Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

1. 

   bmxdad
   

   preferred member
   Joined: May '09
   Posts: 1,864

   offline

   I just read Thom's latest post about modular, and totally agree that future DSLR, special Pro level have to become modular

   The fact is that a DSLR can not be everything, the new D3s is the best high ISO camera ever made but would loose that somewhat when MP are increased

   Anyway you could have main DSLR body then:

   Add sensor modules to it, yes this is not for everyone:

   - Modest MP and high ISO
   - High MP and lower max ISO
   - B&W high MP sensor, which BTW would be very effective at capturing very fine detail
   - IR sensor module

   So you could have 4 different D3 style cameras for the cost of less than 2 and the body might be used longer before you feel that you have to upgrade the body(depending on yearly shutter count)

   Yes I know Nikon would rather sell an entire new DSLR, but you have a D3 style DSLR with 100,000 actuation's on it and in great shape, it might be more cost effective to upgrade the sensor and Nikon could sell sensor updates sooner than people might be willing to update the entire body

   Pete

   Posted 3 years ago #
2. 

   spraynpray
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Feb '10
   Posts: 1,514

   offline

   I think manufacturers shy away from this kind of thing because they don't want to give everybody all that they desire as it would lead to the customer being 'too happy' with his purchase and hanging on to it for too long. They need to keep products turning over.

   I once approached Leatherman with an idea about a modular system multitool so that people could buy what they wanted on a modular basis plus a few special tools. I even offered them the choice of a 'custom shop' range where people had exactly what they wanted built because they had corporate liability concerns but they weren't interested at the time.

   Just my 2c.

   Posted 3 years ago #
3. 

   NSXType-R
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Mar '09
   Posts: 2,803

   offline

   Yup, we've discussed this here before. I hate wasting DSLR bodies. I mean, I'd love to repurpose old D2 bodies, or D1 bodies. Unfortunately, not possible, for the time being.

   Posted 3 years ago #
4. 

   bmxdad
   

   preferred member
   Joined: May '09
   Posts: 1,864

   offline

   It would only be a future building design for pro DSLR's and maybe pro DX, I think the cost would to high for this to work in lesser models

   Pete

   Posted 3 years ago #
5. 

   NSXType-R
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Mar '09
   Posts: 2,803

   offline

   bmxdad said:
   It would only be a future building design for pro DSLR's and maybe pro DX, I think the cost would to high for this to work in lesser models

   Pete

   I understand that. What I meant was, if DSLRs really were modular and I wanted a pro DX kit, I really could swap a D300s sensor and guts into a D1. Imagine the possibilities?

   Posted 3 years ago #
6. 

   mb
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Apr '09
   Posts: 1,160

   offline

   The modular design idea has been around for some time and it really sounds good.
   Replacing the sensor module and prolonging camera life would allow us users to be able to use our expensive gear for years, the ability we had in film days.
   RED does something like that already.
   The matter of fact is you can not just switch sensor, all processing electronics must be replaced too and you would probably like to put better LCD with newer and higher resolution sensor. All this is probably somewhere around half the price of higher end DSLR cameras but I am not sure this solution would be popular among camera makers like Nikon and Canon.
   They would much prefer for us to invest in a new cameras every year or so then for them to invest on development of a modular system.

   Posted 3 years ago #
7. 

   NikoDoby
   

   The Terminator
   Joined: May '09
   Posts: 6,598

   offline

   I don't understand you guys who keep demanding a modular camera? You laughed at the Ricoh GXR because it was a silly idea and too expensive. Pete you even admit a modular camera would be for "pros" with deep pockets. So that's like what only .1 percent of you in this forum, right?

   Besides we get enough "what should I get" questions. Imagine, "I have a D4 body but I want smaller file size jpegs. Should I get a 12mp full frame sensor for $400USD or the 18mp DX sensor for $999USD? Or how about, "what viewfinder should I buy for my D500? My budget is $500USD.

   No thanks! I want Nikon to tell me what "components" work best together and on what camera. Then I'll just make a one time purchase and be happy for 5 years until I need to upgrade again.

