< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

The picture of the Nikon mirrorless mount is real

The picture of the Nikon mirrorless mount is real. How do I know? Nikon officially requested the Chinese forum Xitek to remove the entire post containing the camera code name and the picture. The post is now gone.

This entry was posted in Nikon 1. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://www.almondbutterscotch.com/home Almond Butterscotch

    I never really doubted it was real. Whether or not it’s good to see it’s real…. =/

    • Banned

      Yes EXACTLY! So I guess it is real that Nikon’s response to Micro 4/3 is a tiny compact camera sensor and not even F mount. Please Nikon, tell me what the point is in buying this for a Nikon shooter!

      • El Aura

        You know well that making a mirrorless camera with a mount that has the same flange distance than existing (D)SLR mounts is absolutely pointless.

        Why then do say you want an F-mount? Because you want to be able to re-use existing F-mount lenses, with all features like VR and AF. But any mirrorless camera can via a mount adaptor re-use (D)SLR lenses thus what exactly the mount looks like is irrelevant.

        So, why do don’t like it so much that Nikon’s mirrorless camera will not have an F-mount? Either because you are completely irrational in this point and think that you can get the advantages of a mirrorless camera (smaller camera and lenses) while still being able to put F-mount lenses on it without an adaptor. Or because you subconsciously realise that a smaller sensor means using existing F-mount lenses (compared to new native ones) is highly suboptimal and project your displeasure about the sensor size choice on the mount.

        • iamlucky13

          Agreed.

          Personally, I’m just disappointed they seem to be going for a small sensor. I was hoping for DX (FX being just a dream).

          This won’t make the mirrorless body and dedicated lenses remarkably smaller than the 4/3 bodies, or else the ergonomics will start to suck, but it makes the utility of adapting F-mount lenses to the new mount much lower.

          And of course, the sensor is going to be have more limited capabilities than a DX sensor. I’m contemplating a mirrorless as a hiking camera, and the higher dynamic range the larger sensors typically have would be useful for me.

          • Scott

            +1

            I wish Nikon would have just designed a truly competitive “high end P&S” instead (~ G12).

            • iamlucky13

              Who knows? Maybe that could be a small consolation if the mirrorless really does have a 2.5x crop sensor – Nikon might use the same sensor to get serious about fielding a competitor to the G12. I bet you could fit 28-105 or so equivalent on that in a body just a hair bigger than the G12.

  • Bip

    I am it is…….

  • Felix

    The sensor seems to be quite small, dows someone know how big it is?

    • http://www.cantwellphoto.com Cantwell

      Felix: it is. I don’t remember the actual size but it was reported that they’d be using a larger compact size sensor. Maybe like 1/1.7″?

      That looks like an awful lot of lens for that size sensor. Does anybody else think that, or is my perspective just distorted. Here’s a D70 mount for comparison:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nikon_D70_img_0725.jpg

      • http://alfredogotay.com AGC

        Maybe they made the lens mount larger than necessary to later introduce another model with a larger sensor?

        • Sky

          If they would want to do this – than why put contacts in place where bigger sensor would fit?

          This mount doesn’t have a chance for bigger sensor, not with this setup.

          • http://kvirtanen.deviantart.com KVirtanen

            Maybe they need a lot of room for the external & internal mechanics around the actual glass, focusing motors, VR even, who knows. Or maybe the abundance of glass helps to get a better image quality since the sensor captures only the sweet spot of a lens. Hmm..

            • PHB

              I think the issue is that there is a shutter in the mount that protects the sensor.

              You can see it in the photo, the little silver ting in the corner of the sensor.

              I can’t see a bigger sensor being something to worry about. A DX sensor is pointless and making the mount large enough to support an FX sensor would make the whole camera too big.

              Why is a DX sensor pointless? Well it would be neither one thing nor the other. Too big to have the advantage of low cost and light weight lenses. Too small to compete against the FX frame cameras in low light.

              An EVIL format FX camera may make sense and may make an appearance one day, but better to work out the bugs on the smaller brother first.

            • Richard

              @PHB

              The cost of a DX sensor is not too bad, variously estimated at $50. The cost of a FX sensor, on the other hand, is estimated to be $500 which restricts its use to high end products at the present time. I have not heard a specific figure for µ4/3rds sensors, but the sensor is somewhere around 60% the size of the DX sensor.

              The problem that makes producing a truly compact camera remains the lens. When you look at the MF Leica and Olympus OM lenses you can see the great difference between them and the current crop of stabilized lenses. The Sony NEX-C3 shows this difficulty well. The lens dominates the body.

              Look at this pic. http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/sonynexc3/images/InHandTd.jpg

              Cheers

            • PHB

              @Richard, it was the cost of the lenses I was referring to.

              But that is actually a mistake as this is not a DSLR system and so there is no reason for the lenses to be limited to f/1.4 or so by the mirror-sweep.

              The low light performance of the system is determined by the amount of light from the lens that falls on each sensor site. That means that the aperture is relevant and the resolution of the sensor is relevant but the sensor dimension is only relevant relative to the focal length.

              In the DX/FX world people are comparing the performance of the same lens on two different formats. So the sensor size appears to make a difference. In a completely new format the sensor size is only relevant at the quantum limit when the sensor site is smaller than one wavelength of light.

              This mount looks really huge compared to the sensor size. The only reason I can think of for that would be that it either has something to do with the built in lens and body caps or they are planning for some very heavy lenses.

              For example, imagine that they provide a version of the 85mm f/1.4 scaled for this camera by reworking the back end of the lens to focus the light on a smaller area so the aperture is still the same (60mm) but the light is focused on a smaller area. That would make it a 30mm f/0.5.

              There would be no difference in the optical performance of the two lenses, or for that matter in price. Focusing the light narrower does not change anything that really matters.

              The only difference that a smaller sensor makes is that at very extreme wide angles it is going to limit the aperture that can be afforded before a retrofocus design has to be used.

              In short, I think the Nikon engineers have a much better idea of what they are doing than random posters on this board who don’t seem to understand much about the physics.

          • no

            dude it is the same for most mounts out there. look at the canon mount. it has the pins wasting a huge amount of the mount.

            • Banned

              My guess is after all these years they know what they are doing.

          • Richard

            @PHB

            I guess I must be one of the “random posters”, but this is a rumors site and is all in good fun. I am not a physicist and only make observations based upon what I have seen. Take a look at the picture of the Sony NEX-C3 I linked to earlier and draw your own conclusions about the point at which no matter how small the body becomes, the lens dictated by the sensor size tend to get things a bit out of proportion. That does not make it a bad choice or combination. It is just that there are tradeoffs involved in trying to make the overall package “small” and the sensor “large”.

