Nikon plans new concept camera as early as this year

Update: Nikon is planing to ship this new camera "as early as this fiscal year". The Nikon fiscal year end on March 2011.

I am away from my computer for the next few hours but you can read the whole article at Bloomberg:

"The new concept model will probably have an enhanced function for video recording and may adopt the so-called mirrorless structure. It could be any time this fiscal year or the following year, as new models are starting to sell.โ€

Those were the words of Nikon's President Makoto Kimura from an interview with Bloomberg.

This entry was posted in Nikon 1. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Fat Ho Z

    disappointing……i don’t want a nex-nikon……..

  • Nikonbeliever

    The Evil has arrived!

    • Joe R.

      Please, please, please be an f-mount. I really don’t want to buy duplicate lenses

      • John

        Well, if it is a mirror-less camera I hope that it will not be an f-mount, but a shorter registration distance mount that is f-mount compatible via an adapter that at least can meter (probably would not AF though unless Nikon has figured out how to get a PDAF lens to work with a CDAF camera) with G and D lenses as well as MF lenses.

  • Click

    What did the President of Nikon mean by “New Models are beginning to sell”?

    Could he have meant new models by competitors because Nikon sure doesn’t have anything near a “New Model”.

    • Discontinued

      He probably means D300s and D3s.
      I noticed how long Nikon kept them “flagged” as new on their german website. Considering that the D300s has been outdated as soon as it was released, I must say that Nikon has its own understanding of the terms new, professional and revolutionary.

  • Discontinued

    How can you call a mirrorless structure still SLR ? ? ?

    • gtanaka

      As long as there is only a single light path from the subject to what is seen in the viewfinder, I’m okay with keeping the SLR terminology.

      The mirror wasn’t the defining factor – it just aided in the end result: the user could look directly through the lens

      • Worminator

        Even by your own definition these are not SLRs… unless the sensor image displayed on an LCD is an SLR, in which case all digital cameras with live view are SLRs!

        Correct answer: they are not SLRs by the original definition of the term because the “R” stands for reflex which implies a splitting of he optical path by a mirror os similar mechanical device.

        However, since they are not in the “compact camera” category, and we have yet to find an appropriate name for them, they are lumped with dSLRs for the time being as a matter of convenience.

        The discussion reminds of the the “netbook” brouhaha a couple of years back. Rather futile. If you have to have a pedantic nomenclature, then “mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that are not rangefinders or TLRs” is closest to being correct. The more popular term “EVIL” is still wrong as most of the cameras do not have electronic viewfinders, and indeed may have optical viewfinders for specific fixed focal lenses. “ILC” is fine but does not distinguish between SLR and non-SLR. If you want to use ILC you might as well use SLR as far as I am concerned.

        • Biziclop

          How bout SLNR? (Single Lens Non-Reflex) ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • Joe R.

            We should just call them Advanced Photographic System- Camera to avoid the abbreviation confusion of SLR.

          • Victor Hassleblood

            Why would we want to keep the “SL”?
            This “single lens” term is as old as the very first SLRs and has become quite useless since double lens solutions have vanished completely for quite some time now.
            Nowadays EVERY camera is a “SL” anyway. It’s either interchangeable or not and it is either reflex or not. Calling the reflex ones SLRs is like calling a toilet seat single seated (SSTS). Could otherwise be mistaken for a double seater.

    • m35g35


  • santela

    im not buying a 2.5x camera

    • Eric

      Same here, I want high IQ AND small size, not either/or. A 2.5x sensor simply won’t get the job done for me. I don’t want to maintain two systems, one for travel and one for normal use. I want one small system that does everything. I hope they go back to their rangefinder heritage for design influence and ideally stick an FX sensor in it. If not I can make do with a 1.5x, but 2.5x is DOA to me.

      • PHB

        Wait another 5-10 years and you might just see one. Eventually the electronic viewfinder and contrast autofocus technology will get so good that there is no real point to having the mirror.

        But that is a long way off and an FX mirrorless really makes no sense for Nikon at present. It only makes sense for Leica because they never went SLR in the first place.

        An FX is never going to be as compact as a crop sensor format. The lenses and body will all be much larger. The 2.5x crop is a far better choice at this time.