   Posted 3 years ago #
8. 

   JorPet
   

   preferred member
   Joined: Feb '10
   Posts: 261

   offline

   I wonder how many here have ever upgraded their PC? They are modular, just pull out one piece and plop in another. Of course, upgrading the CPU typically requires faster RAM. That requires a faster system bus and faster hard drives. Then you need video upgrades. For the same cost as two new machines you have "upgraded" your old machine to something less than a new machine would be.

   I have mentioned here before that people need to view the new DSLRs more like computers that be become obsolete than like the old film SLRs. They are a working unit that is optimized to work together. Higher MP means the need for faster image processors and higher bandwidth data pipes. They also need to be able to address higher amounts of memory. Putting in a low MP sensor into a body optimized for high MP would produce lower IQ images than one optimized for Low MP/High IQ. Thus you would have to swap everything put the shell each time you swapped.

   Then you have to worry about dust and moisture every time you swap one set of components for another. All for maybe a 5% savings over just buying complete bodies.

   Posted 3 years ago #
9. 

   bmxdad
   

   preferred member
   Joined: May '09
   Posts: 1,864

   offline

   I know you will not agree, but you are missing the point a bit:

   OK, Lets picture that could buy this type of Pro DSLR: (maybe lesser D700/300 style DSLR if cost effective)

   The Camera is designed so that The Main PCB incl Sensor can slide out from a sealed door, you then slide it into a protective storage container. Yes dust can enter and just like changing Lenses this is done in a clean environment. On the plus side it would be easier to clean the inside of Camera body and certainly easier to clean and inspect the sensor. I don't believe this should really add to the cost of making this camera, It contains the same components, just an extra door and the slide out PCB

   Now you have a DSLR that could be updated if a better sensor is available, or you could get a B&W Sensor module or maybe Fuji would make a EXR style sensor module and it would be easy to either buy an IR module or to get an outdated module converted.

   Pete

   Posted 3 years ago #
10. 

    jonnyapple
    

    Goldfingers
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 3,400

    offline

    I am with Niko and JorPet on this one. I think not even most pros would want what you're suggesting, Pete, because they'd be afraid of ruining something. The pros who are also tech savvy would love it (like people who can build their own dual flash bracket ;-), but it's such a small fraction they might just as well just "No user-serviceable parts" on the cameras you're suggesting. I'd like one, but I don't see them being very popular.

    Posted 3 years ago #
11. 

    bmxdad
    

    preferred member
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 1,864

    offline

    But the PCB/Sensor module would look like a Laptop hard drive, I would think that as you remove the module a door would close in front of the sensor, which will open when re-inserted. Actually it would be like removing an oversized CF card.

    Pete

    Posted 3 years ago #
12. 

    JorPet
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 261

    offline

    My point is that it isn't just the sensor that has to be swapped. You have to swap out all of the electronics at the same time. The Expeed processor is tuned for each camera, it is not the same for a D3X as it is for a D3S. So, when you swap out one sensor it has to be all of the electronics that go with it.

    So the final result is, the only part of the body that is reusable is the outer case, mirror and buttons. All of the guts have to swap with the sensor. I suspect that the guts represent about 90% of the cost of the camera, so what are you really saving?

    I like to tinker, have built many PCs over the years, but know they are never worth upgrading. So, would prefer a whole new body each time so I have the old one to use as a back up. You would lose a lot trying to just upgrade parts.

    Posted 3 years ago #
13. 

    foofiebeast
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 427

    offline

    NikoDoby said:
    I don't understand you guys who keep demanding a modular camera? You laughed at the Ricoh GXR because it was a silly idea and too expensive. Pete you even admit a modular camera would be for "pros" with deep pockets. So that's like what only .1 percent of you in this forum, right?

    Not that I am agreeing that a modular system makes the most sense, I'm still not positive how I feel about it, but Niko remember that the GXR is a terrible idea for other reasons. You don't just swap the sensor, you swap the sensor+lens combo. By doing that you defeat the whole point (or atleast one of the major points) of a modular system. It's not a fair comparison in the least.