            In any event, it appears that all of the companies are searching for a combination that will appeal to a market which is still being defined.

            • PHB

              No, you were polite. Usually I get people telling me that I am totally ignorant, know nothing whatsoever etc. etc. Then I point out that why yes, I actually do have degrees in electronic engineering and nuclear physics.

              I see your point about the NEX-C3. Though maybe the logical endpoint of mirrorless is we end up at a point where the sensor and electronics are so compact that they are little more than a lenscap. And then after that they become so cheap that they are simply built into the lens as a matter of course.

              Why does a camera need to be bigger than the lens? Why not make the camera as small as possible and work out how to grip the lens?

            • Richard

              @PHB

              Of course there is no rule dictating that a body need be larger than the lens attached to it. ;-)

              The point I was trying to make, apparently not too well, is that at some point the lens of the desired focal length for a given sensor format will be the limiting factor in making a small package. Indeed the only purpose the body serves is to record or captue the image projected by the lens and to provide whatever controls are necessary or desired for the lens and capture device. I actually find the NEX-C3 interesting because Sony are not afraid of pursuing size reduction even where the result is unconventional in appearance. That said, I am sure that Sony’s engineers are busily working to reduce the overall size of their lenses. Until recently, there really was not that much emphasis on size reduction of lenses because the bodies were sufficiently large that there was not a great imperative.

              The P&S market defined small, with many people opting to carry something from the Canon G series when “traveling light”. Indeed, Galen Rowell had a “light kit” which he carried on a number of occasions. There are many other examples of noted photographers using smaller kit, especially when scouting an area.

              Small is also relative. A MFT body with the 40mm f1.7 Panasonic looks even smaller than the same body with something else on it. My E-PL2 with an Olympus OM 135 f2.8 looks quite small (and inconspicuous) to me for something with an effective 270mm f2.8.

              It is great that we have so much interesting equipment from which to choose and the almost certain probabilityof more to come as this market defines itself.

              Cheers

      • Richard

        Thom Hogan’s current posting concludes that the sensor size for this camera makes sense both in terms of the step between sensor size and the overall size of the lens/body package.

        The problem is whether Nikon’s offering will be priced to fit the intended target market. The Pentax Q appears to have missed the mark in this regard.

        Hogan’s conclusion is that this sensor size, with care, can result in truly compact cameras that offer something more than the current P&S cameras which are increasingly under pressure from cell phone cameras.

        This still does not answer questions previously posed about posting images to the internet the way cell phone cameras do, which could mean that Nikon are conceding that function to the cell phones. Perhaps Nikon have an integrated Bluetooth transfer up their sleeve. Small file size would be useful here.

        I have my doubts about Nikon’s ability to “hit one out of the park” based upon their past performance in the point and shoot market, but we shall see.

    • http://www.tomx.eu Tomas X

      We know about 2 years from the patents, the sensor is 1-inch. This is on the half way from old 2/3 sensors (Nikon latest pro-compact 8400) to micro 4/3.
      The picture quality will be in the half way between Coolpixs and DSLRs and the cameras will be small. Small body is the main advantage (say Nikon). Nikon does not want to make rival for best selling D3100, Nikon wants better image quality for Coolpix-size cameras.

      • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

        The picture quality will be in the half way between Coolpixs and DSLRs

        Between Coolpix and FourThirds would be more accurate. In other words “yuck”… sorry.

        • Tomas_X

          Nikon can make the camera with the absolutely best ratio
          image quality / camera size.
          Do you think it is bad idea?

          • Banned

            Bad idea I don’t know, but overconfidence YES. If they think they can best anybody with such a tiny sensor it’s really arrogant. Even if they manage to somehow equal micro 4/3 at launch, we know that due to the larger size micro 4/3 has a large progression margin, and 2 years later you’ll be stuck in loserland with your Nikon “S” mount lenses (S for shit).

            • LGO

              A bigger m4/3 sensor does not necessarily mean that it will be better. Except for the GH2 and G3, Panasonic and Olympus are still using the same old 12mp sensor from the 1st generation m4/3 bodies even in its new 3rd generation bodies.

              If Nikon uses a lower resolution sensor but cut from the same mold as its current D7000, then it will likely outperform the m4/3 cameras.

            • Richard

              @LGO What makes you think that the µ4/3rds manufacturers are not going to develop better sensor? Sure, they have been turning out new bodies on very short cycles with minimal changes to the sensor itself, but that will change over time and I fail to see how this small sensor has the potential to outperform a µ4/3rds sensor as they both evolve. Olympus have reportedly made changes to the anti-aliasing filter on the E-P3′s sensor and Panasonic’s new sensor is a second generation sensor.

              That does not answer the question of which one will sell better. Size is an important consideration in this market segment and if the image quality is “good enough” for the target market, it might not matter that the µ4/3rds sensors have better image quality.

              Besides, small size makes it easier to keep the price of faster optics within reason.

              Personally, I think it is an awfully small sensor.

            • LGO

              First, I agree that the m4/3 manufacturers should use a much better sensor that they are using right now. I have said here as well as in other forums that Olympus for example might be better off using the Sony APS-C 16mp or upcoming 24mp sensor on its m4/3 and simply crop out the area not covered by the m4/3 lens image circle. This way, Olympus will finally get a world beating m4/3 camera.

              But as it stands, the Panasonic GH2 currently has the best m4/3 sensor right now but my D3100 easily outperforms my GH2.

              Re importance of sensor size, I also agree that the bigger the better. So if this be the case, why even consider an m4/3 camera? Why not just go FX? For example, despite my D700 being 3-years old now, it still outperforms my D7000 except at Base ISO.

              The primary reason for the smaller sensor is a smaller and lighter body as well as smaller and lighter lens. While the ergonomics will limit the size as to how small the body can shrink, a smaller sensor will enable much smaller and lighter lenses. When one considers the size difference possible in lenses between a 1.5x DX vs 2.0x m4/3, then one should appreciate even more the even more compact and lighter lenses possible with Nikon’s mirrorless camera. If Nikon uses a good sensor in this new mirrorless camera, it will kick the butts of the current crop of m4/3 cameras, including the best performing and most highly-featured GH2 included (which I bought incidentally primarily for video).

              Nikon’s decision to use a 2.5 to 2.7x crop mak

            • LGO

              In this light, Nikon’s use of a small 2.5x sensor makes sense if it wants to make a smaller and lighter camera and lenses. If you want a bigger sensor, then choose DX and/or FX.

              If this mirrorless small and compact camera does well in the market, perhaps Nikon would be persuaded to make a larger DX-sized or FX-sized mirrorless cameras that would be compatible with F-mount lenses.

