“Might or might not be called Nikon DM1”

Pure speculations here, do not expect any real rumors and feel free to skip this post - more of an analysis of a potential Nikon MX camera from David Bush (author of books on digital photography). Here is his blog entry. I personally find the name DM1 interesting.

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • SenorPhoto

    Nikon DM1 I like the sound of that!

  • chevypower

    I was actually thinking about this a while ago. The current series of DX cameras seem to be running out of room. So I think the DX—- – range, DF—- range, and DM—- make total sense.

  • i dont know if i should be feeling sorry for a lot of people on here… wanting the latest and best of best. whatever camera nikon have in store for you does the task just fine. if you want more megapixels, go back to film and be grateful film days aren’t over. use a medium format or large format camera system for over a trillion megapixels.

    get what you need to get it done instead of waiting for it.

    here’s some interesting sources that tells people why they shouldn’t be waiting.

    • chevypower

      I agree, don’t keep waiting, but technology keeps on progressing. I think when they get a fast 25mp + 35mm and larger sensor, film days will be gone. I do like using the current cameras, but I also like to hear about what’s going on. A trillion Petapixels would be ok.

      • if film days are over, then why is nikon still selling F6, F100, and FM10 outfit? …and why are kodak, ilford, and fujifilm still selling film? hmm?

        • Chevypower

          re-read what I wrote… I did say “when they get a fast 25mp + 35mm and larger sensor” though since, you’re taking me a little bit too seriously, I will add that i do think film will stay as a niche market, but I don’t think there will be any benefits to it.

        • Anonymous

          why is kodak and fuji cutting their film lines, why does nikon only make the f6, the fm-10 is made by cosina, why did ilford go out of business several years ago? Face it film is on its deathbed, sure their are some things that it can still do well, but in the 35mm field?

          • I should be shooting

            Um…www.ilfordphoto.com. And actually B&W film sales have seen an upswing.

    • What’s wrong with being excited about new things? You really want the world to be a stagnant hole where nothing progresses?

      Yay, I get to coat my own glass plate again! 😉 The Calotype still gets my vote, kiss my ass you Daguerreotype loving pansies!!!

      I think it’s fun; there definitely is something to be said for nostalgia, but there is also something to be said about looking towards the future.

      Why not enjoy it all?

    • @Cameron: Yeah, I agree with the sentiment about not waiting and just making hay/pictures while the sun shines (and even far after), but you don’t know what you’re talking about with film vs. digital. Ken’s beloved Velvia 50 is about 6-8mp in 35mm for resolution, and crap for dynamic range.

      I agree with Ken on a lot of things, but film is pretty well dead. Having used large format film for years, I can tell you that it’s days are numbered. Especially looking at the possibilities with the new Red equipment. A 6×17 sized sensor means it’s only a matter of time before somebody makes a 4×5 sensor. And then film will be truly dead. Because once medium and 4×5 goes digital, 8×10 will die. 4×5 film isn’t all that even compared to MF digital stuff of today (except lack of LP filters, which I count as a hindrance to a simple workflow.)

      I can get more out of my 12mp Nikon than 35mm film today. In prints. And that’s what counts for me. Measurebaters claim higher res from film, but real prints don’t bear that out. I’ve tested this myself several times because I couldn’t believe it. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, buy a huge print off my site that was shot with at least 12mp and honestly tell me it’s inferior to 35mm.

      Maybe you enjoy film and are more comfortable or inspired by it and it’s process. But when you actually compare real prints under controlled conditions side by side, the magic vanishes.

      /end rant

      Sorry. Ignorance makes me fume.

      • I should be shooting

        I just got back from an assignment in Mexico, where I shot film with rangefinders. I got shots I just couldn’t get with my DSLRs, due to logistics. There are many factors involved when picking media.

    • Pablov

      it doesn’t apply to everyone’s case or situation.

      some people may prefer to wait before investing $3.000+ in a camera body rather than buying one of the models that are actually on sale.

