. The question/answer was regarding Four-Thirds cameras as a posibility from Nikon, and the use of electronic view finders. (Follow the link to the French site, and translate to English yourself for the full story. http://www.focus-numerique.com/news_id-1725.html ) I doubt Mr Goto would have given away a new technology implementation in an upcoming product release, prior to its debut. I am sure like politicians, they are coached on how to word dance with reporters.
You’re right. They probably know how to ‘word dance’ with reporters.
The overall tone and quality of his answers to the questions does not fill me with confidence. Luckily, he’s only a sales drone, not in engineering.
a built in flash which rotates, allowing one to bounce a stock flash, would surprise me.
Releasing
70-200 F4 VR
The D3X only costs us $250 to manufacture….SURPRISE!!
Nikon would then prolly lose a significant market share if they didn’t amend the D3X’s prices =P
A surprise would be they drop dx for m4/3. Plus all m4/3 have sensor stabilization and full use of Nikon lenses.
Nikon will make an EVIL camera, not m4/3, they would be stupid to make it a true m4/3. People will buy the panasonic body with Nikon glass, and Nikon wants us to be able to only buy both from them
+1 WoutK89, see my long post about the EVIL camera. At first, I thought too that Nikon would introduce a m4/3 system, until I started reading the posts by ADMIN and the specifications on the matching lenses. Some further research reveals Nikon is dedicated to the F mount and they won’t budge. Thus I summized that Nikon’s new EVIL camera will be a F mount that uses FX, DX, and MX (micro) lenses. The smaller 17mm sensor format is not currently available in an interchangeable lens system by any manufacturer. If Nikon pulls this off, they will have created a new market between point and shoot users and m4/3. Plus the entry price for a Nikon interchageable lens system (with a kit lens) drops below $500, possibly as low as $349 sans lens. Economies of scale, upgrade path for amatures to go from MX to DX to FX with all lenses working interchageably with all systems; are you suprised yet?
DR SCSI
Take a look at this article on the Olympus E-P2. http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2009/12/ep2-san-antonio-fun-shoot-shake-out.html
If Nikon can generate this kind of “buzz” with the new EVIL camera they will have accomplished something.
how about a 12mp FF EVIL flagship
?
I hope the “MX” body does not have a sensor smaller than DX – more noise, more depth of field when you don’t want it, and diffraction kicks in sooner. The higher pixel pitches also stress new and existing lenses even more. The m4/3 lenses that are wide are not small relative to the m4/3 bodies so I expect a 17mm diagonal sensor wide angle lens to not be that small either relative to it’s body. Plus none of the Nikon patents had a really wide angle lens (I think there was a 22mm FX equivalent).
As far a the electronic viewfinder I was pretty happy with my CoolPix 8400 for what it was – I sure hope Nikon has improved upon EVF technology in the last ten years.. The EVF of the Panny G1 and GH1 I thought were fantastic.
Don’t blow it Nikon! – Use a DX sensor and a great EVF for your EVIL camera.
John, I think Nikon will offer a smaller sensor, with 17mm diaganal. I know what you are saying about more noise, and more DOF, diffraction, and pixel pitch, but please remember this system isn’t targeted at most of us here. I suspect Nikon has perfected the EVF or they bought the technology or it was a joint venture with another Japanese company. If you strip out the expensive Prism, the mirror mechanism, deploy a smaller sensor, introduce a new MX lens series but keep the 50 year old Nikon F mount, what do you get? You get a camera that many amatures will jump all over like a chicken on a June bug, or a pack of pitbulls on a gut wagon. Nikon gets a new market, plus they gain a new customer base whose MX lenses can be used on a DX body, or FX for that matter, or visa versa. You have what many people will believe to be a modular system with an upgrade path for their investment. For me, I will finally get a camera system I can keep in the car and not worry about it.
Dr. SCSI -
I hope they do not use a smaller sensor.
If they make a line of MX lenses that only cover the 17mm diagonal AND keep the F-mount, the MX lenses will not be useable on DX or FX cameras because they will be designed to have a smaller image circle and won’t work well on DX and certainly not FX.
IF the MX lenses were for a DX-sized sensor, used the f-mount, but were designed for a much closer rear element to sensor surface, this would be great as you could use an adapter to use your DX and FX lenses without issue.
As to whom the “MX” system is intended for – only Nikon knows of course. If it’s intended for those (like me) who want a high quality, small format camera and are willing to pay a price – great and make it a DX-sized sensor. If it’s to lure the point and shoot crowd and it has a sensor smaller than the m4/3 offerings – it won’t be attractive – I can buy something likely better from Panasonic or Olympus because I have to invest in a new line of lenses that can’t be used on my DX or FX bodies anyways, so why stay with Nikon?
I doubt Nikon will be cheap enough to let you keep it in the car and forget about it – that’s the definition of their current CoolPix line-up!
John-
Your right, the MX lenses won’t work WELL on a DX or FX camera, but theoretically in my fantasy world, they would WORK, much like the DX lens WORKS on an FX body. And I still believe a MX lens would work on the FX camera, but on the 12MP FX sensor, you would only get 2MP and on the 24MP FX sensor, maybe 4MP; a waste of pixels no doubt! The fact that Nikon is planing on making interchangeable lenses for the EVIL camera that have an image circle of 17mm STRONGLY suggests a new sensor is in the pipeline. If Nikon just stuffs an APS-C sensor in the EVIL camera, why the need for MX EVIL lenses then? Just use DX lenses on the APS-C EVIL equiped camera, no need for a new lens with an imaging circle of 17mm.
“IF the MX lenses were for a DX-sized sensor, used the f-mount, but were designed for a much closer rear element to sensor surface, this would be great as you could use an adapter to use your DX and FX lenses without issue.” —– You lost me here…why would I have a lens which has an image circle that has been optimized for only 33% of the available pixels the DX sensor would provide? If the MX rear element was moved closer to the sensor surface, the image circle would decrease in diameter and you would lose even more of your DX pixels. If the EVIL camera kept the F mount (which I am sure it will), there would be no need for adapters or spacers; there isn’t a need for them when I put an FX lens on my D300. Surely you meant something other than what I have comprehended.