            • PHB

              It is also a question of where the technology is trending. This mount is going to be around for 20-30 years at least if it succeeds.

              The D300 was by far the best DX camera Nikon had made when it launched. Nobody seemed to have much of a problem with the D2x or D2H being ‘professional quality’. And a D300 will easily outperform any film camera with any type of film you can buy.

              This camera is coming out 4 years later. Sensor design has move on since.

              It is quite possible that in another 4 years time the ISO performance race has moved to the point where it is irrelevant.

              A D4 with an f/1.4 lens is going to have better low light performance characteristics than this camera with an f/1.4 lens of the equivalent focal length. But that is not comparing like with like. The D4 lens is going to be 2.7 times larger and 8 times more expensive.

      • st r

        > Nikon does not want to make rival for best selling D3100, Nikon wants
        > better image quality for Coolpix-size cameras.

        I agree, and find this strategy very silly. If you make something better than your best selling item, then you are planning to replace the latter.

        Instead, they are only producing something which is close to the P&S category, but more expensive, and also close (overlapping) to the m4/3 system, but less standard.

        The selling point would not be size, nor flexibility, nor price. So?

        • Tomas_X

          I think Nikon by this model can make the camera with the absolutely best ratio:
          “image quality / camera size”.
          Do you think it is bad idea?

        • poizen22

          nikon has previously stated the mirror-less would be aimed at professionals. we aren’t looking at the d3100 so why would it rival it?
          The only advantage loss to go to another mirror-less camera over the Nikon is you loose your flash support… but who cares its a mirror-less camera who would need flash support. wait for what fuji releases itl probably fulfill everyone’s mirror-less camera wet dream if not the ep-3 is a monster camera so quit complaining about a product most of us know will suck stop waiting and go pick something up that is here now and is awesome.

          • BornOptimist

            “nikon has previously stated the mirror-less would be aimed at professionals.”
            No they haven’t! Quite contrary actually. Mr Goto (head of R&D) said it would NOT be targetted against professionals. Just have a look at the summary of his interview on this site. The interview was held during last years Fotokina, and a summary was presented on this site in January this year.
            This pro-myth is just a rumor that has escaladed into facts.

      • Trevor

        I agree. Small and professional do not go together in my opinion. m43 may have small bodies, but their glass is still big. A sensor between m43 and P&S is the right way to go.

        Nikon knows their stuff, it’s just pissing off all the markets-of-one out there.

    • iamlucky13

      In the last discussion about the photo, someone estimated based on the screw size it was approximately a 2.5x crop factor. That’s a very rough measurement, but it matches past rumors.

      I just did a rough measure of the aspect ratio and got 8:5. I’m guessing my measurement is off, and it’s really either 3:2 or 16:9.

      3:2 makes the most sense – shooting 1080 video doesn’t require every pixel anyways, so it’s simple to crop to that aspect ratio. 3:2 also makes slightly better use of the image circle.

      I haven’t seen anybody point out what appears to be an IR remote receiver to the right of the mount. Not a surprise, but I thought it worth mentioning.

      I can’t decide if the body looks like powder-coated metal, or textured plastic. I would assume plastic.

  • Janne

    Could it be kind of mini DSLR like PEN ?

    • Janne

      Check PEN mount here:

      http://tinyurl.com/3ogej2b

      Looks pretty similar.

      • Richard

        The µ4/3rds mount does look a great deal like the one in the Nikon pic. Only precise measurements would tell, but could it be that Nikon are using the µ4/rds mount to provide for a future µ4/3rds release?

        • BornOptimist

          I have made a comment on that previously, so out of interest I did some measurements. Initially it looked like you could mount m43 lenses on this mount (but probably not the other way round, Nikon lenses on m43). After some measuring it turns out the contact points are slightly different placed. On the Nikon mount they are placed “13-ish” mm from the center, while m43 are approx 15mm.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dsloanphoto Daniel

    If I can mount my current Nikkor lenses to it, I’m all for it. I’d probably buy it, too.

    • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

      sure, because it will make lot of sense, to mount 20mm AF-D f2.8 and get manual focusing 50mm with f6.3 DOF.
      Or wait, you can also mount some Epic lens on it, like…. 85G, it will make it 212mm f3.5! Exciting times!
      Only it will be expensive (knowing Nikon), and all Fmount nikon glass will be useless because no lens will be able to resolve this pixel density (as it sure will be 12Mpix+).

      No, thanks. If i would want P&S, i could use some pocket form or my phone.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dsloanphoto Daniel

        Sounds like you’re being a bit pessimistic. I’m just saying that it would be awesome to have an NEX-C3 sized Nikon with which to use AF-S lenses, regardless of what the focal lengths were. After a second look, though, it looks like the electronic contacts wouldn’t line up correctly anyway, so I imagine a whole new lens system would be necessary for this.

        • http://www.f1album.com Simon G

          Theory was that there would be an adapter from F mount to this mount . . . so the contacts don’t need to line up.

          • STRB

            Using big lenses (F-mount) on a such small sensor/body makes just barely more sense than the F-mount iPhone adapter (which makes no sense at all)

            • iamlucky13

              This might be a surprise, but most of us already have F-mount lenses, but very, very few have a complete collection of lenses for this new system.

              Yes, F-mount lenses go against the compact benefit, but it’s still way cheaper to have just the lenses you use most often in the mirrorless mount, and everything else in F-mount, than to duplicate everything for both or deal with gaps in focal length and aperture.

            • mike

              It makes some sense for telephotos … 55-300 on this would have decent range for a shooter on a budget. I think the sensor size is too small (crop factor too large) to make nifty fifties that exciting, though.

            • iamlucky13

              A 55-300 would be out-resolved by the sensor. There’d be almost no benefit to a 55-300 on a 2.5x sensor compared to cropping a 12 MP DX image.

              A nifty 50 would actually be one of the more useful lenses to stick on an adapter – a very fast short telephoto, similar to the 135mm 2.8′s that were a mainstay until superzooms became popular.

              Also, I really hope some of those 12 electrical contacts are to power an aperture actuator in an adapter. Otherwise G lenses will be more or less unusable, and older lenses will be less convenient.

            • PHB

              The sensor size is totally irrelevant. Even if the sensor resolution is 24MP the sensor sites are going to be large enough to avoid quantum artifacts. You won’t want to be going above 24MP and you are going to need primes to get to 24MP but that is pretty much the case with DSLRs anyway.

              I already have an 85 f/1.4. So put that on this camera and I have roughly a 200 with the sort of low light performance I would expect from a f/2.8 on a D3s. Thats a lot better than my current 200mm and a heck of a lot better than any 200mm Nikon is likely to produce for the F-mount.