        I remember the days when everyone was ecstatic about the capabilities of ‘fast’ Kodacolor Gold 200. Nobody complained much about the limited light capability in those days. Before that we were using Kodachrome 32. Now it seems that nobody can survive without a minimum of ISO 6400 capability. Has the sun got dimmer or something?

        A 2.5x crop can easily support 24MP at about ISO 400 using currently available technology. That is more than adequate for the vast majority of photography people want to do. It is certainly the sweet spot for people looking to upgrade from coolpix (a market that is going to rapidly erode as camera phones improve). Initial samples will be lower resolution of course, but there is certainly more headroom than the blathering on this board would suggest.

        • Eric

          The biggest issue I have with 2.5x is not high iso ability, it’s DOF control. The smaller the sensor the less DOF. At 2x m4/3’s is the smallest sensor I’ll consider owning. There probably won’t be a huge difference in 2x and 2.5x, but I have to draw the line somewhere, especially since Sony and Samsung both use 1.5x.

          As far as size goes, a Zeiss Ikon ZM is small enough for me, and obviously since it’s a film camera it is full 35mm’s. I’m not looking for a pocket camera, I just want something that won’t break my back. Heck, if Nikon made an digital version of the old Nikon FE then even that would be fine to me. However, for some reason Nikon now feels like FX cameras must weight at least 17lbs.

          • Eric


            *the smaller the sensor the less DOF control

            Left off an important word there ๐Ÿ™‚

          • PHB

            DOF is not really a function of sensor size, its a function of the front area of your glass. If you have an X degree field of view and an aperture of Y mm you will have essentially the same depth of field regardless of your sensor size.

            However, it is not very likely that we will see a 35mm f/0.5 for the mirrorless format in the near future. Even though such a lens would be possible in a mirrorless format.

            Portrait photography is not going to be the area where mirrorless shines. The two areas where it will make most sense are very wide and very long.

  • i_want_a_D900

    if it is a 2.5x sensor based on a scaled version of D3S sensor technology, i will buy one.

    • TT

      It can’t be scaled version of D3S sensor technology. D3s is 12MP. A scaled version would be around 5 MP?

      • The D3S has 12,1 Mpx at 36mm x 23,9mm sensor size โ€“ that means 1,406 Mpx / sq cm.

        Mabe you wanted to say 5Mpx for DX:
        For a DX sensor size, at the size of D5000 sensor, of 23,6mm x 15,8mm, for the same pixel density, the sensor should have 5,243 Mpx, that means 2.805 x 1.870 px, if you want the same or better quality.

        For a 2,5x sensor, of about 10,4mm x 9,56mm, the sensor should have 1,398 Mpx, that means about 1.448 x 965 px.
        Cool ๐Ÿ™‚

        • (about 14,4mm x 9,56mm)

        • PHB

          No, a scaled version of the sensor technology would be a die shrink preserving the number of pixels but shrinking the size of each.

          The size of the sensor has a major impact on the performance of a DSLR for a given mount technology. On a rangefinder or mirrorless it is purely marketing. All that matters as far as low light response is concerned is the amount of light that hits a given pixel.

          What would you prefer, a 50mm f/1.2 lens on a FX sensor or a 20mm f/0.5 on a 2.5x crop? On an SLR there is a huge difference in the design challenge because of the mirror sweep. On a mirrorless there is absolutely nothing special about f-numbers lower than 1.2.

          • zzddrr

            PHB – very good explanation

          • Joe R.

            Just to be pedantic, the size of the sensor doesn’t matter, the size of the pixel does. A 60 MP FX sensor would suck. A 5 MP 2.5x sensor would rock.

          • “preserving the number of pixels but shrinking the size of each”

            I really think this would be a new technology, not a “scaled version of D3S sensor technology”.

    • John

      A 2.5x crop sensor body with interchangeable lenses would, in my opinion, require an all new lens line-up that Nikon does not necessarily have the manufacturing capacity to support. For that small a sensor with, say 10MP, that used interchangeable lenses – few to none of the current DSLR lenses have enough resolution to satisfy that pixel density plus there would have to be a whole new batch of wide angle lenses for wide shots.

      IMHO the only way Nikon could pull of an interchageable lens mirrorless body would be to go the DX route with adapters for current lenses and a small batch of custom lenses to take advantage of the shorter registration distance and for video. It all depends if this camera is aimed at the m43-type crowd or more serious users (no disrespect intended) that demand better lenses.