As for the targeted audience of the MX EVIL format, I believe it will be your point and shoot audiance wanting a little more capability, but not the cost of DSLR or 4/3rds. Go look at the prices on 4/3rds systems, you will be shocked, especially at their lenses. Nikon isn’t trying to sell you or I the EVIL system, we are already hooked on DSLRs in DX or FX variants. They are just creating the yellow brick road for P&S users to eventually follow into the kingdom of FX. Nikon is keeping the costs of those yellow bricks down, by introducing an MX sensor and matching lenses that cost far less than the 4/3rds its competitors offer. As for a glove box camera to keep in my car, I can’t fit the D300 with the 18-200 lens, but a MX EVIL camera with a 5X zoom, I probably could. And at 1/4 the price of my D300 combo, I wouldn’t heistate.
I know the smaller sensor doesn’t seem like a step in the right direction, but it is feasible and it makes financial sense. Somewhere in this thread I have a very lengthy post that goes into much greater detail, so I won’t repeat it all here. Anyway here is a summary of why I think it makes sense for Nikon to do this.
1.) DX lenses work fine on FX bodies, but due to the vignetting of the DX lenses, Nikon FX cameras automatically crop down to ~5MP when DX lens is mounted on the D3 (not sure what they crop down to on a D3X, 10MP maybe). Same logic will apply for MX on DX, there will be a crop, but it is still useable. However, you would really be throwing good money down the drain by mounting an MX lens on an FX body. But when you go the other way, FX lens on an MX body with a 2.5x crop factor, it will appeal to many.
2.) When I bought my D300, I was buying FX glass because I knew I would eventually upgrade to the D3. Yep, it seemed like a waste to many observers, but I was making photos using great glass at the time. Later, when I did get the money for a D3, I already had great lenses for it. The same logic would apply for an MX owner purchasing the higher quality DX lens, because they know they will upgrade to a DX camera one day, but they can use their DX glass now on their MX camera. They also know that the DX glass COULD be used on an FX should they ever decide to jump up to FX.
3.) Let us not forget the resale value of F mount lenses from Nikon; quite often there are some models that go up in value, but for the most part they retain their value fairly well. Can any other manufacturer make that same claim? Panasonic, Fuji, Sony, anyone?
4.) Mount a DX lens on the Nikon FX DSLR’s and they don’t have to process as many pixels due to the crop. The D3 will crank out 11 fps, and I believe the D3X cranks out 13 fps with a DX lens, or maybe it is 9 and 11 respectively (I am terrible with prime numbers). It is quite possible a MX lens on a DX body would allow the DX camera to hum along in MX cropped mode. There is no telling how much feature proofing Nikon put into their DX lineup of cameras, and we just don’t know about it yet.
5.)There is a huge gap in the sensor market between 4/3rds and Point and Shoot cameras. Nikon plans on exploiting this gap, by offering a cross platform lens/camera system to amatures not willing to jump into a full blown DSLRs. It will have the Nikon name, and the largest availability of lenses from numerous manufacturers. I think Bill Murray said it best, “Baby Steps”.
6.) If Nikon succeeds in this venture, it will benefit us all. Nikon will have more revenue to R&D ever better products. And many of us will now have an audiance to sell our used DX lenses to, while we aspire to FX.
To keep using the F mount would mean having to keep the same mount to sensor distance, a complete waste if there is no mirror to fill this gap. Remember the idea of a Nikon EVIL with a small sensor would be to make it small. I still think F mount lenses will work, but will need the adapter.
Keeping the F-mount has nothing to do with keeping the same mount to sensor distance. The F-mount is basically the diameter of the mount. What Nikon can do is slightly modify the F-mount so that only MX lenses can directly mount to it — OK just call it the MX mount, but it’s the same size/diameter as the current F-mount. The did this with their TCs so that only certain lenses could mount to it – so why can’t they do it on the body?. This makes making an adapter for F-mount lenses to the MX mount easier – basically just an extension ring. The modified mount is now closer to the sensor and it’s larger, thus making it much easier to design non-retrofocus wide angle designs for the DX (hopefully) sensor.
It’s currently hard to make a small wide-angle lens for the DX (APS-C) sensor cameras with the F-mount because the sensor is too far away, thus requiring a retro-focus design that makes the wide angle lenses much larger (longer and bulkier).
Larger mount + smaller mount-sensor distance = easier wide angle design.
Now the F-mount size can be a hindrance to making a small camera, but gosh Nikon made many small film cameras with an optical finder (FM-10, FM3A, etc., etc.) so why can’t they have this size body or smaller without an optical VF? You can make a small EVIL camera with the F-mount (OK modified F-mount), you just have to want to.
John
John, you bring up many interesting points and through the back and forth theorizing, a composite image of the EVIL camera is starting to solidify in my head…
“What Nikon can do is slightly modify the F-mount so that only MX lenses can directly mount to it — OK just call it the MX mount”….I can’t quite agree with that one, because Nikon is all about compatibility and interchangeability. Why didn’t they make the DX cameras only accept DX lenses then, because Nikon wanted to pull in all of their old film users who already had money tied up in FF lenses, that’s why. Your idea of making an MX to DX/FX extension ring is valid, and brings up some other interesting thoughts. If the MX camera had a shorter distance between the F mount and the sensor plane to keep it compact, and the MX lenses were optimized for a 17mm imaging circle to match the new 17mm diagnol sensor, what would happen if you put a DX/FX lens on the MX body without an extension ring? Would you still have a 2.5X crop factor, or would moving the back lens element of a DX/FX lens closer to the sensor plane reduce the magnifying effect and give you less of a crop factor , but better DOF options? WOW! Now that would be a surprise, you could opt for the extension ring to get 2.5x crop, or not to get something like a 1.5X crop, talk about lots of creative options!!