              Put a 300 f/2.8 on it and you have a hand-holdable 750! At that point the quality of the optics is irrelevant because the atmosphere is going to have a bigger effect than differences in the lens.

              For certain applications this is going to be the killer format. For others its going to be meh.

            • mike

              Looking at sharpness tests, I don’t think the 55-300 would be useless on a 2.7x crop camera; especially if it were stopped down just a bit. Besides, even if the performance weren’t up to par with DX that doesn’t mean it’s pointless.

              50/1.4 (which, btw, isn’t any better than the 55-300 wide open) would be the same as a 90/2.5 on DX (or 135/4 on FX). If that were a good focal length for me (which it isn’t), I’d rather stick the 85/1.8 on a D90 and deal with the extra weight. Just my opinion.

      • Trevor

        Why do you think the maximum aperture would change for the lenses? All it will affect is focal length.

        But yes, using big lenses on a small body is dumb. This is the problem with m43. There is a reason they have no fast telephoto or zoom.

      • Trevor

        My apologies, I missed DoF at the end of your sentences. Yes, the equiv DoF will be much less shallow.

      • PHB

        It is not going to make any sense to mount any FX lens shorter than 50mm or DX lens shorter than 35.

        The reason is that they have to be retrofocus designs on a DSLR to avoid the mirror sweep. So a 20mm f/2.8 for the F-mount ends up costing many times what a 20mm f/1 would be for an EVIL format.

        Longer lenses than 50mm are going to make a lot of sense, particularly when getting up into the exotics class. A 400mm f/2.8 is too damn big to use without a tripod.

        Early on of course the lens selection is going to be very small. Presumably there have to be at least two lenses for it to make any sense. But I would expect those offered to concentrate on the wide end where the EVIL format has most advantage and more or less leave the tele lens covered with an adapter.

  • Mat

    By the way, why so many contacts in this day and age? USB has four.

    • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

      better not look at CPU from bottom dude.

      • Mat

        This is an interface not a CPU.

        • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

          sure, but not homogeneous interface either. or you want in all lenses have CPU which will decouple serial signal into focusing, distance reporting, chip, etc only to save few contacts? simpler lenses can be, smaller and cheaper they can be.
          besides they can have some reserved for future, etc.
          serial signals save wires where it makes sense (long distances, noise, etc) but are much harder to encode and decode. wires and contacts are cheap.

          • st r

            Sorry to disagree, but wires, contacts and switches are much more expensive than embedded circuitry and buses (think I2C). They must be physically manufactured and assembled, while circuitry and software are designed once and then replicated as may times as you like.

            • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

              really not. not at this distance
              and keep in mind that it would add expenses to each lens. If each lens would need whole circuitry (including some higher power consumption parts) to control all its features, including VR, focus motor, maybe even zoom motor, etc.

            • st r

              Your credit card has a CPU, memory, firmware, a bus, and contacts.

              However, this is not the main reason why it is expensive….. :)

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewroos Andrew

      Good question. As an electronic engineer, I can’t see the need for more than about five contacts (two power supply lines, ground and a differential pair for data communications). Two supply lines might be useful to allow one supply to be used for the CPU and another to be used for the VR and AF-S motors, potentially saving a switching regulator in the lens (depending on voltage requirements) and reducing EMI hassles. An asynchronous differental pair would give better interference rejection than I2C with the same number of contacts.

      I can only imagine they have 12 contacts to allow a mechanical adapter with no electronics to be able to interface this mount to a standard AF-S lens (in other words, the 10 standard AF-S contacts plus perhaps a differential pair for higher speed data with new lenses). This seems like a mistake to me since it pushes up the cost of all lenses, not just of the adapter.

    • Banned

      I’m not an electronics guru but I would guess than transmitting multiple signals in 1 wire forces you to merge all info into one stream and therefore have some kind of facility to encode and decode that stream. It would probably be slower to transfer info that way than having a dedicated for each type of info.

      • st r

        > transmitting multiple signals in 1 wire forces you to merge all info into
        > one stream and therefore have some kind of facility to encode and
        > decode that stream

        Certainly so, but, as I stated earlier, it is usually much less expensive to have these than individual connections or mechanical equivalents.

        Why the most expensive cameras have dedicated controls for each functions, while the cheapest ones have touch screens?

        A microcontroller (a single-chip computer with embedded I/O buses and memory) may cost 2 dollars.

        > It would probably be slower to transfer info that way than having a
        > dedicated for each type of info.

        It depends on the order of magnitude. If you have a bus speed that is 10000 times faster than necessary and slow it down by a factor of 100, you still have 100 times more than you need. Speed in this case does NOT need be comparable with shutter time, but with shutter lag.

  • http://www.almondbutterscotch.com/home Almond Butterscotch

    12 electrical contacts… how much data needs to be transmitted?

    • http://nikonkrab.multiply.com/ HDZ

      I hope for electronically zoom control.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/achrntatrps/579685308 Achrntatrps

        Interesting… the D700 has only 8 contacts, whereas 24-70 and 80-400 have 10… This new mount has 12? What do the extra stand for?

  • http://nikonkrab.multiply.com/ HDZ

    Is this sensor too small? But however if it have a really good video quality and lens was small too, it’ll be great. I want Nikon too make a F-Mount adaptor too.

  • bb100

    There were several rumors in the past. Some said that the sensor should be about 1″ (16mm diagonal). As a result, the crop factor is about 2.7X. This might be the most reasonable size if we prove it from the image above. If it is true, I may try to got come CCTV lens to play with because the vignetting should be almost gone. That should be the most interesting part to play with this camera.

  • Nikon

    Dear Peter,

    We kindly request to remove your entire post about this mirrorless camera.

    Thank you.

    Nikon

    PS
    In return, we will send you the partial specs of D3 and D700 replacements.

    • photdog

      This is not from NIKON. It’s fake. Otherwise the Admin had felt compelled to go for that deal with the 2 awaited successors of the D700 & D3.
      However, it would be good, if Nikon managers would read this site! Then they had a “life” feeling about what nikonians think and expect, although there is a wide spread of opinions. Anyway, from lots of comments you can know, if there is some knowledge and serious interest in quality photography behind it or if it is just the “need” of publishing opinions of some “just-for-fun-shooters”.

      • Banned

        Thank you inspector obvious.

        • Troll?

          Pwn’d lol.

  • Fubar

    Congratulations, Nikon! You’re a bunch of idiots.

  • nobody

    As discussed in the comments to yesterday’s post, this will probably be roughly a 2.6 crop sensor, that matches the 17mm image diameter lenses whose patents where published here some months ago.

  • IanZ28

    Cr@p!