    To be more clear the sensor and lens are physically connected, which is why its such a terrible idea.

    Posted 3 years ago #
14. 

    PB PM
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 2,217

    offline

    JorPet makes some great points about the downfall of a modular system. For Pro DSLRs it does not make sense. Sure it would be nice, but modern cameras are like buying a notebook computer, not a high end desktop or server. I also like the fact that when I buy a new camera my old one becomes my backup. If I had a modular system that would not happen.

    Posted 3 years ago #
15. 

    foofiebeast
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 427

    offline

    JorPet said:

    I like to tinker, have built many PCs over the years, but know they are never worth upgrading. So, would prefer a whole new body each time so I have the old one to use as a back up. You would lose a lot trying to just upgrade parts.

    Huh? This makes no sense to me at all. I upgrade my computers all the time. It's cheap, fast and easy to upgrade ram, hard drives, cd/dvd/bluray(now) drives, add different ports.

    If you are comparing it to a modular camera system is makes more sense, but even still it wouldn't be too hard to swap out your motherboard as long as your new one was compatable with your parts and you don't mind doing the work.

    Posted 3 years ago #
16. 

    JorPet
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 261

    offline

    Foofie,
    The point being that swapping out to a larger hard drive, adding more RAM or upgrading the optical drive is more akin to changing the memory card, Lens and filters on a DSLR. You aren't upgrading, just swapping out the same items. You can't just swap out an old IDE drive and put in a SATA drive, you have to swap out the drive controller. While you can swap out faster RAM for slower, it is pointless if the bus speed of the motherboard isn't fast enough.

    Same issues with the DSLR. When you swap out the image sensor you have to swap out all of the support chips as well as they are tuned to the sensor. Similar to swapping out the motherboard, CPU, RAM and video card on a PC. When you are done, you have a "new" machine in an old box and a lot of parts that are unusable at that point.

    Posted 3 years ago #
17. 

    foofiebeast
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 427

    offline

    ah, I see!
    good explanation.

    Posted 3 years ago #
18. 

    mb
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,160

    offline

    Ricoh GXR idea is plain stupid; the only thing they don't swap is the 100$ handle.
    Modular mid size digital backs like Leaf contains everything from sensor to processing electronics, card slots and LCD, but they are 6 digits pleasure. If we follow computer analogy mid size cameras are like modern servers, you could add a CPU, external SAN storage, redundant PSU etc.
    I kind of liked old Nikon system film cameras where you could swap almost anything, viewfinder, ground glass, backs etc. But modern DSLRs seams more like notebooks; the only thing you could swap really is the battery.

    Posted 3 years ago #
19. 

    Anaxagoras
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Dec '09
    Posts: 145

    offline

    NikoDoby said:

    No thanks! I want Nikon to tell me what "components" work best together and on what camera. Then I'll just make a one time purchase and be happy for 5 years until I need to upgrade again.

    I agree.

    Nikon's engineers know infinitely more about cameras than I do. I would rather they were making the decisions than me.

    Remember, too, that those on this site are enthusiasts (perhaps even camera nuts); we're a minority. Nikon might gain sales from us but sales overall would fall because most people would be simply overwhelmed by the choice.

    Posted 3 years ago #
20. 

    kyoshinikon
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 1,200

    offline

    Hasselblad anyone?

    While not a bad idea it would only work if you had a system that took a sizable portion of the body away, like a cube that held the screen shutter and sensor... aaaannd nobody is gonna do that.

    Posted 3 years ago #
21. 

    poster
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '09
    Posts: 779

    offline

    I think it's a very stupid idea. Why?

    Because this business model is unsustainable due to the small number of professionals who would care to waste their time with this "upgrading" thing. It's much easier to buy a new generation. Moreover, the logistics required for support of all the modular parts would be too expensive. The cost for R&D alone would be too huge to sustain this business model.

    Plus all the gazillion of other great arguments that people made prior to me.

    Posted 3 years ago #
22. 

    heartyfisher
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,701

    offline

    I think its a great idea! we are almost there!