      If it’s a 2.5x crop sensor I bet it won’t have interchangeable lenses, but will in fact look more like an Panny LX-3 on steroids. This would be fine with me if the camera had an equivalent 24-85/2.8-4 OIS lens, a reasonably capable electronic viewfinder, built in flash, and could shoot NEF raw. My old CoolPix 8400 comes to mind – magnesium body, flip out screen, shot video and stills, plus had a usable electronic viewfinder. If the 8400 concept was updated with today’s technology that would be fantastic.

      • PHB

        The only DX/FX lenses that would make sense to use on the mirrorless format are the telephotos. And with a 2.5x multiplier those get really long. A 50mm becomes a 150mm and an 85mm is almost in paparazzi-style 300mm territory.

        Even a 35mm f/1.8 DX is going to end up as an 85mm portrait lens but with only the effective depth of field of a f/4.5.

        I think you are correct in predicting that there will not be a very large range of lenses for the mirrorless at launch. Which is why I really can’t understand why people with D3s and D700s would want an FX format mirrorless at this point.

        I would expect the initial range of mirrorless lenses to be similar to the early F-Photomic offerings. We will see five, maybe six initial lenses of which at least half are less than stellar budget models. And many of those lenses are going to be re-engineered DX designs.

        Nikon does not release very many F-mount lenses a year but they design a huge number of lenses for compacts and OEM applications.

  • Wow, so many whiners.

    I’m wondering whether this has anything to do with RED, and whether this is a system to compete more directly with their lineup of EPIC and SCARLET. That would be SWEET!

    I love what RED has done so far, and love their concepts, but they have some major marketing issues with regard to release dates slipping time and again, and I believe Jim Jannard indicated as much in one of their last Q&A threads on REDUser.

    If RED had released their EPIC and SCARLET systems on time (first scheduled release) I would have bought one of those instead of a D300s or D3s. However, if Nikon had something comparable for a reasonably lower price, I would have stuck with Nikon. (And by reasonably lower price, I am making an assumption that the RED system would be more advanced, but the NIKON would be good enough for my needs).

    I’m just not sure Nikon, Canon, Sony, et. al. have really caught the vision enough to really show up RED. Those guys really are revolutionizing the visual industry, and it all started with a dramatically different mindset from the incumbents.

    Hopefully this announcement is Nikon saying they are starting to get what RED is trying to achieve.

    • zack

      If by ‘revolutionizing’ you mean constantly talking about camera which is nowhere to be seen than yes. Every few months since like 2007 I go and check their forum and they’re still talking about Scarlet like it’s released. The specs they announced ages ago may have been revolutionary at the time, but I’m sure when that camera actually hit the ground which is not gonna be this year (probably Summer next year) the competitors will have new stuff as well. Canon 5D Mark III is gonna be released in that time frame and I can bet on the fact that Scarlet isn’t gonna be that better than Canon. actually, I tend to think that Canon will win the comparison in many categories. Where is Nikon in all that? I think NIkon left that battlefield completely. It is obvious they are struggling to keep up with the new wave of DSLRS. My main worry is that video implementation has been poor. Canon, Panasonic are doing a much much better job. Let’s see what kind of camera NIkon have in mind in September. I hope for the best./

      • Jabs

        Do you have any idea what a professional digital MOVIE cameras can do compared to a video enabled DSLR?
        Obviously not!

        RED has some problems delivering equipment BUT what they have delivered already has revolutionized the whole Industry. Sony and Arriflex are their competitors and NOT Nikon or Canon.

    • Jabs

      Great post Ron.
      RED is actually being assisted by Nikon from what I hear and they use Nikon as a yardstick plus Nikon lenses too.
      RED reminds me of what an F3, F3HP, F3AF was with all that flexible modularity from heads, screens and backs. The most interesting part of RED is that they make fantastic video gear and it is modular. I believe that Nikon will eventually become modular in their digital cameras but they will not compete with the high end RED gear and RED will not be able to compete with the Nikon DSLR.
      They are different markets with different thrusts and RED has much greater megapixels plus I see RED as going after the 3D Movie Making Industry and doing high end stills to compete with Hasselblad, Mamiya and Pentax, perhaps – not Nikon, Canon, etc..
      They have a unique approach but technologically speaking, they need help from someone like Nikon for them to bring certain products to market. Remember, Nikon makes lenses for Video and Movie Cameras.
      Perhaps Nikon will purchase RED – LOL!