  • supernaps

    I just want a Nikon Nex-C3 with an F-mount adaptor and AF working, and i think i am not the only

  • supernaps

    I just want a Nikon Nex-C3 with an F-mount adaptor and AF working, and i think i am not the only one

  • nobody

    BTW, this is perfectly in line with Nikon Rumors’ post on May 5th, see here:

    http://nikonrumors.com/2011/05/05/rumor-nikon-mirrorless-camera-will-come-with-three-lenses-and-2-6x-crop-factor.aspx/

    Well done, Admin!

  • SF_Strider

    Sound’s like a simple PR trick. Just simply make a photo post in forum can let people remind “Nikon” for a week longer. The fact is it doesn’t cost much XD

    • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

      Why not to leak D4 and D800 this way? :p

      • WoutK89

        You want to see a picture of just a sensor, without specs?

        • Mooboy

          Just imagine how many more P&S Nikon’s sold this week due to this PR stunt! What a great way to reach the masses!!!

    • Mat

      Problem is it looks like a stupid piece of consumer engineering. Small sensor and excessive (i.e. expensive) number of contacts. I don’t think Nikon really want to be advertising that.

      It may be a prototype designed to test existing AF(-S) lenses on a smaller body that was never intended to see production.

  • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

    …and the guy who posted this image was retired.

  • chord

    why would companies ask ppl remove post while they know this is in fact confirming the existance of products? and why wouldn’t manjor rumor sites being asked to remove such things?

  • http://www.aperurephoto.nl Jimmy Tjon

    Admin, in all seriousness, have you been contacted by Nikon to remove info?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      no, not NR – the Chinese forum was contacted to remove the picture and product code name

  • regular

    Nikon knows 95% of the consumer market are morons who are used to shoot crap with their iPhone, and have no idea of what shallow depth-of-field or bokeh mean.

    Nikon’s mirrorless will be an iphone with a lens mount, and it will sell like hot cakes.

    Real photographers, nothing to see, move along. Get a film-based Olympus Pen F.

  • Volkan Ersoy

    I guess creating a new mount is an important investment decision for a camera vendor and should have been planned accordingly. I think that it’s a teribble idea to offer such a camera with a small sensor (i.e smaller than 2x form factor). It would not be better than compacts and certainly will not be competitive against micro 4/3rds, let alone the new breed of APS-C or full frame mirrorless cameras. I terribly need an APS-C size mirrorless camera from Nikon and less than that, I may consider switching brands.

  • broxibear

    New management Q&A on the Nikon site, here are some of the more interesting parts, although most of it is pretty dull…
    “In the fiscal year ended March 2011, the earthquake had a negative impact on net sales amounting to ¥8,000 million and a negative impact on operating income of ¥3,000 million. Furthermore, one plant and seven manufacturing companies in the Group sustained damage from the disaster and had to suspend operations. However, by the end of March all facilities had steadily begun to resume operations, and by the end of April 2011 we were able to restore our production capacity to the pre-quake level.”
    “although the Great East Japan Earthquake caused damage to component supply chains, the situation is improving more rapidly than we originally anticipated.”
    “We have almost completed development of a new generation digital camera that we began working on several years ago, which will offer customers new ways to enjoy images. We are currently monitoring world market trends as we consider the appropriate timing for the launch of these new products.”
    http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/management/message/index.htm

    • broxibear
      • BornOptimist

        Interresting. Under Imaging Company challenges they also write “Create new markets by launching new generation products and products of new domain”. New generation products are replacements of existing products, while products of new domain almost certainly means CSC products (cameras and lenses).

    • st r

      > “We have almost completed development of a new generation digital camera…”

      Unfortunately it would have been new 3 or 4 years ago. Now it’s trying to catch up by reinventing the wheel (but we still have to wait until they discover that it works better if it’s round…)

    • Rob

      So basically it didn’t really slow them down much at all. Kind of the exact opposite of what you kept insisting would happen…

      • broxibear

        Hi Rob,
        Well they moved all the equipment and employees from the Sendai plant to Malaysia.
        Nikon said in previous statements production was affected, as did retailers who can’t get stock…if that’s the opposite of what I said then take a bow, put a medal round your neck and accept my deepest apology.

  • WoutK89

    Does it look like they have implemented the sensor “lock-off” when the lens is detached?

  • no

    well hopefuly nikon read the posts about how nobody wants this small sensor and mount.

    • nobody

      Nikon sells much more compact cameras than DSLRs, so they may sell more of these mirrorless cameras than all their DSLRs combined…

      • st r

        Only if they don’t cost more than entry-level DSLRs and if they are smaller than these… two things that are not so obvious to me.

  • goose

    9mm f/0.7 lens next? (assuming its a 2.7 crop factor)

    is it even possible for this mount?

    • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

      sure it is possible, but would you like to have crappy AFing, crappy sensor, crappy small camera with big lens to get 24 f2.8 eq lens?

      • goose

        itll be a cheap street shooter for others, me thinks.

  • longzoom

    To Admin: If Nikon asking to remove it, why did you post it second time? What a childish behavior…

    • Nincompoop

      He said that Nikon asked a CHINESE FORUM to remove a thread, not this site. Pay more attention to the words and less polishing your longzoom.

      • http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/07/lets-play-chess Darkness

        Funny how the Canon site is so sadly brand loyal, why is that? Is it run by Canon themselves??? “I heard cannon won”.. Twat…

      • longzoom

        Clear kind of stupid demagogue, Nincompoop… What difference could it make, who posted?

        • zoetmb

          It makes all the difference in the world. If I have a site and I posted a photo someone sent me and a different site received a takedown notice, but I didn’t, why would I take it down? What do I care if another site received a take down notice.

          The law specifically states that I must be notified and sent a take-down notice. I don’t have to respond to a take down notice sent to another site.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      no, they asked the Chinese forum to remove it

  • Martin

    Actually the only advantage of a small sensor is the possibility of small lens.
    Let see now if they can deliver some prime and a normal zoom in a very small form factor.
    The whole idea of going with this sensor from my opinion is that they want a camera which doesn’t look like a cigarette package with a can of coke attached to it.

    Some reverse engineering on the picture tend to prove that the sensor is 16.9mm ±10% diagonal. (The 17mm rumor is very plausible)

    A standard zoom for such a sensor would be in the ~11-33mm range. With a such a short register I suppose that this lens could be very compact and short, with small front element too.

    I really hope this camera to be compact, somewhere around a small Canon G12 for example with a short protruding lens. If I can’t “holster” the camera I don’t have any reason to not use my DSLR…

    • Martin

      Looking again to the mount diameter I’m starting to have doubt about the compactness of lenses… :S

      • LGO

        The mount design would actually support a flatter lens design … like the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and 14mm f/2.5 pancake prime lenses.

