What is next in the Nikon body line up?

[I @ M]

Oh - and inbuilt wireless for goodness sake! Surely that can't be that hard?!?

You did mean wireless TTL flash control didn't you?

Ah ok, yep, that one is in the too hard basket.

[bconolly]

You did mean wireless TTL flash control didn't you?

Ah ok, yep, that one is in the too hard basket.

Haha yeah that too :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swifty]

A Nikon version of the Fuji X-T1 would be nice, but with a nice OVF.
But it need not be retro styled. Really just miniaturise the DSLR by removing some of the thickness either side of the mirrorbox area to something similar to the X-T1.
But don't dumb down the controls. Smaller doesn't necessarily mean lower end, still give us dual control wheels etc.

But it wouldn't work unless a set of f1.8 DX primes appeared alongside.

My magic 8-ball says: Outlook not so good.

[arthurking83]

A Nikon version of the Fuji X-T1 would be nice, but with a nice OVF.
But it need not be retro styled. Really just miniaturise the DSLR by removing some of the thickness either side of the mirrorbox area to something similar to the X-T1.
.....

What you basically describe here is a D70/D70s from yesteryear.
This is one of Nikon's slimmest body designs(I dare say D50 is similar in body thickness, but maybe not as wide).

The bulk of the D70's body thickness is taken up by the requirement of the Fmount register distance and then of course the grip.

The problem with the grip(I felt) was that it didn't allow your palm to encompass the shape of the grip, unless you had a very small hand, just many miniaturized cameras currently have to deal with.
Much evidence of this is found in the camera world in the form of user concocted grip additions in the case of the Df. If you follow Bjørn Rørslette's musing's you'll see his home made grip additions as only one instance in many I've seen of this issue.

As evidence of this issue small cameras with ultra slim grip designs not really working well for consumers, many manufacturers(Olympus and Fuji among them!!) offering accessory grip additions to alleviate the problem.

The problem usually being a lack of ergonomic consideration.

I've touched on this problem myself numerous times before .. and that is the need to grip the camera with your fingers doing all the muscle work.
This isn't usually a problem with small lenses .. eg even a 24-70/2.8 being big and heavy in most instances, is easy to carry in my hand on the D800/300 with it's more ergonomic design, yet a real pain in the hand(in the form of cramping) if I mount it to the D70s.

I for one can't carry the D70s in my hand and let my hand relax whilst not losing my grip on the camera. With the D800/300 sized grip, even tho the cameras are obviously heavier the grip allows me to relax my hand muscles and simply let my palm do the 'gripping'.

If this wasn't an issue with these small cameras, why would the manufacturers offer accessory grips that bulk them up?

While my experience is only mine, and others will have their own personal preferences, the D70s is about as small as I could use comfortably.
And seeing others adding homemade sponge material and gaffer tape to their cameras, and micro camera manufacturers offering accessory grip extensions .. obviously the issue isn't confined just to myself.

But back on the topic of camera size .. take the grip out of the D70s equation, and the actual body size isn't all that much different to the X-T1 .. there's only a few mil here and there.

My theory is that as cameras have improved over the years since D70s were king of their respective hill, and knowing that miniaturization hasn't ceased in the electronics field .. there must be hardware considerations underlying the current sizes of even the smallest DSLRs. And that;s not just limited to the mirror boxes either.
I suspect cooling for key components .. mainly the sensor when used in Lv mode, more intricate componentry to perform certain key functions such as processing files, more ram for better bandwidth .. etc.

D70 body size is actually slimmer than that of the Df, which is considered to be one of Nikon's slimmest .. and as slim as the ol F6(film) body(there's only 0.5mm difference) and the D70 is not as wide as the F6 too.

The way I see it: The fact that the D70s is slimmer than the D800E is more or less pretty much a non event. Apart from the previously stated hand cramping consideration of the D70s when holding the camera for any lengthy duration(I'm talking 1/2 -1 hr) .. in terms of logistics, there is (in effect) no difference.
The way I pack my D800E into my bag with the 24-70 mounted is tight as possible, where I literally squeeze in into if perfectly sized slot. Replacing the D800E with the D70s, I still have to perform the same snug fitting squeeze with the D70s. The few millimeters saved (in my situation) amount to nothing gained in terms of storage space advantage, and make it more difficult in a user ergonomic manner.

