More Nikon concept cameras

The Japanese site has few more pictures of concept Nikon DSLR cameras:

The text on the black label from one of the pictures is the same as the text in my previous post:

「全てニコン デザイン部からの提案モデルです」
All proposed models from Nikon's design department
They are all concept designs having considered future speculations
No plans to commercialise

Thanks to everybody that sent translations/info/links.

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • amian

    They look like “old” pro 35mm slr cameras, back in the 90’s !

    • Joe

      ya, they look like the Film camera from the 90s

    • JamesC

      I agree, the top one is like a cross between the F4 and F5.

    • David

      They look more like D1 prototypes!

      • old d1

        could be using old cameras to throw people off their design trail or create hype

    • Serguei_V

      To me, cameras of 1990’s were just perfect. If there were no digital revolution, I would never need anything better than F4 or FM2.

  • Joel C

    The square design looks good, as long as they take the time to get the ergonomics right too, it could be a winner.

  • texasjoe

    The top LCD is WAY to small to be pro.

    • f-stop

      good point could be the D400…..2011 looks like I will be working for only Nikon products lol!…

      • Almond Butterscotch

        D400 won’t have a built-in vertical grip.

        Least, I hope not- that’ll just drive up the price!

        • broxibear

          I think it will have a built in drive like the D3 series…it’s one of the things that will differentiate it from the the D7000.
          It was something I was told many months ago and I think it makes sense…the D7000 is around £1000 in the UK and I’d expect the D400 to be around £1800.

          • texasjoe

            What will make it different would be image quality. It wouldn’t have video but better high iso. More pro grade features somewhat like the D700. It wouldn’t have a built in grip. Nikon would want you to buy that separate. And I’m sure it wouldn’t be the same mb-d10 as the D300.

            • Eric Pepin

              I think it might have the built in. At this point Nikon is trying to move around its product line, and if the D400 is truly the “pro” DX camera, they may make it a DX D4 so to speak and charge only a few hundread less then the D800 without a grip.

              I hope not though, i love my d300 and if the d400 simply improves on what i already have i wont need to go fx once i graduate.

        • Marc W.

          I wish that was true about the F6 now adays.

    • cheriuhs

      Could be right LCD when another in the same frame.

    • Marc W.

      OMG, the D700 has a smaller LCD than the D300.

  • Matstar

    The first one looks like a D4, the second is just too ugly IMO.

  • fajar

    both are not a sexy camera.

    • Almond Butterscotch

      Agreed. This isn’t the 80s. No one wants hard lines anymore. It’s all about the clean, sexy curves.

      • nfiorito

        actually I think that ship sailed a few years ago too.
        Chrysler Intrepid, Sebring, Beetle, etc, very round and curvy back in early 2000s, now look at the new Cadillacs, Dodge trucks, even BMWs, they all have hard edges that flow into each other. Not a box, but not a ball either.
        I like the look of these.

  • Enche Tjin

    Thin like old film camera which I like, but glossy like toys, which I hate heehhee..

  • echong

    the 2nd camera looks like the APS SLR camera. yuck!

  • ans

    Are they trying to innovate or go back into time? These are pro stuff they gotta show us something that looks easy to grab in your hand.

    Square toaster concept.

  • Hairulns

    if the body made from carbon fibre,..maybe more better handling. i just guess

    • Teun

      While carbon fibre is a strong material, it’s not good for a camera. Carbon fibre tends to break (quite spectaculary) upon impact, which makes your camera very fragile, you just cannot afford to drop it. There is more to strenght than just tensile strength. Carbon fibre is an excellent material for bikes, cars etc. Things which are not likely to crash (ever seen a carbon fibre bike splinter upon impact?).

      • K T

        So bikes and cars are not likely to crash???? You should go out more often

        • Mock Kenwell


        • Teun

          Yes, but cars are not designed to survive a crash (whilst pro- magnesium alloy cameras are). Cars are usually designed to fold and take the impact. A carbon fibre car has a much higher risk of needing total repair than a regular one.

          • Teun

            I mean, ever watched a Formula 1 crash? You can’t use the car afterwards, the pieces go flying everywhere. I would not want my camera not drop and crash like that. CF is an excellent material, but it also has got its disadvantages, besides just cost.