    • Rahul

      “…that they want a camera which doesn’t look like a cigarette package with a can of coke attached to it.”
      That was really funny :). Evil cameras with a big zoom lenses look exactly like you described.

  • ae

    I’m probably not one of the people who would buy this, but on a second thought this might be a great compact camera. Judging from the photo of the mount and looking at the Pentax Q mount I think they would be the same size. Note that the Pentax body is the same size with the Canon S95, which is basically no bigger than a cigarette box.
    If this turns out to be true we’ll be looking at a great camera you can put in the pocket of your summer shirt.

  • SZRimaging

    I’m in the market for a really small camera, such as this. The problem is, I am not sure I would ever be happy with the quality from it. M4/3 seems to be the best price/quality/size comparison at the moment.

    • Mooboy

      Same here, I probably would have got the Panasonic GH2 if not for availability issues. But, now glad I didn’t. If the Nex-7 prototype is real, it looks like a winner to me. I’ll be watching that, Samsung… and by the time they become available.. Fuji will have had a chance to surprise (or disappoint me).

      To me, the Pany 43s are just too similar in size/weight to an otherwise much preferrable D5100 (other than their one excellent pancake lens). As for Olympus, I think they could have come out with a new sensor on their iteration of their Pens?

      • SZRimaging

        I’m looking at the PENs instead since without the viewfinder, they are fairly compact. And the lenses, while still somewhat large, are smaller than APS-C sized lenses.

        The think that kills the NEX system is the sizes of the lenses. They really aren’t that much smaller than my Nikkors, so I might as well just carry the D7000.

        • Mooboy

          I think all the the mirrorless system suffer from lack of good, native lenses at the moemnt. The NEX currently has nothing to write home about, the 43s have a few winners, but not enough. To me, actually seems Samsung has the best lens line up (for my needs). Of course, the adaptors for New and m43s open up new opportunities.

  • Rasmus

    GREAT! A small ass sensor.. JUST what is needed to be able to compete with Sony NEX! It’s not like the NEX has an APS-C sized sensor or anything… *cough*

  • Peter

    WHY NIKON? WHY?

    Where is the company that puts out a simple, mirrorless FULL FRAME camera?

    Sony NEX is quite a success with so many people mounting their vintage lenses from Leica M to Canon FD, Minolta MD, Konica AR, etc… A full frame model would be an even bigger hit.

    • Mooboy

      As others point out time and again – Leica (M9).

      • Troll?

        You buying one for us? Leica is too expensive for most.

        • Mooboy

          >Where is the company that puts out a simple, mirrorless FULL FRAME camera?<

          He didn't say cheap. Off-topic, does anyone have any idea how much the Leica premium is? If Nikon were to do a FF range finder, would we be looking at D3S pricing? More, less? Wish one day we find out…

  • fakekenrockwell

    with all due respect to the pros and pundits. This 17mm/1″ sensor direction is absolutely the right direction for Nikon. The small form factor will give it a portability advantage over any of the APS-C sized mirror-less systems out there. The problem is that we are constraint by the size of the lens. m4/3 gets close, but it is hard to justify the purchase of a micro-4/3 system when APS-C sized mirrorless systems of the future get only marginally larger.

    In a future where the mirror boxes go away for all cameras, the next generation APS-C and FF systems will shrink. When that inevitability happens, Nikon is in the left in the same boat as everyone else (maybe except Fuji). What this new mount and sensor system gets Nikon is a completely new market segment and platform, not just an update to a current product line.

    If you are in the market for a Canon G12 to accompany your larger system, you might seriously consider the new Nikon system. If you want more from your point and shoot but don’t want to spend $1200 for a decently fast lens, this might be your answer.

    • lolly

      “This 17mm/1″ sensor direction is absolutely the right direction for Nikon.”

      A lot of “pros and pundits” question the size of the sensor … not the direction.

      “What this … gets Nikon is a completely new market segment and platform …”

      there’s no doubt about that statement. How well Nikon does in this competitive market segment depends a lot on innovation and marketing. Sony seems to be the leader at the moment.

      “If you are in the market for a Canon G12 … you might seriously consider the new Nikon system.”

      How about seriously considering Sony NEX, micro 4/3rds, Pentax Q, Samsung NX before the yet-to-be-announced Nikon mirrorless system ?

      “If you want more from your point and shoot … this (Nikon mirrorless system) might be your answer.”

      Hey, you’re working for Nikon ? Tell us more about the new Nikon system. We’d like to know more about it and what we’re going to get for $1200.

      “with all due respect to the pros and pundits.”

      Everybody’s got their own opinion. No need to be too kind … no disrespect intended too ;)

      • Richard

        This sensor seems to be very close in size to the one in the Pentax Q. If that is the case and Nikon make similarly sized lenses that is all fine and well, except for the fact that the Q has been panned for it price compared to many other CSC/mirrorless cameras already available, such as the µ4/3rds offerings, the NEX series and even the rumored Fuji interchangeable lens camera. If this camera is priced at $1,200 as you believe, this is DOA as a consumer product.

        This really does not sound like the rumored “Pro” offering. It seems plainly intended to try to get into the consumer market before the train leaves the station. The window of opportunity is quite small, and this applies to whatever Canon may have up their sleeve as well.

  • ALL CAPS SHOUTERS

    YES. I KNEW I MADE THE RIGHT DECISION WITH PANASONIC M43′S. NIKON SMALL SENSOR FAIL.

    • Mooboy

      All the NEX and and Samsung NX users can say same about 43s… small sensor fail. And then the D700 users can say same about D7000 users…

      Though, I will draw the line at defending Pentax Q sensor size…

  • PAG

    All this wailing and gnashing of teeth is simply because Nikon isn’t building the camera some of you want, but you aren’t the target market. The comments on this being a step up from P&S rather than a step down from DSLR are spot on.

    As to “oh, the sensor size” and “oh, the image quality” comments, you’re talking about a market that doesn’t give a flying fart in space about either. People will buy something like this and pick an an extra lens or two while they’re at it, especially if they know that they lenses will still be good when they replace the body. And 90% of them will shoot all program mode all the time.

    When Nikon makes a mirrorless camera that competes with the DSLR, it will actually replace the bottom end of the DSLR line with similar body and an F-mount. Maybe the D4000?

    • nobody

      “The comments on this being a step up from P&S rather than a step down from DSLR are spot on.”

      A 2.6 crop sensor (like this seems to be) has more than 3 times the size of the largest compact camera sensor, which are about 4.6 crop (e.g. P7000, G12 etc.). And it has about four times the size of the Pentax Q system (5.5 crop).