    Lets list the swappable components in the past, now and in the future.

    1) Lens !
    1a) Tc
    1b) Wide-angle adapter
    1c) tele adapter.
    2) Lens functions
    2d) Af motor.
    2d.1 ) In the lens
    2d.2 ) In the camera
    2e) VR
    2e.1) VR in the lens
    2e.2) VR in the sensor
    2e.3) VR In the lens mount - Nikon has a patent on this.

    3) Memory/ Storage
    3a) CF cards
    3b) SD cards etc.
    3c) Wireless - this is possible because it is modular ! shows how you
    can gain functionality beyond what is originally designed if things were modular.

    4) UI - Camera body buttons and screens. Things like LCD screen, Swivel screen, Back LCD.
    4a) Mirror focusing screen and Penta prism/mirror. ( we can already change the focusing screen and in the past we could remove the pentaprism totally.

    5) Software API and SDK to really open up the future.
    Wireless interface, for Ipod controler, Wireless to a HUD. Speech interface, Brainwave interface, who knows what else for use by the disabled or remote controller.

    6) CPU and EXpeed procesor == to the PC OS and GPU and mother board
    7) Power supply.
    7a) Battries
    7b) Battery Grip. vertical grip.
    7c) Fuel cell . Nikon has patents for this.
    7d) Solar cell ? maybe in the future you can get an outer skin made of solar batteries and you wont ever need to recharge your batteries like current day watches. You just need a modular standardized battery interface!

    8) Sensor = Its really only a data source device that streams out bits.
    in the past it was a roll of film or APS-C cartridge.
    all it needs is to plug into a USB3 type interface which can provide it power and control and drain the databits.
    Some features that can be built into these digital cartridges include VR/ Dust reduction/ changeable filters for IR/UV/B&W.

    See its not really that hard. Its almost there already! If Nikon doesn't do it, Apple or Microsoft will. Maybe we will get a Google camera that uploads directly to your google account whenever you blink :-).

    Posted 3 years ago #
23. 

    jonnyapple
    

    Goldfingers
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 3,400

    offline

    What about a zoom motor in the lenses under 2), hearty? It would be nice for video and for remote release controlled by an ipod or laptop.

    Posted 3 years ago #
24. 

    NikoDoby
    

    The Terminator
    Joined: May '09
    Posts: 6,598

    offline

    How can a lens mount with VR be modular? How can you remove and replace an AF motor? Why would I even want VR in the lens mount or a modular AF motor? And even if I did, I'd have to spend $400 on a lens mount and another $200 for an AF motor on top of the prices for all of the other parts I have to buy separate and then put together myself?!? NO THANK YOU!

    I guess if Nikon ever releases a 10 piece modular camera (all components sold separately) with a 1.25 crop that only uses DX lenses, then you'd be in heaven huh hearty? :^)

    foofiebeast said:
    Not that I am agreeing that a modular system makes the most sense, I'm still not positive how I feel about it, but Niko remember that the GXR is a terrible idea for other reasons. You don't just swap the sensor, you swap the sensor+lens combo. By doing that you defeat the whole point (or atleast one of the major points) of a modular system. It's not a fair comparison in the least.

    That makes no sense foofie. Ricoh can, at anytime, introduce a module with just a sensor and a lens mount, no lens. Thats why it's a modular design.

    So if they did that then suddenly the GXR becomes a brilliant idea?!? That's what I don't understand why you guys hate the GXR but "demand" a modular camera from Nikon?

    Posted 3 years ago #
25. 

    mb
    

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,160

    offline

    Sensor is much more than just a data source and it is actually nothing without glue logic and CPU to process all the data. 24Mpix requires twice more processing power, twice faster data channels and twice the memory to be able to match the speed of 12Mpix camera, and if you are making a modular system it will have to cope for at least a couple of years to be a viable solution and there is no way of telling what will happen in a couple of years in sensor technology.
    The only sensible solution to me is what Phase One and Leaf are doing in midrange segment, single sensor, and processing and control unit equipped with LCD screen to much.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.