            • PHB

              The crashes in F1 are way faster than anything you could subject a camera to short of throwing it from a moving F1 racecar.

              There are many different ways to deploy carbon fiber. Depending on the precise details of the design you can have a body that is as rigid or as flexible as you please.

              I work in GRP quite a bit. Carbon fiber is very similar. The trick is giving the piece just the right amount of give so that it takes an impact gradually. If you have a metal camera and you drop it, the camera may survive but the lens is likely ruined. You would really prefer the camera to cushion the blow as much as possible.

              What I would look to do is to decouple the mirror support and sensor mount from the rest of the camera entirely. Have the mounts for the mirror sweep and the sensor support be a part of the metal F-mount. That can be made rigid with metal supports etc. Then I would make the enclosure for that structure from CF. One big advantage of that approach is that you can make a body that is big without having excessive weight.

              That is incidentally why some pros prefer the plastic Canon lenses – they bounce.

              Carbon fiber seems to me to be the ideal material for a big lens. The weight savings can be considerable and because of leverage are going to be very noticeable.

              Carbon fiber for bodies makes less sense. You still have a battery, so the weight savings are less dramatic. It is definitely a ‘nice to have’, but probably not going to do a great deal for a flagship sized camera. On the D400/D800 on the other hand, could be a very big deal.

        • shigzeo

          Cars that are made out of carbon fibre are sport cars meant to be driven on a track, or very carefully on streets. Carbon fibre DOES crack on impact very easily.

          My mates who have carbon fibre bikes lament the chipping. A few drops and carbon is much less impact-resistant than a plastic/rubber lining to a metal body. It doesn’t bend or dent, it simply cracks.

          I’d take carbon in a bike because it is lite, but I’d not expect that same bike to last very long. My steel bicycle is heavier, but in 30 years when my mates have bought their 5th or 6th carbon bike, my bike will still be fine.

          Carbon this, carbon that storytelling is so the year 2000. It is over and should be in applications that require strength as a metric for impact resistance.

        • Mikael Willberg

          At least bike == bicycle frames that are made form carbon fibre must be replaced or examined closely with x-ray to make sure there are no hidden fractures. It is really unsafe to trust visual inspection only.

          It is possible to repair those, but personally I would not feel safe riding with those fixes.

      • Jabs

        @Teun and others here:
        Carbon fiber is a NAME given to a large quantity of different materials all designed specifically for a PURPOSE or USE.
        In cars or race cars, it is used and DESIGNED to splinter and thus save the DRIVER and the engine/suspension – BREAK AWAY cars save lives and replacement parts are easier to remove and replace as ONE big unit saving time in the PITS – FACTS.
        This has NOTHING to do with cameras, as cameras are compromised of several parts – some METAL, some ALREADY of composites – ever looked at a D3 or ANY modern camera – and some are of other materials.
        Modern cameras ABSORB impact and then often bounce back while protecting their MORE sensitive electronic innards – IT WOULD be too expensive to make a shatterproof camera, as NO manufacturer would make a living SELLING you new gear, so perhaps you wake up to that.
        Carbon fiber is a CATCH-ALL phrase misused by many and thus ONE form does not make all of them the same or showing similar properties upon impact.
        Ever SEEN a carbon fiber CASE by Zero-Halliburton and then looked at the IMPACT strength compared to the STRESSED aluminum or perhaps titanium cases?
        MOST cameras are therefore composites of different materials from metal to COMPOSITE plastics, all designed to protect the innards and YES, the Canon lenses were designed TO NOT stretch in heat like metal ones often do – and that is why they made them of plastics.
        However, Nikon makes much better long lenses that Canon right NOW and the really new and great lenses coming from Canon NOW (unique video/still hybrid lenses), have all been delayed until I hear next year and I don’t know why.

  • goose

    the shiny body is a big attention grabber. less stealthy, last thing people want for candid photos. IMO

  • Slow Gin

    Ugly stuff. To be honest I more like external view of Canon cameras, especially film EOS 300 and EOS 1V.

  • Tokyo Mike

    These cameras are nothing new. They has been in the showroom in Shinjuku for the past 3+ years. There is also a sign that says to not take pictures of these cameras. The showroom has been renovated recently so I doubt that these mock cameras are there anymore.

