"Would You Buy One?"

No. No viewfinder, no buy. The reason I hate compact P&S's is no viewfinder. The option of using the rear screen is useful from time to time, but no viewfinder at all? That's plain silly (just my humble opinion).

studio460 said:
We'll see . . . I'll probably do a full-reversal as soon as the next super-bitchin' Nikon mirrorless compact comes out.

Or when you pick up your mom's NEX...

Testing123 said:
For let's face it, even the D40 really does have "good enough" IQ for most situations most of the time and shooting in decent light and printing at even 16x20 ya won't see much of a difference between it and a D7000 without your breath fogging the framed glass.

Agreed. Even the D70 still takes beautiful pictures. I actually wish I had a D40 for its (relatively) compact form factor, and its CCD shutter with its 1/millionth flash synch speed. I would probably still opt for a D40 and a small kit lens, rather than an amped-up, point-and-shoot, 90% of the time. We'll see . . . I'll probably do a full-reversal as soon as the next super-bitchin' Nikon mirrorless compact comes out.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a 2 year old DX (1.5x crop) camera native IQ can likely be matched with best-in-class 2x crop sensors today.

...that IF Nikon showers upon us the goodness which is truly small lenses and the "cost" is being two years behind the curve IQ wise, I think many people would jump. For let's face it, even the D40 really does have "good enough" IQ for most situations most of the time and shooting in decent light and printing at even 16x20 ya won't see much of a difference between it and a D7000 without your breath fogging the framed glass.

Testing123 said:
Again, I'm with you 100%, but let's play the devil...

Two years ago would you have bought a Leica-ish Nikon EVIL offering with a DX sensor?

I dunno. I seem to only buy $100 refurbished Nikon point-and-shoots. Never got the courage to buy a $300+ point-and-shoot. I would like a NEX, but I'm not willing to spend the money. My mom bought the fancy 1080p24 NEX with the two-lens kit. I think that set her back about $800!

studio460 said:I guess a cool, rangefinder-ey, Leica-ish kinda EVIL camera would be really neat, as long as it's at minimum, still a DX-sized sensor. In fact, the APC-C size sensor is the only reason I recommended the Sony NEX to my mom. But NR reports hint at a smaller-than-DX sensor for Nikon's future mirrorless offering, which I'm certainly not a fan of.

Again, I'm with you 100%, but let's play the devil...

Two years ago would you have bought a Leica-ish Nikon EVIL offering with a DX sensor?

Testing123 said:
As you present the argument, studio460, I'm with you 100%.

But I think you present it from too narrow a point of view.

Consider an EVIL camera a new option, not a replacement for a SLR or a P&S.

Gotcha.

jonnyapple said:
One thing I love my NEX for is that I can get lens movements with a homemade $10 bellows and my Nikon lenses because of the shorter flange-to-sensor depth . . . In that situation small is good.

Oh, absolutely! When my mom asked me what camera she should buy to take "good" pictures, the Sony NEX was the first camera I suggested. I'm not saying small isn't good. And, I certainly wouldn't mind having a Sony NEX and a neat-o pancake or lensbaby in my pocket everywhere I go myself. I just wouldn't want Nikon's pro cameras to be that small.

jonnyapple said:
As to your question, studio, the ergonomics of this camera as a video camera are not ideal, but neither are SLRs.

Agreed. My post was specifically addressing the ergonomics for shooting stills only.

In general, it just scares me when Nikon mentions the word "pro," anywhere near the term "mirrorless." I guess a cool, rangefinder-ey, Leica-ish kinda EVIL camera would be really neat, as long as it's at minimum, still a DX-sized sensor. In fact, the APC-C size sensor is the only reason I recommended the Sony NEX to my mom. But NR reports hint at a smaller-than-DX sensor for Nikon's future mirrorless offering, which I'm certainly not a fan of. I think Sony got it right with NEX, and the fact that you can put Nikkor lenses on a NEX body is just way cool. It would be painfully ironic if Nikon's EVIL compact wasn't able to do the same.

One thing I love my NEX for is that I can get lens movements with a homemade $10 bellows and my Nikon lenses because of the shorter flange-to-sensor depth. Sony got the third-party lens manual focus help right—it's like a view camera with a loupe brought up with one button press. Lensbaby sells a tilt-only solution for nikkor on NEX, but with a tilt/shift adapter done right I think there would be a market for landscape photographers. In that situation small is good.

Oh, and depending on the price and performance, the rumored e-mount Zeiss 24 f/1.7 coming out this year is going to make for an amazing little setup. But, like testing123 mentioned, for most DSLR users this would be a supplement and not a replacement. (I say that but two siblings and a high school buddy completely sold off their SLR gear and bought NEX-5 kits after seeing what mine could do in stills and video. Every one of them has loved the change.)

As to your question, studio, the ergonomics of this camera as a video camera are not ideal, but neither are SLRs.

As you present the argument, studio460, I'm with you 100%.

But I think you present it from too narrow a point of view.

Consider an EVIL camera a new option, not a replacement for a SLR or a P&S.

Lenses also could be significantly smaller. Smaller than Leica rangefinder lenses if a crop sensor is used. As has been said on here before we never have (or will) see the true potential of a crop sensor when it comes to lens miniaturization because of design restrictions imposed by legacy flange depth. EVIL would not suffer this.

Me? I'm a black&white guy. I have little desire (at this point) to see the pie sliced ever thinner.

Just saw bjrichus' post. Valid point #2.

studio460 said:
I just don't get it.

Being even more cynical...