  • Anonymous

    Yes please – f mount, d90 sensor, Oly Pen size body, hd video and 350 grams. Here’s hoping…..

  • Anonymous

    Oh nooooooooo, more of the 12MP crap coming now even without mirror. WTF is revolutionary for this asshole Nikon president? F**k, Nikon had nothing to do developing the m3/4 or sony NEX concepts. Now these started to sell Nikon jumps on the bandwagon. This company losts its creativeness. if Pana or Sony makes one we Nikon need to have it toooooooo!

    Give us Nikon variety not just fuckin 12MP.

    • gtanaka

      creativity = more megapixels?
      wouldn’t adding more megapixels just be following the same path?

      • Anonymous

        Guess what, others will offer more. You cannot compare the resoltuion of the A850 to the D700. Nikon is getting too chepo. They only sell 12MP. Itg is a fact. The D3x sensor is developed by sony. So name 1 Nikon developed sensor that is more than 12MP.

        gtanaka – removing the mirror will not increase the image quality but using the sony 24MP sensor have better chances to increase the image quality (as we saw in the D3x). My creativity comment is summing up that nikon’s product line is boring when it comes to resolution. I guess none of the asshole Nikon managers realized that you can only buy 12MP and it is over 2 yrs now sony and canon offer more than 20MP.

        • jason

          sony make the sensors to nikons requirments that is the deal but the sensors in sonys cameras are not the same as the ones in nikon cameras nor are the works of them otherwise why arnt sonys cameras producing the some image quality ………………………………………..?

    • Nicole

      What exactly is wrong with 12MP? How many people actually make prints bigger than A3 on a regular basis? I’m perfectly happy with my 12MP camera that has amazing high ISO capability, wonderful colour and a great dynamic range. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • jim


      • zzddrr

        @Nicole – just because you are happy with your camera that does not mean that eveyrone is happy with the only option available from Nikon (the 12MP lineup).

        What is wrong with you guys? It seems to me that if somebody mentions that 12MP is not enough then 100s of assholes start barking. I don’t get it. I dis not say that the 12MP is wrong and it should be banned. All we are asking Nikon is to provide a little variety. It does not mean Nicole that you would have to buy that 24MP camera but it would mean that you have a choice and you decide what you do with it.

        Besides that, try crop from that 12MP a bit and see what happens.

        • Joe R.

          First, you’ll never make everyone happy.

          Second, I crop my D300 all the time (for the record, cropping is usually an escape for poor framing). I would argue that 12 MP is the right number for normal still cameras. Computer and storage requirements increase exponentially with larger files. If you *need* more than 12 MP you’re likely earning revenue off it and can afford the added hardware it requires. If you *need* far more MP than you should be shooting medium format. 12MP TIFFs are huge. Its reasonably arbitrary to pick 12MP but 10-14 or so is the area.

          Nikon has plenty of variaty in there dSLRs 24MP-12MP on FX and 12-6 on DX. Where Nikon fails is in staying cutting edge.

        • Nicole

          Dear ZZDDRR,
          I wasn’t implying that Nikon should not make a sensor bigger than 12MP. I was just wondering why so many seem to think that 12MP is comparable to dog-doo. I freely admit that I’m almost old enough to have polished Fox Talbot’s window, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate technical advances. Regarding having a choice, I just made the choice to buy a 12MP D3s rather than a 24MP D3x, due to the quality of the images that the D3s is capable of. The low noise high-iso from those lovely fat pixels means that I can use a higher iso in order to hand-hold rather than require a tripod, and not loose any quality. Finally, as far as cropping goes, that is something that I rarely do, preferring to zoom with my feet to get the composition I want rather than try to do the same on the computer afterwards. Perhaps it’s a sign of age, but I still try to get everything as right as I can before I release the shutter. Peace and photographic happiness to you all. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Roland

        Many argues that higher Mpix is not needed for a real photographer and states that if you need to crop, you haven’t made a good shot in the first place.
        These same persons also praises the high ISO range as if that is what it is all about.