    • JBL

      O rly? maybe you should email the admin about this… I mean.. this is quite interesting.

      • [NR] admin

        I am monitoring the comments and I updated the previous post, thanks!

  • miso

    these concepts are ugly. terrible ugly. it is good that final product has other-normal design continually, otherwise nikon shooters would be forced to take canon for fear of be ashamed in the face of client.

  • Marco

    You know,
    all these prototypes (incl the suspected EVIL camera) may just as well be prototypes of existing cameras, just for display sake.

  • N. Dharma

    ugly design

  • Discontinued


  • Gilles

    I read this blog since quite a while, and I very desapointed to see people always complaining on everything…
    “if nikon dont do this or don t do that, I will go to canon..” “What ugly design…”
    I IMHO think that those people don t know nothing about humility…
    I personnaly think, that if you don t have something interesting to say, then the better thing is to say nothing.
    Of course I like people communicate together through this comment fields, but I honestly feel a lot of frustraton here…
    That was just my point, and to say something about design and concept, and even if those models are 3+ years old, I like square design.
    Thanks to NR for this webiste and the news.

  • Mock Kenwell

    Sorry for complaining about the ugliest cameras ever to grace the Earth. If you want something positive, at least they won’t make all the other cameras jealous by being so pretty.

    These have to be old. They look too dated even for Nikon. But man, I still think Nikon hasn’t done anything conceptually beautiful and innovative since the early 90’s Coolpix swivel body design. From a design perspective, they follow trends instead of creating them, and they are conservative to a yawn-inducing fault.

    • Eric Pepin

      since th F3 you mean. My d300 may not be beautiful but it just damn works, and looks professional which is a plus.

  • Jabs

    THANKS for your efforts and all these prototypes, even if old.
    I personally think that Nikon is going ‘Carbon fiber’ in its’ designs and for a good reason – STRENGTH and flexibility in Industrial 3D (not 3D vision or lenses) design via computers, 3D PRODUCT ‘printers’ – meaning QUICKER from concept in computer software prototyping to MARKET and thus modularity in its’ line of cameras.
    The MYTH that Carbon Fiber is fragile is just THAT – an Internet MYTH, as carbon fiber is compromised of too many divergent components and elements for one to generalize as that is NONSENSE.
    Composite = composed of WHATEVER in almost any fashion, therefore pointless to tell anyone about what it is, its’ durability or its’ suitability for the JOB or purpose, as many ONLY look at AUTO RACING (F1 – Formula One) (plus Wikipedia) and other forms of racing and fail to realize that the IMPACT of collisions at RACING speeds is greater than anything a camera would ever be subjected to, so different materials and requirements (ever seen a camera go 200+ mph or does a camera have the VOLUME or size of one or two automobiles ?).
    IMPACT force = SPEED or velocity of BOTH vehicles multiplied by size of the two objects, so two vehicles or ONE going at 150 to 250 MPH and hits another going the SAME direction has an impact force multiplied and also one that hits a BARRIER has an impact speed MAGNIFIED by the sudden deceleration and thus people DO NOT get this.
    I welcome carbon fiber in cameras and they look great to me and are like at the bleeding edge of technology, though many will not like them, as they ARE stuck in the past perhaps. The MAJORITY of Industrial design has now gravitated towards this look and construction technique BUT consumers like other looks (bling – lol), so they have to decide and probably will use one design for consumers and one design for PROS.

    Progress or CHANGE is never easy!
    Go for it Nikon – take us into the future – dragging or screaming – LOL!

    • JBL

      so they have to decide and probably will use one design for consumers and one design for PROS.

      This is quite interesting.

      Because I believe consumer want their DSLR to be as close as the pro models as possible..

      If this is true, that should start by keeping the consumer models like they are while updating the pro models and soon people will believe that the new look is the one that is fresh and pro looking, they will want it.