I would not see keeping the F Mount as a means of usingg MX lenses on DX or FX bodies, but the reverse situation.
If the F Mount is used, even with a “native” shorter focusing distance, it would be pretty simple for people to pop an adapter on an existing DX lens and use it on the MX camera with the corrected focusing distance and a pass through of electronic data. For example, putting a 55-200mm DX VRII, which someone already owns, on such a camera would still be compact for the occasional use. There are a lot of people adapting various manual focus lenses to 4/3rds bodies and living with the step down & manual focus issues just because it is a neat way to use their existing glass or adapt things that the body manufacturer had not envisioned. One popular combination is to put a 50mm f1.4 lens on a 4/3rds body resulting in an effective 100mm f1.4…pretty neat, I think.
The surprise is more 18..XXX DX zoom lenses….bwa ha ha ha!
How about a competent Coolpix camera? That would be a surprise…
Copy of above post…
I read the interview and the guy never says it’s going to be a good surprise, right?
OTOH, maybe it’s just the Indian market that they want to surprise…
it’s going to be an F7.
My guess to shake up the market is to replace the FX format D700 with two models:
* Based on the D700 (overall) but with HD video, and better high ISO performance beyond ISO 3200.
* The shake-up model will be an entry-level FX camera with the build and feature set of the D90 or D5000.
The shake-up model will spur more interest into FX, but will confuse or cannibalize sales of the cropped format D300 series.
* Another shake-up model will be a compact camera with the DX size sensor but it is not a DSLR.
* Consider the Micro 4/3 format. Look at the constant backlog of orders for the Micro 4/3 format camera–the Panasonic GF1, which accepts interchangeable lenses but has no reflex housing. There’s a big demand for that type of quality camera that other camera manufacturers would love to serve! The Micro 4/3s format is smaller than DX. I think it is 13×17mm. That’s a lot bigger than most compact point and shoot cameras, which cannot perform well at even modest ISO settings. The GF1 can at least perform well at ISO 800.
Kiki Lavier, I agree with you about a D700 replacement, my guess will be a D700S with better ISO, but priced to not overly compete with the D3S.
An entry-level FX, at a price which is implied to be less that the D700, but more than a D300S just doesn’t make sense; retail of such a camera would have to be between $1900-$2100 (body only). By the time Nikon released it, the D700 would have drifted into that price category anyway. “Another shake-up model will be a compact camera with the DX size sensor but it is not a DSLR. ” – I think the new EVIL camera clearly indicates a smaller sensor with a 17mm diagnanal. Nikon won’t consider m4/3, because that would mean they HAVE-TO agree to a new lens mount. I say it will be a MX lens system sticking with the traditional F mount for interchangeability with its big brother DSLR systems. Nikon is going to turn the market upside down with their interchangeable lenses which give amatures an upgrade path at an afordable price. MX > DX > FX (Suprised yet?) Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (EVIL); my guess is they will call it the “Mini Me”.
I don’t forsee an entry-level FX camera, that would pull too many sales away from the D700 (which by the way, is the entry level FX, if you ask me). DX will be around for a while, especially if Nikon needs to continue selling their DX lenses which cost so much to make
Why not an APS-C EVIL? The cost savings would permit a price point advantage compared to a similar DSLR and, perhaps, close enough to the 4/3 bodies, but with better resolution and IQ, to be competitive. Use the existing DX lenses with a few new faster ones tossed in that are optimized for the new body and it should be a competitive combination leveraging their existing technology and lenses. It might even have an optional 4×5 aspect ratio (and perhaps others) in the fashion of the 4/3 bodies. The body could easily be something a bit smaller than a Leica M still have plenty of space inside for the electronics. This would be the slightly larger alternative to 4/3 in the way that µ4/3 is the slightly smaller alternative to 4/3.
Just how small a camera to most people want? Just for illustrative purposes, consider the D40 body (or the old Olympus OM-1 for that matter) without the mirror & etc of an SLR. It could actually be rather compact.
The question is, just what is “good enough” for the electronic viewfinder? At the non-pro level I should think the typical customer would be happy with something that “looked nice”, but in a less critical way than a pro.
The advantage to Nikon of this would be that it is a market space without competition…for a while anyway…and leverages their existing bits and pieces.
Richard, you bring up some very interesting points. However, an APS-C EVIL wouldn’t require new lenses if Nikon kept their F mount, which I am sure they intend on doing on there new MX(?) camera. Just look at all of the US patent submissions for EVIL lenses with a 17mm imaging circle. It wouldn’t make sense for Nikon to put the higher APS-C sensor in such a format like the EVIL, and then mate MX lenses to it. For example, take their latest, highest pixel count on the APS-C of 12MP, but now due to cropping of MX EVIL (17mm diag) lenses, you get a 4MP cropped picture, with great ISO albeit, but which amature is going to buy a 4MP camera? To take advantage of the 12MP on tap, the amature would have to buy DX lenses. Now you just introduced a D90 competitor, and threw out all your R&D money on MX lenses nobody will buy. Although the new MX system may be similar in physical size to a 4/3 system, it won’t be 4/3 because Nikon will never submit to another lens mount (at least not now anyway). I can hear the CEO discussions in the board room at Nikon from 2-4 years ago, “We need to bring an inovative product to market which has a competitive advantage over 4/3rds, but is qualtatively better than any point and shoot. It MUST have interchangeable lenses which are compatible with our F mount!” Hence the EVIL camera was born. With a kit lens and an entry price point of less than $500, I think Nikon has a magic formula here. And I will say it again, MX>DX>FX is the path amatures will go over time as their incomes increase and their interest in the hobby goes up. Just think about all of the non-knowledgeable people you know who ask you about which camera to buy. Go to any camera store and you can watch them levitate toward camera bodies with removable lenses, only to turn away because of the entry price of $650 in the cheapest 4/3 system they can find. It looks as if the EVIL camera will debut with two kit lenses, one 5x and one 10x optical zoom; and I bet Nikon underprice the Panasonic G1 by 20% or more on introduction. I can also here the future sales staff at a local photoshop giving advice to an amature, “The Nikon EVIL camera is our hottest selling entry level SLR-like camera with an interchangeable lens system, that is compatible with nearly 50 years worth of Nikon lenses. With this system you can grow into pro-summer (DX) or pro (FX) systems from Nikon in the future. We also have a wide selection of MX optimized lenses at a significant cost savings. Or if you prefer, we have a large selection of Tamron and Sigma lenses are also compatible and benefit from the 2.5X crop of the MX sensor.”