      Especially if you don’t live in a country where you can buy and sell used equipment as easy as in U.S.

  • Nobody Special

    Since this seems to be turning into a ‘film isn’t over’ comment: Obviously (and why I still like film) film has all the advantages of SAFE, LONG-TERM ARCHIVAL STORAGE, it’s own ‘look’, MORE than enough resolution, it can be scanned to big or small file sizes to digital so you still have digital too.

    There still is no guarantee that a digital file is archival – in fact – you have to have it safely stored by someone else off site (not a good idea) or you have to have it stored on multiple electronic media devises just to POSSIBLY insure multi-decade image storage.

    As for any bigger than 35mm sensor camera, Leica has (will in 2009) their ‘Pro Format, so why not Nikon? Market-wise, it’s just a matter of time for 35mm sensors to be cheaper and be the norm – even if they are not needed by everyone. I’ll still shoot with the ‘big and honkin’ 6x7cm format anyway – nothing like having big negatives and transparencies from 20-30 years ago still looking like new!

    • LostMyPhotos

      I live in Fielding New Zealand.

      A couple of years back floodwaters went right through town. ALL film and prints that were wet with the flood waters were destroyed completely, Digital archives on CD’s were simply washed in clean water and dried with a soft towel.

      film is simply NOT a SAFE, LONG-TERM ARCHIVAL STORAGE like you say because no-one can be sure of what fate will throw at us.

      Digital is NOT a perfect archive medium(far from it) BUT neither is film…
      ask my neighbours, some of them lost photos on BOTH digital and film.

      • Chevypower

        Didn’t Universal Studios just lose some film archives to a fire? They do still have the digital transfers on most of them.

        • LostMyPhotos

          if memory serves correctly: some of the damaged archives were lost due to the efforts to quell the fire

          “archive” is how you do it, not what format it’s kept on.

          • torax

            The format does matter. If you use proprietary format the support for the format in future is not guaranteed.

            • LostMyPhotos

              ensuring available support for the format you have chosen is part fo the “how you do it”. Archive is an onging activity not an action (ie: you need to keep aware of the changing nature of technology and sometimes you may need to “update” an archive)

              I have no wish to get into an argument over correct archive methods / formats, I just get angry when people spout on how film is perfect for archive when so many friends lost all their photos due to film’s inherent suseptability to moisture.

              Just because we could wash CD’s doesn’t mean digital is the answer to archiving, drowned hard disks and backup tapes didn’t always fare so well either.

              The only major difference that I see is the ability to make “multiple originals” in digital whereas slide dupes or copy negs are never as good as the originals.

              //sorry about the rant, this is somewhat close to my heart.

            • Chevypower

              I hear film survives XRAY machines at airports really well too.

            • Nobody Special

              My father’s negatives and transparencies went through 2 floods 40 years ago. Some of the ‘trans’ did not fare as well as the B+W neg’s, which by and large were fine. Most experts in the field of digital technology and storage say that it will be much harder to maintain and guarantee digital files over time compared to film over the same time. That would be using the necessary means that each medium needs. Disks will lose ‘information’ randomly over time if not constantly refreshed with a new disk. Hard drives are still the best way to store digital – but theses too will have be checked and or put onto a newer (technologically speaking) drive that is new software compatible. Each medium has minimum storage/archival needs, but film can be stored/preserved in both mediums. Whether the look or quality of film or digital – film still provides the best and most choices.

            • Chevypower

              Digital can be transferred and backed up in as many places, on as many media as you like. Without any generational loss. Optical disc media is the most reliable long-term.

            • Martin

              No, optical media isn’t the most reliable long-term storage, sorry. What makes you believe that? It’s just not that simple. There are publicly funded long term archives, which store everything on film. Including digital data. Because film will outlast any CD or DVD.
              Even if you had a CD which lasts one hundred years, what makes you so sure that you’ll have a working CD-drive to read it, and a working computer with the correct connectors? Doesn’t seem likely. And in case you’re planning on storing a suitable computer with it: forget about it! It will not work! Just one question here: Are you able to read floppy disks, written by a Commodore 64 computer? Or disks written by a Atari ST? Maybe not. And those computers aren’t really old. Or, are they?