      • Jabs

        @JBL (do you make Audio Equipment – LOL, just teasing)
        Unfortunately or fortunately, Apple is now a real force in consumer design and that LOOK.
        Pros and consumer based Nikon’s were different in the past, as the consumer cameras were black and silver and the Pro ones were all black.
        Nikon made some all black models like FA (had one) and FM2 plus maybe FE2 and then made one F3 Series black and silver (had one) named the F3TC and then people hated it and Nikon released the follow up product named the F3TB (painted the natural Titanium finish a black wrinkle finish – same as in F3P).
        I see consumers gravitating towards smaller and ‘cuter’ cameras plus more combined functions (for U-Tube, Facebook, Vimeo and such) with more ‘marketing spec emphasis’ like the horrible MP3 players -vs- REAL high end audio or even commercial CD’s. I see the ‘fashionistas’ as the ones influencing design over functionality or even PERFORMANCE and thus we are in the i-THIS and i-THAT era or cuteness over substance and thus ALL manufacturers have to respond.
        Me, I don’t either like or dislike an i-Pod, but I can do better on my computer, as I have Creative sound cards which can give me better than CD sound quality (I have 24bit or 32bit 96Khz or 192 Khz playback or recording on Linux Studio 64bit), BUT I am not a consumer nor can you take your desktop or laptop as easily with you as an i-Pod, so reality bites – LOL!
        I see miniaturization as a necessary evil EVEN when most of the products are INFERIOR, but cuteness and size often equates NEWER tech to many and thus better to the uninformed, as I am a pro at what I do in both audio, video and photography – HENCE, not the target market of the “appleoholics”, though I actually like the MacPros – both desktop and laptop.
        Smaller cameras I hate as they are too cumbersome to use FOR ME, but I like their look and NOT their performance. Since, I AM geared towards ultimate performance, then they are for another crowd as I see no need to fit my gear in my pocket as I use various cases to store my gear (Zero Halliburton cases) and to transport them, so NOT the target market.
        The digital world (audio, video and photography) is already dividing over size and portability BUT I don’t care, as PERFORMANCE and not cuteness is my ONLY goal.
        I am at the high end and love it there!

        My perspectives.

        • shigzeo

          You are right: composite CAN be anything, but bringing up bicycles as a good example is always stupid as there isn’t a good example on the market. You didn’t however, but I had to react.

          If Nikon could make a composite that… isn’t just theoretically strong, but would last as my D200 has, being crashed into by a car, the street, etc., I might think about it, but in a lab is one thing. Like gorilla glass, it is perfect in a lab. Take it to real life and see what happens. Eventually, the only thing you really get out of carbon fibre is that its tensils themselves can support a lot of weight, but it’s the composite that gives the thing strength.

          Now, about audio – creative is cute and considered more consumerish than any iPod ever will be. Creative passed its good stay about 20 years ago. That wasn’t good to bring up – neither was 192Khz music as that is often a sham of: recorded differently and compared directly to 16bit 48kHz.

          There is no BETTER sound until you compare the same track mastered and recorded in the same circumstances AND done with the perfect filters. As it is, 24 bit files are always messed up or helped along by very clever marketing companies (that also sell the tracks).

          Ad naseum this thing has been debated and at every turn, there hasn’t been a way to scientifically tell which sounds better. Go to stereophile or other hifi/audiophile magazines and they’ll say 24 bit hands down, but then they also don’t ever test their files to make sure of control; they just oo and aww at the ‘resolution’ or ‘the cough i heard in the background’.

          You are right about smaller cameras. With CURRENT technology, we are stuck with large cameras and that size means pro. But I’ve never met a consumer who equates the smallness of a camera with being hi-tech. Most agree that my ‘large’ D200 is much more professional.

          The thing is, though, that technology does changee. The SLR has been around for over 60 years now, but before it, and before the rangefinder, cameras were MUCH larger. Original cameras had to be stood up on tripods and earlier than that, were large rooms.

          The SLR will eventually go away – that is just technology. I like my D200, but I’d be very stupid to think that it will be part of a ruling class forever.