Just start to price the 4/3 lenses and you will understand why Nikon won’t do it, and moreover, why Nikon will kick the sheit right out of 4/3rds.
@Dr. SCSI,
“Keep the F Mount” That is the point of it all. The additional lenses would be some that are faster than typical for a DX camera (probably primes). The existing 35mm f1.8 would make a fine normal lens for most situations. Anyway, keeping the F Mount is crucial to hitting the ground running.
Dr. SCSI,
Erwin Puts posted something earlier this month had what was almost a throwaway comment “There is a strong rumor that Nikon, Canon and Sony are developing mirror-less compact cameras with APS-C sensor sizes. ” (without attribution) in his blog entry “Lost Decade”. http://www.imx.nl/photo/page152/page152.html#unique-entry-id-11
Oh, that was me making the (Anonymous) comment that the point of the exercise is to use the F Mount. I changed computers and it did not fill in my name…oops! IN other words, yes, that is what I was saying. I could see a number of more specialized lenses being added as time and resources permit, but Nikon would have an have an extensive offering of lenses for the body the day it is introduced.
The alternative is an open spec, like the 4/3rds spec, with lenses tailored to it and an adapter to use F Mount lenses in the meantime. There are quite a few adapters for various lenses to the 4/3rds mount right now.
Nikon, if you really want to surprise the market, make an FX EVIL camera with a 45 F2 pancake and try to fit inside all the good stuff you managed to put in in the D700…I will put my name on the pre-orders list in a second.
The number of people interested in the M9 (but not buying it because of price and/or lack of AF) shows that there is a market out there for an excellent camera, not obtrusive…the perfect companion for documentary photography AND the camera you take with you at all times when leaving home, wether you intend to take pictures or not.
+1
+10000
The suprise will be that Nikon secretly bought Fuji’s sensor design that they put in the S5 and are going to produce a D700 based FX version around 12 + 12 Mp. This will have no video, but a huge dynamic range and slide film like JPEG’s, this will be for still photographers who actually want to go out and take photographs.
Surprise: Focus on quality: Discontinue D300s, D90, D700
New Line-up of bodies: D3000, D5000, D3s, D3x
What a surprise!
Why not suprise us with lower ISO, like 10 ISO or something? I would like that.
Hmmm? I am confused Camilla, a 4 stop drop in ISO? You could accomplish the same thing with ND filters, no need for lower ISO’s. Do you plan on shooting into the sun?
They’re going to listen to their customers???!!!!!
If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse
-Henry Ford
Henry: “Why do you want a faster horse?”
Customer: “So I can get to the store in less time.”
Henry: “Why do you want to get to the store faster?”
Customer: “So I can get more work done at the farm.”
Oh. So the customer didn’t want a faster horse. And you didn’t even need five questions to find out what they did want. They wanted to get more work done. And presumably the car that Henry created provided that benefit.
Net? Don’t let pithy quotes let you fool yourself into thinking that you don’t have to understand your customers. You do.
(disclaimer: I can’t claim authorship, see: http://www.enthiosys.com/news-events/faster-horses-henry-ford-bob-sutton-and-innovation/)
Forest. Trees. Nobody said Henry Ford didn’t understand his customers. I see the quote as valuable because it shows that you really do need to dream and think and conceive ON BEHALF of your customer.
Henry Ford didn’t come up with a diet plan telling his customers that they could make less trips to the store if they ate less. He built a faster horse, only one that his customers couldn’t quite conceive on their own.
Look, the point is that Nikon really cares about imaging, and wants to make the best gear on the market. You’re deluding yourself if you believe otherwise. And that’s precisely why they haven’t yet released an 18mp DX format camera. They care too much. And maybe I’m the only one, but I really REALLY respect that.
its a good point because we are clamoring for more megapixels or less noise and what we really is
to take better pictures
Ok, I can come around to your point of view concerning Nikon’s camara/lens development strategy. I can also see you’re passionate about defending this view point.
I would like to say, though, that there may also be a flip side to Nikon’s approach. That is, maybe they’re being a little too focused to the exclusion of other aspects of their business.
I think Thom Hogan has put is quite well recently when he’s pointed out two areas where Nikon’s strategy lets them down:
1) communication: Nikon doesn’t communicate very well with their customers, as evidenced by various stories floating around the net (many of which you find here on NR). if they think making good products obviates their need to communicate they’re wrong, because customers may feel like Nikon isn’t paying attention even though they are investing (or hoping to invest) many of their hard earned dollars in the company’s products.
2) software: it’s clear Nikon’s software makes the most out of raw files coming from their cameras, but I think most would agree in other aspects it doesn’t stack up to the alternatives. I’d much rather use (and pay for) a Nikon plugin for photoshop or lightroom, than be obliged to use current Nikon offerings – and at the end of the day I really don’t want a complicate workflow that involves too much jumping between software packages. TH takes this even further to suggest an “app-store” type approach (ie. a free Nikon SDK) would help Nikon revolutionize the way software is developed for digital cameras – I would definitely be interested as both a developer and user.
In any case, my post was mostly meant as a bit of fun given the many complaints about ”why doesn’t Nikon give me what I want” that we see here. Hopefully, the ensuing discussion has been useful just the same!
In any case my post was mostly meant as a bit of fun.
And on those two points I can’t necessarily disagree.