      OTOH, a 1.5 crop DX sensor has 3 times the size of a 2.6 crop sensor.

      So I would rather think it sits just in the middle between those two.

      And with its interchangable lenses there is some extra similarity with the DSLR system. Of course, we have to wait and see how good image quality turns out to be.

    • st r

      > you’re talking about a market that doesn’t give a flying fart in space about
      > either.

      I don’t think so. These you are referring to don’t feel the need to change the ultrasmall compact P&S they already have – unless some more fashionable color or form factor comes out next year, or they buy an iphone.

      > People will buy something like this and pick an an extra lens or two while
      > they’re at it, especially if they know that they lenses will still be good when
      > they replace the body.

      Maybe the glass will be good, but I doubt the system will last 40 years like the f-mount system.

      If you don’t give a damn about quality, and you are willing to spend some money on a camera whose features you don’t need or understand, then you are probably focusing on the “status symbol” property. And, to make luxury cameras, there are simpler ways than inventing a whole new camera system (see X100).

  • ms

    wow… that is one tiny little sensor… guess I will not be buying anything nikon after all :P

    • John

      Not as tiny as point and shoot cameras and not that much smaller than m43.
      Could be a good compromise between sensor cost, IQ, camera/lens system size, etc.
      Let’s not pre-judge this. Nikon may have been able to make this small-ish sensor work with it’s latest and greatest sensor technology.

      Perhaps we’ll know in a few weeks.

  • NRTARD

    This is weak, Nikon. Shame on you.

  • Rasmus

    This system needs to be dirt cheap for it to be a sucess..

    • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com/ rearranged

      +1

  • John

    Wow – many seemed to be completely closed to this idea it seems because they want it to be a substitute for their DX or FX DSLRs.
    I used to have that reaction, but then I mounted my 16-85AFS on to a D3100 and found that the lenses are the issue with making digital cameras small, thus the key to make a very compact camera is reducing the sensor size.

    I own a D300 and D700 and can see that even if DX cameras get rid of the mirror box the lenses will mostly stay the same size (except for wides perhaps). So those of us that want a very compact SYSTEM will never really get it.

    Nikon knows that to make a very good IQ compact interchangeable lens camera system the lenses need to be small as well as the body. Hence the 2.6x crop factor sensor. This type of camera will appeal to the P&S crowd that wants to upgrade, but no upgrade to the size of a DX DSLR AND to those like me who already own “pro” gear (I’m not a pro), but want something of relative high image quality in a very small package.

    My current solution is a Panasonic LX-3 – the IQ is barely adequate for me, but it goes along on many outings simply because of it’s size/weight and it has decent video. So if Nikon comes out with this new system I’ll likely buy it if it has:
    – way better IQ than my LX-3 (both resolution and DR)
    – much more compact than, say, a D5100 and more compact than any m43 equivalent system
    – a decent compact wide prime, a decent 24-XX (FF equiv.) standard zoom, XX-200 (FF equiv.) long zoom, and some fast-ish primes sprinkled in there somewhere. I don’t need low low DOF, so f/2 primes are fine.
    – built-in flash
    – very very good EVF
    – decent manual controls
    – decent HD video (this will be problemmatic for Nikon since they are behind)

    I assume they will have an entry level model and a “pro” model. If they implement this correctly and use the absolute best sensor technology (like an upgrade to the D7000 sensor) this could be a hit. If the mechanics, IQ, etc. are similar to the current CoolPix line it will all be for nought.

    • nobody

      That is spot on regarding lens size.

      Sony’s DX mirrorless NEX cameras are very small, but the zoom lenses (even the lowly kit zoom) are so large by comparison, they look like they were designed for a different camera. They simply don’t match the very compact camera.

      Small primes could be a different story, but up to today there is only a single one, which is rather slow and of rather mediocre optical quality.

    • st r

      > Wow – many seemed to be completely closed to this idea it seems because they
      > want it to be a substitute for their DX or FX DSLRs.

      Speaking for myself, I was hoping for a complement, not a replacement. And given that small DSLRs (I own a D40) are not much more expensive than good P&S, I think it is very difficult to place a product in-between in the line-up. So the competition with both is almost unavoidable.

  • John

    As for those 12 lens contacts on the body – there are already 10 contact pins on my 24-85AFS Nikon lens and only 8 contact pads on my D700 and D300, so I would imagine the extra contact pins are for additional/future features.

  • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com/ rearranged

    You guys should relax. Since it is targeted to the consumer mass market there is still a possibility for a ”professional” mirrorless.

    I think a proper nikon mirrorless would be a 1.5 crop camera with new 24 35 50 and 85 equivalent (pancake) primes with mediocre speed like 16mm f 3.5 or 55mm f2. You could take it for traveling and just pack the 16mm, the 35 and for example the excisting 55-300 with an f-mount adapter if you need a tele.

    • John

      How do you know to whom it’s targed at? Perhaps just like Nikon’s DX lineup there are consumer and “pro” versons of the system (i.e., like the D3100 and the D300s).

      Undoubtedly there will be mirrorless versions of Nikon’s DX and FX cameras, likely in both flavors – consumer and pro. There are too many limitations with OVFs and EVFs are getting way better very rapidly.

      So I don’t see why this system can’t be along the same lines: Lower end body/lenses for the P&S upgrade folks (just like in m43) and way better spec’d advanced/pro body and lenses. Which will Nikon come out with who knows. I have my hopes that it will be the higher end body and lenses first, but likely not due to wanting high sales initially.

      • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com/ rearranged

        Well, this system can’t be along the same lines because its sensor is way to small.
        Unlike the nex with the 16mm it is not a replacement for a dslr when you want to travel light. It is a step up from a lx-5 or xz-1 etc. Unfortunately sony doesn’t bring out any 24mm or 35mm pancake lenses and thus undoes any benefits of the small bodies.

        You save size with small lenses and not with small camera bodies.

        With the voigtländer 40mm even a d700 is kind of a compact package. Imagine a DX 24mm 3.2 AFS pancake lens on the d5100. This already would be fine for me.

        • John

          “Well, this system can’t be along the same lines because its sensor is way to small.of a lens.”

          Why not, that’s exactly how FX users sometime feel – that DX is not a serious system.

          Why does it have to be a replacement for a DSLR? I have a D700 and the voighlander 40mm/2, and although the lens is small the body is not. Plus you can’t just talk about small pancake primes as examples of small lenses – you have to include zooms as well and FX zooms (or DX zooms) are not very small.

          This camera is meant to fill in a gap in the market between P&S’s and DX and will be a substitute for a DSLR when the DSLR is too large/heavy to take along OR it will supplement having a DSLR.