If the design of the camera is primarily centred around placing a camera into the users pocket(or whatever) .. then the philosophy of the camera/manufacturer is questionable(in my mind).
So where the camera needs to be comfortable is in the hand.

You don't take photos with a camera in your pocket.

Needless to say my attempt at using my daughters really cool P&S yesterday amounted to a 2% success rate. Partly due to its lack of performance, lack of understanding of the camera(entirely) and inability to come to grips with it(pun intended).

Weight is a totally separate issue tho.
Increasing size and additional weight aren't necessarily to each other(D70 and say a D5200 are proof of this concept). Overall a D70s looks to be slightly smaller in terms of overall volume of the body .. yet the D5200 is 100g lighter.
Any decrease in weight would be welcome, but I doubt we'll ever see any revolutionary change in this department.

I think there are far more urgently needed changes to DSLRs in the way they operate, and how the user can configure them more to their liking.

[swifty]

I have to disagree.
Whilst the current modern DSLR shape with it's abundant grip serves well for a variety of lens types from small to large zoom/primes, I think there's plenty of room for the smaller sized cameras, even in DSLR form. Many of us are just happier with the OVF experience.
Having handled basically every mirrorless camera (I had a lot of fun in one of those Japanese camera superstores where basically every current camera is on display), I feel there's plenty of room for bulk reduction in the grip whilst providing adequate hold. Granted that hand size differs greatly in the population and generally Asian hands are smaller and my hands would be considered on the small side.
In this context I feel hand grips the size of GX7 and A7/r are perfectly adequate as well as being comfortable and from this I'm extrapolating that the Fuji X-T1's grip should also be adequate. Its not so much the depth but the shape IMO.
In the film world, SLR grip shapes exists in forms far less bulky than today's DSLRs and nobody complained they couldn't hold it comfortably.

Here's the X-T1 and D70s comparison:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#209,520
Depth wise, its not even close.
I understand the minimum flange back distance even at 46.5mm for the F-mount and the need for a rear LCD. But take the Panasonic GM1 as an example, the flange back distance of m43 is 19.25mm whilst the camera is only 30.4mm so the LCD and chassis thickness is less than 12mm.
So the minimum depth a Nikon F-mount needs to be is only roughly 57mm or so in the middle and far less surrounding the mirrorbox whilst still maintaining adequate grip. And with advances in the thickness of displays I postulate that it's feasible to get this minimum thickness far lower.
Bulk reduction should also equate to less weight and particularly when travelling, its the overall system weight that's the issue.

But like I said, this is what I like to see. I doubt it would happen. And I can't agree that this has been done before in the past with the likes of D70/s or any DLSR from any manufacturer for that matter. The D40 at 64mm probably comes closest but is still on the bulky side with its bubbly shape of a modern DSLR.

Put it this way, for those of us looking for smaller alternatives, if a small competent (ie. not dumb down) DX DSLR exists and very importantly, with accompanying small lenses, there would be no need for me to look elsewhere in the mirrorless realms. For much smaller trade-offs in thickness against mirrorless, I'd much rather the OVF experience.
With the migration towards smaller cameras particularly in Asia, I just think Nikon is missing out on an opportunity to build further on its F-mount base.

Again let me emphasize that IMO without an accompanying set of small primes eg. 16/f1.8DX, 23/f1.8DX, 56/f1.8DX and collapsible zooms, it wouldn't really work.

[I @ M]

As evidence of this issue small cameras with ultra slim grip designs not really working well for consumers, many manufacturers(Olympus and Fuji among them!!) offering accessory grip additions to alleviate the problem.

I see it as more that the OEM guys are cashing in on a lucrative accessory market ( look at some of the grip prices for both DSLRs and smaller bodied cameras. ) and the consumer is buying those parts to solve a problem that may not have necessarily existed until they were aware that a grip was available. Of course, then there are the non OEM factories that churn out grips 2 days after a new model is released to offer the consumer a cheaper choice of solving their "problems".
AK, I totally agree with you on the comfort factor when using a Nikon DSLR body both for carrying and photographing, the D### series have always worked well but I have felt cramped and uncomfortable with some of the D#### bodies I have handled. I think a lot of that stems from not just the shape but the weight of the body / lens combination. A larger and heavier body to me at least dictates a better, more comfortable way of carrying and handling.
After a fair time using the "tiny" Fuji I haven't felt uncomfortable either carrying it in my hand for extended periods or photographing with it and I have not yet felt the urge to indulge in extra grips, thumb rests, designer Italian neck straps or bulk adding 1/2 or full leather cases.