On the point of communication, I have definitely seen companies that are worse. Still, it doesn’t mean Nikon can’t (and shouldn’t) do better. I haven’t really had any issues with their communications PERSONALLY (though I’m sure they exist), so I really can’t say more on this.
As for software, I will say openly that Nikon just plain sucks at software development, at least on OS X. I used NC a while ago and man, was it slow. It was some of the most resource hungry and unresponsive software I’ve ever used. Recently, the whole fiasco with the 10.4/10.5/10.6 issues has been just that: a fiasco.
I have heard nothing but rave reviews of Nikon Capture’s RAW processing being the best there is—too bad I couldn’t even get the software installed and running properly to find out. When you have to wait literally 30-60 seconds (I timed it) every time you change the exposure of a RAW image, you know it’s time to give up and go somewhere else. Whatever the solution, Nikon would be well suited to get that figured out, and fast.
On the rest of the points, I’m glad we can agree.
Reduce the price of D700 to 1000$, so the market will be very surprised, haha, JK.
Nikon should make a deticated HD video camera with a F-mount – that would blow the indy film industry ower
Agreed, I would buy one in a second. If it was 2k or higher in resolution I would buy it in 1/2 a second!
+1
+1 to that
make a true 2k video specific sensor F mount video camera body only price same as Canon 5D MKII
allow recording in the equivalent of NEF for video streaming to an external hard drive
offer some motorized zoom lenses but keep it compatible with 50 million F mount lenses
offer an APS-C version for $1500 body only with same specs
you steal away Canon’s thunder and you sell more lenses
i vote for fx sensor in a d90 body
It’s going to be the world’s first 4×5 single shot digital view-camera at a whopping 220mp.
I shot this guy testing a new Nikon, but couldn’t see if it’s a dslr or a non-mirro box camera:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2689/4311150907_a83acd17ff_o.jpg
love it
What can we learn: Nikon doesnt like rumors, that might be true.
Surprises would be:
- Mirrorless DSLR-like cameras
- Sensor not Sony-ish, but EXR-ish
- Completely different kind of sensors, hardly any noise anymore, even at high MP numbers
The crappy work in the 70-200mm VR II was surprise enough.
Hail Nikon, full of grace,
the Light is with thee,
blessed art thou among photogs,
and blessed is the fruit of thy factory, Camera.
Holy Nikon, fabber of Lenses,
pray for us sinners, now, and at
the hour of our death.
Amen.
Maybe HDR?
on an industrial image processing fair a german supplier presented some camera with logarithmic curves. It was feasible to read text directly behind some light bulb, like:
http://www.pressebox.de/pressemeldungen/ids-imaging-development-systems-gmbh/boxid-303398.html
http://www.ids-imaging.de/newsarchiv.php
Maybe nikon will give us such modus for ulta-high DR: integrate each pixel until saturation and code the duration into grey value.
I really do hope it’s more lenses, especially FX wide angle. f4-VR-Zoom sounds as attractive as does 24/1.4. I should surely invest into at least one of these.
Maybe they use the much praised 28/1.4 and update it to AF-S. That should be a winner!
I think Nikon will surprise us with more “s” variants
Maybe a D40s?
exactly a D40s. We’ve been dreaming about that beast
Some of my best Nikons have had a S on it
like “s” h…i…t?
Just kidding, but seriously it looks like Nikon is taking too many shortcuts….
Everybody here is hoping for a D700 replacement. Many wish it had a100% viewfinder. I understand cameras without viewfinder and the required mirror are much smaller. Is there a benefit in a viewfinder? Wouldn’t a a big, high resolution display — maybe even an iPhone-like touch screen spanning the whole back of the camera be just as good?
Not at all. The AF system requires the (secondary) mirror and the viewfinder has no lag whatsoever, as opposed to an electronic fiewfinder. For slow-speed photography (like landscape photography), a large (but thus vulnerable) screen might be an option, for portrait photography and such, probably not. I personally would not want to have it for landscape photography either, let alone a touchscreen – I like real buttons much better. Furthermore, the shutter lag is potentially increased if the sensor has to be cleared from LiveView data prior to taking the shot and the LiveView heats up the sensor.
+1 cant agree more
literally that’s an empty statement. EVERYBODY is “working on better quality and better cameras”. the only thing of any possible worth in there is “we’re planning on surprising…” the rest is pretty much the reaction a politician would give to an uncomfortable question.
maybe they’ll surprise us with…… *nothing*!!!!
after all everybody here seems to be expecting *something* so it follows that the biggest surprise would be nothing!
there’s some inductive logic for you!
Nikon, where are my 24-70 F/4 and 70-200 F/4?
at Canon maybe…, dont expect to see that from Nikon soon.
why is there all this interest in an EVIL camera?
who in their right mind wants to look through and electronic viewfinder?
nobody but we also realise that you cant change physics. if you want a tiny camera with dslr quality, the VF has to go. its really that simple.
anything they announce or don’t announce will be a surprise… The announce a 18-55 4.5-5.6 zoom and we are surprised.. They announce a new flash and we are surprised….They announce a new camera remote and we are surprised… They announce a whole new line of awesome cameras and we are surprised… They announce nothing at all and we are surprised…. lol
I’m not sure that the F mount makes sense on a 17mm diagonal sensor. Sure, you get compatibility with tons of lenses, but wouldn’t the body have to be the same thickness from the sensor to the lens flange as the Nikon F/F2/F3…D700? Makes kind of a thick body for a sensor smaller than a 4/3rds (about 22mm diagonal). If the answer’s an adapter, you can do that already with the Panasonic GF-1.
I would adore a small-bodied FX camera, something the size of the FE/FM3A. I like my D700 well enough but it’s a total cinder block to carry around. My FE was much lighter.
Exactly! For this reason they will not use the F mount!