            • Chevypower

              Did I say CD or did i say Optical media? One is specific, one is general. Look at XDCAM. You are talking about computer programs, not photo files. As far as I am aware, all files from digital cameras, can still be read. This is pointless, I can come up with unlikely scenarios too

            • Martin

              Name one optical media which is more reliable than film. And no, I’m not talking about computer software. Sure, in theory you can read files, but you need a decoder software for them to be meaningful!

              What makes you believe, by the way, they will never change RAW decoders and will never replace jpg as preferred file format? It has happened before. Canon changed their RAW format at least twice and Nikon changes it almost everytime they release a new camera. And of course no one will stop them from dropping support for their old RAW formats from future software. And if this your old software will not run on a then current MacOS? Which is not unlikely. It has happened before.

              But it’s worse: since you always need some special kind of hardware to read any media, it will boil down to if you still can get hands on a working drive for your “reliable” optical media.
              And it is not some unlikely scenario: It has happened already! Open your eyes! If you don’t have a working disk drive, it doesn’t matter if your disk will work in theory. And of course you can copy your data to new disks … if the old ones are still working.

              I own two CD-R, recorded only ten years ago, which are unreadable! Fortunately I copied the data five years ago. But if I hadn’t done that … see, it’s really not an unlikely scenario.

              And what about XDCAM? Sure, they call it “professional”, so what? What does this say about the lifespan of this disk itself? Nothing, really. Will you get a working drive ten years from now? Will you get replacement parts for a defective drive?

              You see, it is vital that not only the disk has a long lifespan, but the drive and the connection to computers, and the driver software, and the decoder software. In every other case you’ll just get nothing remotely meaningful from the disk.

              Film – on the other hand – can be read without any technical equipment whatsoever! Try. Take a film strip and look! Can you see the picture? And then take any optical media and look at it! We were talking about long term storage. And with regards to this nothing beats film.

              Yes, I can see you came up with some unlikely scenario! The scenario: optical media is the most reliable storage media!
              It really is pointless. Believe whatever you want. But I think, you know near to nothing about computers.

  • Let me guess!

    In fact, we are going to see at least two products on 20 November 2008. The Medium format Nikon camera and the high-megapixel D3. It is going to be cool I have to say.

    If you read that Nikon, Nikon should put video on every single camera, even the pro one and even the Medium format one.

    • Is that a guess or you have some real info. Let me know – email me directly.

    • Martin

      It would suffice, if Nikon would finally release a high megapixel D3-style camera – likely called D3x. I think if they wait much longer, they can just as well forget about it, and move on to professional-D-camera number 4.

      And pretty please with sugar on it: an update of the rather dated 80-400 mm. Because I want one of these, but only if it has AF-S and VR II. So, Nikon get to it!

      Medium format can wait. The Leica S2 hasn’t yet made it to the market, and we don’t know if it’s any good.

      The video function … personally I’m not so keen about it. Haven’t used it on any of my digital compacts. Why? Because it usually looks like crap and sound is terrible. OK, now they’ve fixed the look of the video, but sound is still terrible. I will not use video function on any camera no matter how good the video itself might be, except if it comes with Hi-Fi stereo sound!

      • JR

        thats not what its about.

        video in an slr is about replacing professional hd cameras. not cheap p&s and camcorders. professional rigs you record sound seperatly and then sync. If i could have 1080p in my d700, i would have no problem making a hotshoe holder for my olympus ls-10.

        • Chevypower

          that was true in film days, not in digital cinematography. I find the lenses on the still cameras are not quiet enough for video with a camera-mounted mic, though I could be using the wrong lenses, but then they didn’t have any reason to make them quiet before. If they are taking the digital cinema market, then they need to have 4K recording resolution, not 1080×1920.

  • Back to top