        The same logic goes here; why don’t you guys stick with your old camera and just turn on the frickin’ light?

        • Anonymous

          I think zzddrr made a good point. Why not have 12MP and 24MP? In that case people can select what they think is right for their application. But Nikon really does not offer anything and this looks pathetic.

          Joe when was the last time you visited Nikon’s website? This is just not true what you said that “Nikon has plenty of variaty in there dSLRs 24MP-12MP on FX and 12-6 on DX”. Nikon has 1 24MP for 8000 USD and the rest is 12MP. Nothing in between and no affordable version of the 24MP even though we know it is possible since canon has the 5DII and the 2 sony cameras. It does seem that Nikon has been milking that 12MP cow until the milk has blood in it. I personally have a 12MP Nikon and I am refusing to buy any Nikon equipment until Nikon delivers on its promise to provide competitive systems beyond the 12MP. Please try to understand that for some people the tank size D3x is not an option.

          I think this all comes down to competition between these 3-4 all Japanese companies. The only reasonable explanation why there is no serious competition between these firms

          1) they are all Japanese so they are not going to seriously hurt each other
          2) they make deals under the table that let’s say “Nikon comes out with fast AF and low light” then “Canon will produce higher MP”
          3) they all benefit from these cartel activities since prices can be kept high

          To support my claim just review how many times these asian companies got caught cheating. (e.g. memory prices and lcd panel price fixing)

  • Anonymous

    who gives a crap?
    I need 24mp with 12800 ISO capability!
    Sub $3000.

  • kino13

    I don’t get it, what is it to gain from the mirrorless factor? Size and weight? is that so important to everyone?

    I love the grip of an SLR, I don’t care if the camera is heavy, I love it and I am not so old.
    I have an F5, and man… the first time I look through her, I was lost forever. Don’t care about if being a fat ass

    • John

      Yes, size and weight is not important to everyone, but it is important to me and probably many others.
      I want a FM3A-sized APS-C (or full frame) sensored body that is mainly for wide to moderate telephoto. I wouldn’t be sticking this camera on a 70-200/2.8 or a 300/2.8 etc. (though it would be nice if I could). I doesn’t need to have every feature known to man stuck in it – the basics would be fine, although Video probably is a must to make this popular.
      It would essentially be a high quality, compact camera ideal for travel, hiking, backpacking, mountaineering, etc., – anyplace where the size and weight of the current batch of Nikon DSLRs is too much. And it wouldn’t be cheap I’m sure.
      Currently I use my LX-3, which although just adequate, is a far far cry from a DSLR-type system for IQ. For me, m43 is almost there. but there is a lack of fast primes (particularly wide angle) and zooms that start at 12mm FL (14mm is not wide enough for me on a zoom).

      My 2 cents.

      • ffip

        Can’t agree more. Size and especially weight matters to me. I am not a frequent traveler, but i took more photos when I travel. A light EVIL camera with a smaller sensor and small and fast primes would be very useful. There is no limit to the quest for pixels and IQ. M4/3 is close to a good compromise. I am not so sure about the IQ of an even smaller sensor though.

        • John

          I guess I’m not a fan of the idea of using a sensor smaller than DX – I’d like them to use a DX sensor and reduce the sensor to flange (registration) distance to help those wide angle lenses get a bit smaller – wide angle is where the small sensor cameras really have problems having small wide FOV lenses. If they go with a 2.5x crop sensor it will make things worse for wide angle lenses and the IQ will not be on par with m43 or DX for the same pixel count. Also, the resolution requirements of this sensor will be even higher than DX which many legacy or current Nikkor lenses cannot support (most are strained to have more resolution than my D300 can record).
          Hopefully they will stick with a DX sensor, even if it is at 10 or 12MP.

          • PHB

            Reducing the minimum distance between the sensor and the rear element is what mirrorless is all about.

            Removing the mirror does not improve the optical performance of the camera but it transforms the performance of the lenses. The flange to sensor distance is really immaterial, but that rear element issue matters a great deal and it is why all 35mm SLR lenses that are wider than 50mm get really expensive above f/2.8 and can’t really go much above f/1.4 without ludicrous efforts.