As I stated above -
Make the new mount very similar to the f-mount, but make the mount-sensor distance much much less. This new f-mount (call it the MX mount) would be the same diameter, but with a feature that would not allow a standard f-mount lens to attach – much like Nikon’s AFS teleconverters with the extra tab they have. Thus you’d have a large diameter mount closer to the sensor that would be easy to design an adapter to mount true F-mount lenses. The large diameter mount + closer sensor distance would make it easier to design wide angle lenses that are small like they should be for a small body. Nikon can make a small body with a mount the same diameter as the f-mount – look at the FM-10 (which has an optical viewfinder).
I agree with what you’re saying John, but that wasn’t what was being suggested further up in the comments, where we both earlier posted (it was suggested full MX, DX, FX backward and forward compatibility was possible without adapters). If this was the case the sensor mount distance would have to be the same.
Additionally, there is no need for the mount diameter to remain the same – a glassless adapter for DX and FX (to mount on MX) could easily neck down to the smaller mount as the required image circle is far smaller.
I think your missing the point – the aim of the game here is small – compatibility with existing lenses is just a bonus.
You could change the sensor distance to the lens if you added an in-camera lens which corrected for the distance factor. It would mean slightly less IQ but I think for people buying a Nikon Evil its not something they would notice (plus a lot can be corrected in the camera’s software).
Plus the in-camera lens would project the sensor from dust etc…
Not that I think they’d do it, but an interesting idea
3 D
I just noticed the spec. info. is down on the Nikon Canada website for the 300mm f4.
Take that for what it’s worth…
What would be a real surprise is if Nikon was able remove the lag they have with keeping up with the market and releasing a body that is not an ‘S’ update this year. While the D3s and D3x are excellent cameras, the rest of the line-up is looking uncompetative when comparing core features and this is where a bulk of their sales are coming from. Nikon’s inability to still provide anything other then a 12MP sensor outside of the D3X makes them look rather antiquated and technology bound.
As for the lens lineup, there are about 22 ‘current’ lenses that are 10 years old or older, some getting on to 18 years since release. We all know what lenses they are yet Nikon still appear to be doing nothing about them. Yes there are rumours but nothing of proof, Nikon would go a long way in restoring faith with their customers in updating these lenses instead of releasing another wide angle DX zoom lens.
I tend to agree with you Gord, although Nikon’s F-mount backwards capability is great and lens life is awesome, there are a lot of lenses Nikon currently sells that could do with an update.
As for their bodies, again D3 series stuff is awesome but $$$. The rest of the line (and I think thats why so many people are waiting for the D700s/x/v/D900) just doesn’t cut it against modern (2008/2009) cameras from Sony & Canon, even the Pentax brand has a nice system which is spec wise excellent value for the $$$. So everyone is waiting for Nikon to wake-up and produce a camera that will knock our socks off and rejuvenate our faith in this brand.
Now specs and what a camera is design to do is two different things, however I think Nikon is a company that can get side-lined by things like 3D and Video features in cameras. Other companies such as sony and canon have departments dedicated for years on these improvements and Nikon needs to step up or they will lose the marketing war (Like Film, I think single-function cameras will be a thing of the past).
For interests sake, here are all the available lenses that are 10 years and older, with many begging for updates.
AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D 1993
AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D 1993
AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D 1993
AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED 1993
AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D 1994
AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D 1994
AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D 1994
AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D 1994
AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED 1994
AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D 1995
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D 1995
AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF 1995
AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D 1995
AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED 1997
AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED 1999
PC Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D 1999
AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED 2000
AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF 2000
AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED 2000
AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED 2000
AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED 2000
It’s a big list and many have been in a need of an update for a long time.
The “AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D 1993″ had been updated to AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED Nano 2008
“AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D 1995
PC Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D 1999
AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED 1997″
All three already have an update, so you list 4 lenses in total that have already been updated! You must really be sick of waiting, that you dont even know what is what anymore
Sorry…yes looks like Nikon have now removed the AF Micro 60mm and the PC 85mm from their site now, which was the not the case not long ago. Same with the 80-200mm, which seems to be adandoned now in place of the 70-200mm VRII. So they have taken choices away and not added to them. Nikon should never of removed the AFS version of the 80-200mm, not everyone wants VR.
Nikon still lists the AF 50mm f/1.4 as an available lens however. Regardless of those 4 lenses, there is still a lot needing updating.
Pfft…posted too soon. The AF 80-200mm is still available so it should remain on the above list.
they are not making any new stuff this year
the surprise. restarting the manufacturing of the af-28mm 1.4 and the mf-58mm 1.2.
no changes to the lenses. great as they are. same price as when originally introduced.
Yes!
No changes, wasnt one of the28/1.4 rings very prone to breaking?
i don’t know, tell me.
I thought I heard that on Moose Peterson’s video on this lens…
we all have great expectations so that a d900 or else would not be a surprise, the real surprise would be “nothing new” announcement
or maybe they will come out with a digital rangefinder like leica M9 and olympus e-p2
I think: Nikon bought Canon
i would be less surprised for the opposite
Looks like Nikon US website updated the lens site only showing the following listed as NEW:
AF-S 300mm f/2.8G
AF-S DX 85mm f/3.5G
TC-20E III
They do this everytime they are about to update something else to come, and thus seems to be more lenses, thought just could be more teleconverters!
300 Comments!!!!
Right now the only big surprise from Japan it the Toyota recall !
Wow, you really are so bored…, try staying on topic and add to the discussion with some sensible words!
I love you and will always do
)
EVIL, 1.1′ diagonal sensor, 12MP, 1080 Progressive, Raw Codec, QV Mount, F-Mount adapter with reduction optics, optional EVF…
Guess where the sensor is coming from
Just kidding …
i think you meant 1.1″…. i doubt a 1.1 foot sensor would be buyable….
hi folks, there is only one surprise: no new high MP DSLR body (focus on high quality?), but revolutionary Coolpix with interchangable lenses. Fortunately, my D90 (still the best APS sensor camera on earth) is only my layout camera, and my Contax 645 unbeatable as creative source of my important pics. whatever Nikon is going to announcce, no surprise.