          • Jabs

            WOW – long reply from you and really appreciated EVEN though I disagree on much, as PRO here for over 30+ years plus Engineer.
            You posted well and below is my response:
            First point about bicycles – understood – LOL.
            Second point about D200 – recently a PRO shooter left his D3X hanging out the door of his vehicle and he drove several miles on a highway doing up to about 80+ mph and the D3X was hanging and bouncing all over the highway – the D3X survived and the lens did not, so a D3X is stronger than ANY D200 as it already has BETTER composites in its’ structure.
            Third point – you are dated. There are some better audio cards than Creative but HAVE you looked at their current line up – maybe ONLY Auzentech and Asus beats them and then the PRO market is another world unto itself. I don’t use Windows or Macs to record anything, as they are BOTH 32 bit in structure and though they now CLAIM 64bit, they are a composite of TWO 32 bits to make or fabricate a 64 bit image, hence useless as ONLY Linux is truly 64 BIT native. My Creative card can do 32 bit in 64Bit Linux Studio – a PRO product while the SAME card cannot do 32 bit in even 64 bit Windows 7 or 2008 Server R2 (find out what ‘WOW’ equals for a clue), as they BOTH are 32+32 to make 64 bit while Linux can pass a FULL 64bit image and Apple is NOW gravitating towards a TRUE 64bit, but not there YET – facts!
            You are guessing about 16bit and clueless.
            16bit was introduced by CD’s years ago as a compromise of size vs fidelity.
            There is 8bit, 16bit, 24bit, 32bit, 48bit and 64bit and they all have differing frequencies at which they TOP OUT. Don’t try and teach me what I already know! SUPER Cd’s or MUSIC mastered on to DVD’s have a 24bit structure natively and almost everyone can hear the difference. I don’t go to the web sites that you talk about, as not interested in BALONEY, as I go to Studios MYSELF and hear their recordings and NOT the commercial crap. MP3’s are not even high fidelity and regular CD’s are so far superior to them, that it makes you look like a clueless GUESSER. You probably think that your iPod is high fidelity – lol.
            Fourth point – you are clueless and GUESSING, as I can do a BIT matched recording and playback with my Creative card and stay digital totally from start to finish as it is DONE on my computers (even have a new laptop which can do this in Win7, so get up to speed and quit quoting baloney to me).
            Fifth point:
            The CLARITY of a 24bit or 32 bit recording is too EASY to hear, that there is no point – GO TO ANY High End Studio and tell them differently and they will laugh at you.
            Sixth point:
            Again have you anyone who has an i-Phone or an i-Pad or even a Point and Shoot camera?
            Seventh point:
            I already know these details BUT do you understand what I was saying?
            SMALLER means higher tech to CONSUMERS now and that is fact. DO you live in America- that is fact here.

            • shigzeo

              Long for long, it seems!

              Unfortunately, I don’t live in the USA, so I can’t answer about your consumers, but I can answer that I’ve never met anyone who looks at something tiny as the answer to technology. Rather, everyone I meet who sees tiny thinks: Tiny.

              Audio: right, I am not thinking of anything but pro. I am no longer in the recording industry, but was. But as for the sound differences, the audible differences that you mention as clearly audible have many explanations and that is fine for me and you, I am sure.

              I am not an internet troll. Perhaps we can meet at CES or NAMM this year and talk about it in person. Anyway, recorded formats: SACD/DVDA and most other hi-res formats (yes, I am aware (of course) of REDBOOK’s ‘tradeoffs’ of compression/space). That is a very typical audiophile comment, but one that holds no weight in the professional world (that I’ve been involved in). I know, maybe America is different.

              The thing is that these formats have gone through very different compression algorithms to press out an album – of course they will sound different to CD.

              Of course, when testing the waveforms with proper software, the difference is astronomical – but those differences have never been proven to be audible in any non-partisan test. Of course the recording should be done for original source in as high quality as possible. But (and I know I am preaching to someone in a clergy), those differences don’t pan out in the same way in real life.

              No matter the speakers. No matter the headphones. No matter the DAC’s, amps, cables, etc..

              CD’s and SACD/other hi-res audio cannot be compared on the same table. Either the volume will be different (the main voice in deciding which ‘sounds’ better). I am talking about final product here, not at the source recording.

              Volume has to be matched perfectly for audio comparisons to be made. Then, in order for hardware/software decoders not to bring in problems, the files have to be equalised by a number of other factors. By the time it is all said and done (and there is no done because no one can agree on how to equalise the files to compare fairly), tests are always skewed for or against one format.