          • http://rearrangedphoto.tumblr.com/ rearranged

            yeah it will be a substitute but quality won’t be near dslr level. and I don’t see any benefits in these systems when used with zoom lenses.

            Propably it will be a way better camera than a xz-1 or lx5 but most readers here want an aps-c compact with which they can use their nikkor glas at reasonable focal length equivalents with af and vr.
            Otherwise you just buy into a mirrorless system with new glas that already excists. Or why are you waiting for nikon to release this camera? Just because it’s a coolpix-professional? :)

            And how is dx in these times a serious system (except for long reach)? I don’t know any professionals shooting mainly dx. Actually most I got to know didn’t even bother shooting 35mm for serious work.

  • ChrisSin

    So much for me buying a Nikon mirrorless….

  • ms

    ummm… the sensor doesn’t have to be small to make the lenses relatively small… just look at the leica m9. If anything, the criticism for the NEX has been that it has a smaller sensor but most of it’s lenses (minus the pancake) are much larger that typical M-mount stuff which I think is generally what people want from a higher end mirror less system. Nikon supposedly said that they’d be designing the system for professionals (from previous stuff posted here) but I just don’t see how you’d use something with such a tiny sensor professionally… maybe a professional on vacation? :P I guess we’ll see what’s what when the camera is actually announced but this doesn’t look promising, especially with sony soon to announce the NEX-7 and a new zeiss 24/1.8 … those are looking sexier and sexier every day (since I can’t come close to getting the M9).

    • nobody

      “… with sony soon to announce the NEX-7 and a new zeiss 24/1.8 … those are looking sexier and sexier every day …”

      Except that this 24mm Zeiss lens, a moderate wide angle, is larger than the cameras it is meant to be attached to…

    • FakeKenRockwell

      the M9 isn’t ‘small’, and it is also incredibly pricey given the hoops they have to jump through to get the sensor and lens to cooperate with the various lenses. You should read my wonderfully written article on this on my blog (donate if you’d like, I don’t care), http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/specifications.htm, or this
      http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leicam9/

      The smaller the sensor, the easier it is to design a lens with less taxing light angle of incidence. You can get a lens close to the sensor but you can’t do it cheaply at the moment. Further more, a zoom lens on fullframe is still big, not exactly ‘portable’ when compared to a compact. Imagine if you could have a zoom range of 28-140mm (equivalent), f/2.8 in a lens package the size of pancake DSLR prime lens.

      I’d buy one.

      This system will probably kill the current crop of high-end compacts.

      • lolly

        “Imagine if you could have a zoom range of 28-140mm (equivalent), f/2.8 in a lens package the size of pancake DSLR prime lens.”

        I’m all for it … unfortunately I don’t know how long I have to wait :( Perhaps Nikon does not want to stifle the cash cows too soon.

        “This system will probably kill the current crop of high-end compacts.”

        I don’t think Nikon is worried about doing that to Nikon compacts. More likely Nikon is worried about its cash cows.

    • BornOptimist

      M9 is not small, and M-lenses are manual focus. Old manual focus Nikon lenses are also relatively small, but once they got AF they grew in size considerably. The same would happen with M-lenses if they had AF.

  • Joop

    This ‘small sized’ sensor is much bigger than the 1/1.7, top P&S cameras use. The size is usefull for interchangeble and fixed lens cameras. A hughe financial benefit …

    The new Nikon Coolpix will outperform the other P&S on the market.

    In combination with the high Nikon standards it will beat the low end M34.

    • Oilymouse

      Found much difference between in IQ between “high end” and “low end” M43? Try spending more time with the gear you’re talking about instead of acting the simpleminded fanboy. Sweet dreams.

  • FakeKenRockwell

    light, fast lenses. What’s not to love.

    • lolly

      “… What’s not to love.”

      a body with a sensor that just doesn’t fit … it’s the reason why we buy Nikon Dslrs. Perhaps Nikon’s new mirrorless system is a good fit but we’ll have to wait and see, don’t we ;)

  • jk

    The sensor just looks so exposed…. It almost looks erotic.

  • NRTARD

    Then go buy one. I’d bet my next paycheck that whatever mirrorless Canon comes out with will smoke this thing on all fronts and will probably be able to mount eos lenses too. I do not believe NIKON thought this through. Which I am finding is typical of them.

  • ChrisSin

    Keep in mind that a lot of what Nikon makes is primarily for the japanese market, where this camera might just take off

  • ep

    If screw head is 3mm – then sensor is 16mm diagonal – so called 1 inch sensor – totally legitimate standard. So, people will have more choice – sensor/camera size-wise. Which is good thing, imho… 2/3″ camera would be nice too – to complete sensors’ row.

  • MB

    I always wondered how come so many Nikon fans hate the company so much. Quite a few will always bring down any new product before anything is actually known about it for sure, as with this one. It seems that this one is bad because it is not a pocket sized full frame compact camera with interchangeable lenses as if such a camera was promised or even possible to make. And what amazes me even more is that most of them are masochistic enough to continue to buy Nikon products.

    But if you think about this new camera, if it is actually a real one, it is not that bad really.
    Sensor may not be FF but much larger than anything found on compacts, it should be just a bit smaller then m4/3 (around 17mm compared to m4/3 21.6mm diagonal). Quite a bold move for Nikon to make they own new sized sensor, and it also means that Nikon is committed to APS-C DSLR cameras so they made this a bit smaller so not to directly compete.
    If this is an actual new Nikon mount it is very well thought and seams well made, sensor seems to be much closer to the mount then one on m4/3 and is well protected by large surface around it.
    And because of a smaller diagonal the camera itself and the lenses could be made smaller and really pocket sized.
    So we should expect really pocket sized interchangeable lens camera with m4/3 IQ and that does not sound so bad. And I would also like a simpler one without interchangeable lens mount that I could carry with me at all times.

    • Lulz

      Why would they not want to compete? And why aren’t they innovating? They have become an us too kind of outfit. And yes people are mad, they should be.

      • BornOptimist

        “And why aren’t they innovating?” This IS innovation, because it doesn’t exist other alternatives with the same premises. Another DX/m43 camera would be a “me-too” camera.
        My prediction is that there will be more cameras with this sensor size comming. Not just from Nikon, but also Canon, Sony and even Fujifilm. It’s not given they will all have interchangeable lenses, but be fixed zoom lens alternatives in the high end P&S category.

        • Lulz

          Innovating means building something better than the other guy is offering not something almost as good. The nex will outsell this thing and nikon will end up shelving it. Nikon didn’t put much engineering effort into the mirrorless and it’s going to hurt them!

  • Back to top