Surprise? The surprise is Nikon will be pulling out from lowend dslr and will concentrate only on PRO cams. And noone in this blog will afford it!
Whooohooo!
The surprise will be the price, you need to make $1.000.000 / year to be able to buy a Nikon lens or camera.
NR ADMIN please be a good spy and find out quickly the rumours to be come reality 100-550 mm vr 3 etc
VR3? So close after releasing the 70-200 and 300/2.8 with VR2 in it? Don’t think so
What about a D3 sensor 35 mm uber-compact?
Use the 28 and/or 35 mm lenses from the 28/35Ti compacts in a full-frame compact with full manual control, and a hotshoe for an SB-400 or optical finder. If a manual focus ring and/or filter threads can be put on it, so much the better.
Market it towards professionals needing a small, discrete second camera that does not need a flash or of course to the entire X1 market. I could see journalists and event photographers having one of these both for backup and situations where they have to travel light.
I am not in the mkt for a new body or lens. I want Nikkor & EXPEED in a cellphone!
wow over 300 comments and nothing is even featured in this rumor!!
only 3 more nights to go
it will become quiet quite soon 
Leica Man does not care about oriental cameras and lenses.
@Leica Man:
Then you should NOT buy Leica as it is not all ‘GERMAN’ or made in the Black Forest any more … LOL!
I believe that Panasonic and others helped them out of the dark ages of the film M series and into the current electronic age.
Grow up!
Perhaps when Leica can make anything as excellent as a Nikon 200 F2, a 300 F2.8 VR2 or a 70-200 F2.8 VR2, then you can wake me up – LOL!
And YES, I have seen lots of Leica stuff and even bought one but sold it to my brother the Leica aficionado and Canon F1 user, back in the film days.
Me, I blew him away with an F3HP plus Md-4 motor drive, a cheap 75-150 F3.5 Series E Nikon zoom and a 105 F2.5 prime.
Shot Fuji Neopan 100, 400 and 1600 with Red and Orange plus Green filters (from Nikon and B+W) and blew away the Leica images on his Leica. I hated the way that the Leica loaded film and the crappy rangefinder focusing, but that’s me – plus the limited lens selection.
Everyone has their own tastes and choices pal!
LOL!
… back at ya pal -lol
We won’t even discuss the current state of the art in digital as in Nikon D3s or D3x.
dude, you just gave new meaning to the word ‘overreaction’! i loled so hard!
I don’t even own Leica, lol
you forgot to say lol
my bad, lol
Wouldn’t it be a big surprise if Nikon recalled all the 70-200mm lens purchased and fixed the problem so people would have more confidence in future releases of lenses and cameras! … or at least give a better explanation on the “reflective” particles in the lens!
If your zoom works well, I would not take a chance to return it, they may not do a great job puting it back together. Anyway you have a 5 years warranty, if things really get worse, you still have plenty time to use the warranty.
Regrettably, living in Australia we only get a 12 month warranty from Nikon. Have never figured why we are different to USA etc.!! I figure it would do more for Nikon’s reputation to give an explanation on the particles, and any potential reflection from them. If you’re aware of a statement or explanation from Nikon on this I’d like to have a read – if you have a link can you let me know.
Thanks
I know that Adorama or B&H (Newyork) are selling “imported” and “USA” models for the same lens. I don’t know if buying a USA from them and have it shipped to Australia will give you the 5 years warranty, you may try to give them a call.
The rumor mill is soooooo quiet now, before the big announcements on Feb 3…I wonder what the surprise will be…
Yes , its awfully quiet now. Maybe there’s really nothing out there, just CoolPix cameras. I’m not going to expect anything so that I will be “SURPRISED” if Nikon announces a new dslr or lens.
Nikon wants us to be SURPRISED, then i will take steps to get me SURRISED. But Nikon should also take steps to SURPRISE us. It takes two to tango !
The fact we are a couple of days away and not even an inkling of any real information probably means Nikon have no real surrises for us. Looks like we have another 4 months to wait at the least until we go through the whole agony and disappointment again.
It’s been so quiet for the past few days. Admin will surprise like us like how Nikon will, I’m sure :p
Im dying here. I just need to know what is going on. Please Nikon, send us a great new camera that makes “everyone happy” even the mighty ken R. and his magical d40. I dont know if I can make it more months in a row. Tell us on the 3rd.
Who said that surprise will come on February 3rd!? What if they will wait until July/August?
That might turn out to be the surprise too :p
The surprise better involve wide angle FF primes or I vow to open a vein in front of Nikon UK HQ…a bit like the buddhist monk torching himself in protest at the Vietnam war. It’s definitely that serious.
The 14-24 is like a box of wide primes. How wide do you want?
He needs at least F/0.8, that’s why he doesnt want the 14-24, its just too slow and small
Yes, it’s a great lens and I have it. Unfortunately it stops at 2.8, but you knew that already.
Nikon in 2010: “We plan to surprise the market”
Market is ‘’surprised” at this moment.
When they plan to surprise the market…?
December 2010…?
Be serious please.