              So, you are right of course: at the source, the file should be recorded very well – but damn it to hell, and as you know, a lot of engineers are effing with dynamics by recording at the volume limits of the format. Why? louder ‘sounds better’.

              I would not expect my D200 to survive falling off a truck or van – of course. But until your comments, no one had mentioned composites. They had set on carbon fibre. Composites have to hide the carbon underpinnings pretty down well to be strong enough to survive impacts. Carbon fibre isn’t good with impact. Cram a bunch of other stuff in it (as with every alloy (basically composite)) and the material gets strong.

              We could discuss for years and come away with the same thesis: composite/alloy is stronger than single parts. But then again, that would be pointless. You brought up carbon composite and that is fine. Aluminium is pretty weak unless in a good alloy. The same with many metals and plastics in composite. The same is true for Carbon fibre.

          • Jabs

            Finally an intelligent conversation here – THANKS -lol.
            Yeah, I get you and you seem to get me.
            In America, the iPod, iPad, iPhone plus other MP3players are all the rage and running over everything in sight with their innovative size, designs and cuteness factor.
            MP3’s are not high fidelity and neither are CD’s anymore (from my standpoint), as Pro Audio person from the 60’s and user of nothing but high end AR (Acoustic Research) stuff back in the days – lol.
            I am speaking about the RECORDED material and not the commercial MIX-DOWNS, as those are laughable and compressed (even more so on MP3’s) as you know or even ‘equalized’ to sound a certain way or actually the dynamic range is compressed for a certain guttural impact that is phony but loved by many. I have been in Recording sessions and I have a relative who is a famous Producer of well known current artists and thus familiar with the process and the equipment. However, I use my computer as it allows me a FULL digital environment and software is now better than separate hardware (except in flexibility) to ME. Auto-Tune, Pro Tools and other such “Production tools” have now made any idiot a recording star EVEN if they cannot sing or carry a tune and the same has happened with records and recording. I am speaking strictly about RECORDING QUALITY and I listen to the easily recognized differences of sounds played back at 44Khz, 48Khz, 96Khz or even 192Khz @24bit and I DO hear a great difference because my ear has been trained over the years and thus pro (sorry BUT I don’t listen to 16bit anything as I upsample everything). I only listened on AR equipment in the past just like what was once used in several famous Studios all over the world (I am talking about the OLD AR of Boston, Mass., and not the newer AR which is in name only now). I am talking about classic speakers such as the AR3a, AR91, ARMGC-1, AR9LS, AR98LS, AR-TSW series and such great gear from the past.
            Nowadays convenience rules over quality and that was and still is my point. The American RECORDING Industry wants it that way as the commercial products were getting too close to the quality of the SOURCE material and thus dumb it down as in iPods and such to discourage or offset PIRACY – facts of life here in America.
            The same scenario is occurring in photography wherein people want iPhone style functionality and cuteness over HIGH QUALITY digital cameras and thus Nikon and others have to react or perhaps get run over by that.
            I understand about the composite and nothing more to add – LOL.
            Yeah, a pro (whose name I forgot) and who shoots motorcycles with D3X’s and Nikon PC (Perspective Control) lenses made a video about his experiences with the D3X and that is where I got the story of the ruggedness of the D3X from.
            Thanks and have a great day – nice conversation.

  • Arcsif

    I think there is no relation between the shape of these prototypes and the material they should be made of. These forms can easily be made of either carbon or magnesium or any type of plastic.
    Also, with prototypes one always have to consider that sometimes only parts of the prototypes are detailed for certain design purposes (e.g. the shutter-button area on the second one) and the rest is just there for the size. So I wouldn’t bother about the exact forms and surfaces of these mock-ups.
    Also these are generally made by the engineers themselves in the factory, and not the designers who are different companies with much better skills (like Giugiaro in the case of Nikon’s pro line (not so sure about the rest of Nikon DSLRs, though:) )

  • Ro_Serpiente

    glossy with fat fingerprints on it.. Not likely to come on the market!