            Those heroic Nikon designs of the 70s were made when Leica was still the camera company to beat on lens performance. Leica could produce their superb lenses because they were using a rangefinder design. Meanwhile Nikon had to funnel their light through a keyhole.

            I would ignore pretty much all the blatherings about sensor size and IQ on the boards. Those design rules do not apply to mirrorless. All things being equal, if you have X photons to collect in a pixel then the smaller the pixel area the better – until you start approaching the wavelength of the light in question.

          • Joe R.

            If you change the flange distance, none of the f-mount lenses will have their full focus range.

            If they do reduce the flange (a uF-Mount?) I hope they ship an intelligent spacer that allows the use of F-Mount lenses).

    • jason

      i totally agree i have a D3 and i love it its the right size for me the feel of nikon cameras has always been good , thats something they get right how the camera feels to the user, as for the 12mp yes it would be good to have a few more mp in a different model like the rumored D800/D900 or maybe spin off for the D3x but im more than happy with the 12mp sensor in my camera

    • Eric

      I 100% disagree, I simply don’t use large cameras when I buy them because I hate lugging them around. Even my D200 was far too big. Sure it felt nice to hold, and was fine in a studio environment, but my cameras spend more time in my back pack then they do in my hand. I want something small and light WITH great IQ. I basically want a Leica M9 with autofocus and an EVF instead of the optical rangefinder. I’d gladly pay $2k for such a camera.

      • MK

        you can gladly buy a leica

        i will buy food and shelter with the $ i save

      • disco

        “I simply donโ€™t use large cameras when I buy them”

        uhmโ€ฆ tell my why you bought them in the 1st place?

        • Joe R.

          Get a NEX.

        • Eric

          “tell me why you bought them”

          Pre-micro four thirds would you kindly point out a small body, large sensor interchangeable lens camera? There was the Leica M8, but at $5,000 + $2k for a 50mm lens it was just a touch out of my price range. I could have got a D40 back then, but I hate plastic cameras. So I bought a D200, but sold it when I bought my E-P1. Got tired of the lack of a view finder with that camera, and just switched back to film for the mean time until one of these companies figure out there are a good number of enthusiasts that want a small, well made camera, but can’t justify/afford a Leica M9.

  • Carlos R B


  • Anonymous

    Nikon is learning fast from RED. Let’s introduce a concept camera. The speed Nikon can deliver an actual product …. well we can expect the new camera available sometime in 2012

    • Anonymous

      and most likely it will follow the Nikon tradition of 12MP ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Even if it did, why would you care? Are you using an EVIL camera for stock shots? Oh wait stock is dead…

        I’d want an EVIL camera that delivered clean images, not huge files.

        • Anon

          probably because that person can’t take sharp pictures with 12mp, he/she needs 40mp to take a sharp picture

          • Anonymous

            Anon – I told you before GO BACK TO YOUR ROOM AND NO MORE PLAY WITH THE 6MP.

  • asu misuh

    where the fcuk is our D700 replacement…
    its okay if ‘EVIL’ = F3 body with D3S sensor n af system, its will be leica M killer

  • who needs more than 12 mpx in mirorless system? for your “home” pictures? are you printing 2×1,5m sheets and plane to use 300 grams mirrorless camera? its amazing how kind of jokes play in some heads… ๐Ÿ˜€
    who wants pixels – take phase one or coolpix (depends on income)
    who wants photos – take 12 mp or anything else and good luck
    i have done 2,5 long panorama print, razor sharp, stitched from D70 (not 700). it is 6 mp, if you cannot remember.

    • asu misuh

      its okay if your client acept d70 quality, but not mine..
      and i dont care about megapixel as long they have good dr, color, detail n noise

  • clickerkicker

    Confusing, how can you produce a SLR that is mirrorless?????????????

    Doesn’t the R in SLR stand for Reflex as in moving away a mirror?

    • this is Bloomberg reporting – they are finance guys, probably don’t know much about cameras

      • Anonymous

        I think they are referring to electronic shutters as opposed to mechanical shutters (that’s my interpretation anyway)

      • Anonymous

        That’s just a great combination:
        1) Bloomberg = no clue about photo tech
        2) Nikon president = does not speak properly English so many things may get lost in translation


  • Anonymous

    They guess no mirror, not fact. New concept could be larger sensor, Medium Format range in a SLR body.