I need a surprise. Why? My D300 has an “s” at the end of it. “s” stands for obsolete. Though it took great pictures a few months ago, it has gone the way of the D3. Both are not fit for even a beginning amateur since they only have a wimpy 12 MP. Canon looks much more impressive when gazing at the specs sheet and that is far more important than any photograph I may take with it. On top of that, all of my lenses are f2.8. That is a major issue because they are unusable unless they are f4 or f1.4. f2.8 doesn’t cut it anymore. No real photographer can take a decent photo with an f2.8 lens. My brand spanking new wide angle lens sucks as well. It passes the test because it is only 1 year old but it has no VR so it is obsolete already. I can’t take any decent photos unless I have VR at 10mm. My problems don’t stop there unfortunately. I have an SB800 flash. It sucks because it is a few years old. I can’t buy the SB900 or the SB600 because they suck even more so I can’t use flash. Also, my battery grip is garbage because it has no built in GPS. I can’t be expected to take decent photos unless I know exactly where I took the photo. This is especially cumbersome for studio work. So after buying all this gear, I have decided to switch to Canon. I couldn’t sell off the Nikon stuff because it is way to obsolete for anyone to buy it so I threw it all in the dumpster last night. Everywhere I go I can wear the Canon spec sheet as a badge of honor and people will KNOW that I am a real photographer. Not only that, canon has the same ergonomics as the Canon copier I use at work so when the firmware update is released, I will be able to send faxes and make copies with my 5D mk 2. Try that Nikon!! This is a sad day because I ran into a longtime friend right here on Nikon Rumors. I’ll be on Canon rumors from now on. We send in our rumors via fax directly from our cameras. The only thing that can possibly save this is if Nikon releases the D900 next week. It has to be no less than 24 MP, 3D super HD video, GPS, 200 point AF, clean ISO to 900,000, and cost less than $1200. I also demand the long overdue 9-500mm f1.4 VR II and it better be small and built like a tank for under $800. If not then no more Nikon Rumors for me. That is sad because I was hoping to meet my future wife here. Make it happen Nikon!!
Perhaps YOU need an upgrade!
More MEMORY and a life for sure – LOL!
Nothing wrong with the older equipment.
If you were skilled, you could use an old Yashicamat TLR and some Fuji Velvia slide film plus ‘guess’ the exposure.
LOL!
Duh!
Quit whining!
(I think he’s being sarcstic)
YES – and I have a ‘wickedly terse’ sense of humor and was laughing at the dolt.
10-4 bud!
LOL!
Someone has a bad sense of humour/sarcasm…
hehe
Ya had me going till a third of they way down! in 10 years from now, I wonder what photographers will be demanding from their camera. The grand kids will be playing with the old 24MP D4. D700’s and D3’s will sell on Craigslist for what a Pentium 4 computer with 19″ CRT monitor go for now.
The single thing that made me turn was the whole 70-200 fiasco. I own the 80-200 but I want faster autofocus and VR so I need to get the 70-200. I can’t buy the new one because even though it has superior image quality over the old one, it may have a small inconsistency when viewed with a bright light down the wrong end of the lens. If I had a customer that happened to be carrying a bright flashlight and happen to notice this inconsistency, I would be the joke of the town and would have to throw the lens away. I can’t buy the old one because it now sucks. It was nearly perfect a few months ago but now it is very blurry, and vignetting makes it look as though I’m using a Holga. Everyone would laugh if I tried to buy that lens. I’ll have to buy the Canon version. It is painted white so it must be perfect.
I love my Nikon gear and plan on getting the 70-200 VR II in a couple weeks even though it is worth $0 and has metal boulders rolling around inside. …maybe that is the key to VR II?
Yes, that is the Gyro system
9-500VR lens!! That made me laugh
It’s so quiet on NR
Is it the calm before ther storm ?
i was thinking just that.
…….2 more days (hopefully only)……….
So Hasselblad will make a major announcement on Feb. 10th and gets no net coverage but this guy says basically NOTHING and gets 350 comments. Slow days I guess.
This is Nikon forum, if you need Blad informations, creat a Blad forum
)
The Nikon “SURPRISE” will come form a Japan press announcement on Febuary 29th at 10.30 US ET time don’t miss it, that will be a BIG surprise.
Well, you know to find the Tips button I hope…, unless this is a hoax
given the respective local time in japan that would be very amusing to watch….. imagine a group of little japanese people in suits and ties looking like insomniacs with cups of coffee in front of them…..
Feb 29th?
he didn’t say which year
the surprise will be that there is no surprise – nothing
Nikon, bring the Coolscan back!
Film is the RealRaw!
I have one, did not touch it for 5 years !
Wich one? For sale?
369 comments! Why? It is for Nikon users an important theme I think. Most of the comments were disappointed, as I´m too.
What did the guy say in the interview? Nebulous phrases, nothing else, same procedure as every year. If they want to surprise the market, they have to top Canons picture quality in the middle class as D5 Mk II and the price tags. I believe they won´t do that. Last Test in the Swiss/German pro “Photographie”: winner Canon D7, second D300s. So, is this one of the “surprises”? Probably.
If I would start again with photography, it wouldn´t be Nikon gear again(I do that for 48 years). So, that´s it.
was the 7D winner, because of normal standard features, or just because it has more MP? It sounds to me like marketing only. And that’s why I stopped buying photo magazines for the reviews.
I’m hoping the surprise is integrated GPS on all new nikon DSLR’s.
Nice, I’m always in for surprises! Funny though that I still read a rumor site, ruining the surpise mostly :-p
I’d rather be surprised with more megapixels low priced, hight sensitivity and dynamic range. I wonder I’d be more surprised with a new concept of CMOS pattern even with a improved raw processor. I won’t be surprised with Video features. Actually I’m a little fed up of that
The surprise is they are selling the business to Microsoft !
their next gen camera will run windows mobile and will double as a PDA. ;-P
Oh YES SURE
THEY WILL SURPRISE THE MARKET WITH A 13 MPIX CAMERA!!!
IN FACT NIKON SUCKS… THEIR 2 YEARS TIMETABLE IS STUPID CONSIDERING THAT CANON IS LAUCHING CAMERAS EVERY YEAR… AT LEAST IN CANON THEY ARE WORKING…
IN NIKON THEY THINK THAT IF THEY DONT RELEASE A CAMERA WE ARE GOING TO THINK THAT IT IS BECAUSE ISN’T POSSIBLE TO INCREASE THE QUALITY… NO SHIT IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE A BUNCH OF RUBBERS
Perhaps the surprise is this:
Firstly, a mirrorless style camera, interchangeable lens system announced with new sensor format = MX (factor x2.5), followed by later in the year at Photokina a mirrorless style camera, interchangeable lens system announced with a sensor size DX (factor x1.5).
The DX version uses the same component body as the MX, but improves on the Expeed and allows the use of DX and MX lenses on the same body
Just a rumor!