I'll go with the market led theory of product trends... What I'm saying by this is that Nikon must come out with an EVIL line of cameras to keep up with the rest of the heavily marketing influenced world (C*non, S*ny, etc, etc.) we live in now.

Remember the profits from high margin cameras contribute to R&D and mitigate relatively low margin (as a %age) more expensive to make models. If they can push out a half decent small, EVIL camera that sells in huge numbers (not necessarily as 'pro' cameras) Nikon will have some happy business masters, that mainly care about stock prices/costs/overhead containment/bonus payments, etc...

I'd guess we will eventually see some bleed-over of technology in time (from EVIL to DSLR), but photographers who want D3 type cameras will not be the primary target for the EVIL, at least in version 1.

Okay, I was going to post this in the Sony "transluscent mirror" (A77) thread, but it's actually off-topic. What's the deal with EVIL? What are the benefits? Why would anyone want one, other than in a point-and-shoot? But, in a pro camera? Why? Okay, so you get rid of the mirror box. So what? Any smaller form-factor than current DSLRs would be difficult to hold and shoot. I guess we would have slightly shorter lenses?

Also, the optical viewfinders on 35mm film SLRs are still vastly superior to the optical viewfinders on DSLRs (and why are DLSR viewfinders so crummy?). Why would anyone want an EVF (even a fancy OLED one) instead of an optical one? Why degrade a first-surface mirror's reflectivity even more by replacing it with a beam-splitter? To have continuous auto-focus in video mode? Serious filmmakers pull focus manually anyway. I just don't get it.

EVIL benefits:

1. In-camera stabilization (can't a non-EVIL camera do that?)
2. Slightly shorter lenses.
3. Higher FPS.
4.
5.

EVIL detriments:

1. Too small.
2. No optical viewfinder.
3.
4.
5.

Isn't that special D7k in pink can you imagine? Or how about a new D700x in these concept camera colors? I'm sure that would go over really well with Nikon shooters. I'll be really disappointed if DSLR bodies become some fashion show like some companies do with their new models. Nikon is too great to allow this to happen I think though :)D

kanuck said:
Anybody considering buying this setup when it finally becomes available?

NO.

I tried the Sony NEX, but it felt so unbalanced with the 18-55mm that I passed. Takes nice images though, up to ISO 3200 and the bokeh is round and beautiful.

If I want to take photos, I´ll lug my DSLR kit around. Period.

i would rather have this then a pink D7k.

Yes whats wrong with just black or silver bodies only? Please ignore the idiots asking for rainbow cameras!

This thing goes beyond fugly, we need a new word for it.

Actually the sad part of the whole thing is, some "designer" actually a) thought this was good and b) got paid. I'll take $50 worth of whatever they were on.

I AM IN THE WRONG BUSINESS!!!

Those are old "concepts". They are not production bound.

I do not think I would.

Yes the image posted looks like a test prototype to gather public interest. It seems to be designed along the lines of the new colored Pentax K line :

http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/pentax-adds-more-k-x-body-color-bling-for-us-market/

Samsung seems to getting into this trendy market as well. I am like Nikos and Jonnyapple, I'd pass on a smaller sensor. The only thing that maks me curious is the overall weight of the camera, and I'd like to see the image quality. I'm 80% sure that I wouldn't buy one though.

So... pretty much you guys want a small digital Nikonos?

That'd be really cool in my opinion.

Hi,

I'm sort of in the camp of Nikon interchangeable lens + pocket + all weather [think rafting/fishing] cameras. I would like to whittle that down to 2 lines, but haven't had the will/desire to do that.

The Nikon in question doesn't look like either a weatherproof or pocket-able camera, and frankly, without meaning to ruffle feathers, Nikon hasn't had a lot of hits in the consumer line. Some of the Nikon consumer cameras I've bought out of loyalty to the brand have been less than stellar performers and were gifted to the children quite quickly.

We have a Canon SD 780 IS for pocket (a very nice and reliable model) and an elderly Weather proof Olympus which is coming upon its retirement this Xmas.

So the short answer for me, anyway, is I likely don't see any reason to to get the camera.

My best,

Mike

I don't like it- it looks unfinished and it probably is. I'll worry about it when it comes out.

I kid above but after buying my parents an EP1 I'm really not all that convinced that it is really all that much better than my G11. The smaller sensor DOF is deep and the VR isn't any better than many P&S. Software has caught up with noise numbers so much that you really have to have a major improvement over a P&S to make a difference.

An evil model would be my second go-to camera and to spend the money it either A) Have to take current Nikon lenses or B) Unbelievable Low Light performance - better than the Sony. I could add C)If it had allot of Pancakes. It is a chunk of cash that could go into a lens upgrade for me. If it was like a Leica LX1 with interchangeable Prime lenses I would sell allot of stuff for that.

I think it will be a great option for those who are wanting something smaller than a D3100 but with better IQ. I see it going the path of Panasonic GF2 - more P&S set up than a DSLR step down - which is ok.

It looks like a concept camera rather than a working model. The pic appears to be a showcase proposition rather than an answer to a photographer's wishes.

I don't like the small sensor of the other EVIL models. It is too limiting.

I wish to see a focusing capability built inside the camera body, which would allow the use of every type of Nikkor lens ever made to auto-focus (by setting the lens to infinity), alongside a 35mm FX sensor and e-viewfinder.

Nikon needs to provide an innovative edge, not to follow trends set by Canon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic.

WTF is it? I think I could melt a box of zip-lock bags that look better than that thing. I wouldn't buy that ugly thing no matter how good the photos it took would be.