  • Anonymous

    I know what it is. It is a paintbrush. No need for mirror and it exceeds even 32MP!!!! Nikon will produce painbrush.

    • MK

      umm you forgot that there is going to be a 1 mp, f1.0 lens (1-2mm equiv), and wifi gps. NO FLASH it hurts my peepers

  • ycpj

    A EVIL FX model (D3-like robust body, no built-in flash, hot-shoe, viewfinder, manual Kelvin, etc) and a EVIL DX model with 1.5x crop factor (D5000-like, flexible LCD like the camcorder ones, built-in flash, hot-shoe, no viewfinder – to keep it really compact, accessory port for additional accessories such a viewfinder, etc.) that can use the current F-mount lenses will be wonderful. These models will definitely have Nikon stands out from the crowd, boosts their popularity and gains support from different levels of users (pro, pro-am, amateurs, casual users).

    • PHB

      DX mirrorless makes no sense.

      On a mirrorless camera a 2.5x crop is perfect for a 12-18MP camera. It should have no problem reaching ISO1600, there should be no problem making high IQ lenses for that configuration. There should be no problem supporting an equivalent focal range of 14-1000mm.

      Such a camera is not going to compete with the D3s or D3x. But that would be pointless as the first generation mirrorless cameras are not going to be in that class whatever Nikon does. There is a really clear market differentiation there.

      A DX mirrorless would be neither one thing nor the other. One stop of ISO performance is not enough to justify a camera body upgrade in my view, certainly not enough to justify a complete second format. Two stops might be.

  • Chris P

    Just a thought. If Nikon introduces a 15 Mp D90 and a 18 Mp D700 replacement, both with 1080 video plus an EVIL type camera that is superior to the Panasonic GH series by the end of the year, most of the posters here will actually be able to go out and take superb photographs and videos at last.

    Of course, as is likely, the photographs and videos are not superb, it will be because the D90 replacement isn’t 18 MP, the D700 replacement isn’t 24 Mp and the sensor of the EVIL camera is too small.

    • mickay

      lol…. that made me laugh

    • Bob Fossil


    • Zibb

      I hope they do not remove the mirror, or at least retain the possibility of viewing objects through the lens – not only an electronic screen. And I also hope that the sound of jumping mirror will be there for ever….

  • hmm.. I thought I heard same news from Canon?

    Nikon 100X?

  • TJ

    Nikon has a way of disappointing me (and others as well I’m sure) so I don’t expect a lot from this LOL. Gimme a form factor similar to a m4/3 with a F mount and APS-C sensor, while I’m dreaming a built-in EVF and a standard iso hotshoe please.

  • howie mowie

    Nikon planning “new concept” mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras with enhanced video modes
    By Nilay Patel posted Jul 8th 2010 at 12:45PM
    The past year has seen both Sony and Samsung unveil tiny interchangeable lens cameras designed to compete with the Micro Four Thirds units from Panasonic and Olympus, and now Nikon’s getting in the game as well — company president Makoto Kimura told Bloomberg Nikon will introduce a “new concept” mirrorless cameras with enhanced video functions as early as this year. (That sort of sounds like the Canon G11 competitor with DSLR tech Nikon was hinting at earlier this year, but we can’t tell if they’re the same.) Kimura says that Nikon is “intensively” focused on developing the new mirrorless product as part of a plan to increase SLR revenue — Nikon’s goal is to increase interchangeable lens camera sales a whopping 80 percent over the next three years. That’s ambitious, but if Nikon can produce a tiny shooter with some of the D3S’s low-light capabilities and the ability to accept even a subset of its modern family of lenses, we don’t think it’s out of the question. We’ll see what happens.

  • Gary

    There is a lot of potential for Nikon to generate considerable sales with their EVIL camera if they do it right.

    • DX2FX

      Iโ€™d rather not plunge into the first Nikon EVIL model that comes out. Better wait for its 2nd generation model for improved design & development if one is planning to invest into this new system.

  • I have always wondered why manufacturers have not at least dealt with sealing the guts of the camera during lens change at the very least. A way to keep the optical view without the use of a mirror? Hmmm. I don’t think so…

    Live view isn’t live, and the latency is an issue. But I like it.

  • Anonymous

    I want my mirror back!!! Or I refuse to pay for less parts. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Back to top