  • Taropon

    Not sure how many of you have already translated but I will also give it a go…
    I can’t quite make out the text from the picture but I think it is

    「全てニコン デザイン部からの提案モデルです」
    All proposed models from Nikon’s design department
    They are all concept designs having considered future speculations
    No plans to commercialise

    The second line is not an exact translation but I have tried to phrase it the best I could.
    Basically it is saying ‘Don’t expect these to come out’

    • [NR] admin

      thanks for the translation

  • Xanadu AW18

    Nice funny and i agree with jabs about speed but nikon don´t loos the curved red please and bring the next dslrs again with cf cards two slots and enough rumours about the D800 on google so let´s wait

    • enesunkie

      My first observation was what did they do to the red swish! Blasphemy!

  • Funduro

    When the first Nikon carbon fiber composite pro DSLR comes out, there will lusting and jealousy of epic proportions. Boeing is building a whole passenger airplane made of the stuff. The weight saving, improved electronics, functions, buffer size, touch screen. In 10 years the new manufacturing processes and materials will trickle down to the affordable cameras.

  • The invisible man

    Look like the Canon EOS 1
    Are we back in the 80th ?

  • ZoetMB

    Yes, these seem like ugly designs.

    But they’re concepts…(probably the rejected ones), so don’t get all excited and upset.

    We don’t know how old they are and someone posted above that they’re AT LEAST three years old, which would explain a lot. The shiny black one looks to me to be even older, but who knows?

    So while looking at these concepts is fun, I don’t think it means very much.

  • Ant

    Personally I prefer the more boxy design of your average Nikon to the curvy Canons. The angular look feels more masculine.

  • jk

    Looks a little too futuristic.. I can’t imagine being seen shooting with that. This would go perfect with a photovest.

  • Arthur

    That glossy piano black is rubbish on a camera. It will get scratched easily and it’s a fingerprint magnet. Other than that the design is not bad I think. But not very impressive.

  • gohan

    im 20
    if i go out somewhre bring that kind of design,
    definately……..they say, nice camera OLD MAN..

  • gohan

    but seriously..
    i like the 1st one..8-)

  • David

    I search images for examples of cameras in 2-tone designs, and chanced upon a website called “”. There are many beautiful examples there, the FE + motor drive (black + white leather) is beautiful. I presume it is expensive to customise a camera body in leather, but I wish Nikon incorporate ‘replaceable skins’ in the design of bodies. The old film cameras had clean and distinct top, middle and bottom ‘sections’ that make it easier to replace skins in interesting and appealing designs. I think the ability to personalise a camera body is an enhancement to ‘user experience’.

    • Eric Pepin

      agreed. Even some basic options on the higher end bodies would be great, nothing like painting it pink but damn, maybe let the pros paying 5+ grand choose what kind covering there camera has. Just make a default camera which is the fastest way to go and a delayed custom option for a few hundread bucks more.

  • Karl R.

    They are looking like canons – awfully!!

  • Rob Ellis

    The top one is rather sheksy! the bottom looks like a canon rip off, bleurghhhhh.

  • Dweeb

    Still looks like a 1960 Nikon F with the metal replaced with plastic.

  • Pierre

    If either were the highly anticipated D700 replacement with all the killer stuff every one is waiting for, I would be willing to call either of them beautiful.

    Seriously, you purchase a D3s or any of the medium-format system because it is beautiful? They just looks like what they are, magnificient tools.

  • trey

    Who the f*** cares what a camera looks like. All that matters is the meat inside and the way it feels in your hand. Oooohhhh… look what the y did to the red stripe on the front. Takes me back to a f90 from the mid 1990s. Paint a set of tits on it and I’m still not going to be impressed with a prototype they are not going to market. Who cares.

    PS. fire Aston Cutcher

    • Pierre

      “Paint a set of tits”? Your pushing it man, there is a limit to bad taste.

      • Elton

        Oh, come on dude, you know bad taste has NO limits. 😉

  • MrBobeep

    The color scheme looks like the purple Zaku from Gundam series.

  • Natthawat Wongrat

    Why so shinny and ugly?

  • cirtap

    That is Google Translate from the Website of the cameras. IT is concept cameras.

  • David

    They look all awful. Why can’t they create the F100 or F6 Digital. It was the perfect form

  • Bruce

    LoL… folks, these are from Nikon’s “museum” collection. The last time I saw these was at Nikon Plaza in Shinjuku about 6 years ago. They are NOT new design concepts. I suspect they were D1 prototypes.

  • Back to top