(I had a lot of fun in one of those Japanese camera superstores where basically every current camera is on display)

That sounds so much like being a kid in a lolly shop ----- what fun!!!!

With the migration towards smaller cameras particularly in Asia, I just think Nikon is missing out on an opportunity to build further on its F-mount base.

Again let me emphasize that IMO without an accompanying set of small primes eg. 16/f1.8DX, 23/f1.8DX, 56/f1.8DX and collapsible zooms, it wouldn't really work.

Totally agree.

[arthurking83]

I fully understand your 'small hand' .. less uncomfortable experience swifty, but my hands are 'large' even tho I wear X-large gloves!
But in comparison to others hands, my hands are larger than an average size.

What you say about body thickness at the mount is almost certainly valid, but the differences in what lenses an F-mount camera is likely to carry as opposed to what you would reasonably expect to mount to a GM1 camera body!!!!

imagine mounting a Nikon 14-24 on a GM1 and 'holding the setup by the camera body' .. as you would have to if mounted on a tripod(assuming the adapter doesn't include a tripod mounting ability!!

I can't imagine the GM1's body depth maintaining a 30.4mm body depth for too long.

Exaggeration , for sure, but you get the idea.
Cameras will be designed in a certain manner for a specific reason.
Materials, cost and design technology is always going to be the limiting factors .. and how much is Mr/Ms average willing to pay to shed a few grams and millimeters?

Especially when these slimmer alternatives already exist, catering to this Mr/Ms average(that want's a slimmer lighter camera).

I can see how DSLRs up to say a D300/400 model type could eventually go down the mirrorless route simply due to cost, although at the moment that doesn't necessarily seem to be a prime consideration for the major DSLR makers!!

When a supposed competitor to the D300/D7100/K-3/7D segment in the form of a mirrorless camera comes to market at a higher price, the notion that the DLSR makers need to produce cheaper to manufacture alternatives seems kind'a humorous.

And there's the other thing I keep seeing in a lot of photography(especially Nikon centred) forums .. this so called need for more smaller compact primes for Dx???
I don't get it! I really don't it.

If I were head of Nikon and had a marketing guru come tell me "hey the market wants more Dx primes" I'd tell him to get off this internet thing and do his job properly!

What Nikon NEEDS is more affordable Fx primes, which by the way also happen to work quite well on Dx too!
They did this years ago, and for the life of me, can't see why they can't see how successful that strategy was for them back then!

From photosynthesis's stats:
28/2.8 E sold about 250K units in a 6 year time span(late 70s to mid 80s)
35/2.5 E ~ 200K units in the same time span
50/1.8 E ~ 230K units in the same time


This idea that we're all looking forward to Nikon's $600 35/1.8 is idiotic!
This is where Nikon will lose any marketing battle. See Sigma for the answer to Nikon's actual problems.

All FX lenses
18/1.8 maybe $800 .. probably OK at just under $1K
24/1.8 maybe $500(cause they're apparently harder to design easily and nicely at the wide end)
28/1.8 maybe in the $400-500 range as long as it actually is close to top of the class
35/1.8 not more than $400! $600+ is simply lunacy, and really I think folks shouldn't stand for it .. ie. boycott it until it does come down to $400

In this day and age of cheap mass manufacturing, there is no excuse .. and like I said before .. Sigma! We all know what they're currently doing with their lens range, and given a bit more time ....

In a 6 year time frame from '79-85 Nikon manufactured well over a million series E prime lenses(alone, not mentioning more than half a mil or so zooms they also made in E series)

Given a bit more time and I think any possible Nikon Dx primes released into the future, will be shown for what they really are .. overpriced, and probably underperforming weights!

Again, if I were head of a camera manufacturing company, and this time Sigma .. I'd give the guys that designed the 18-35/1.8, 35/1.4 and the 50/1.4 lenses workign on one easy brief:
make me any and all lens equivalents of any proposed Nikon Dx lens design, made as an FX equivalent and close to half the price!

ie. why waste resources on restricted Dx designs that have the potential to fade to nothing, when your primary manufacturing base is and has always been 135 format!

I have a feeling that Nikon is looking back on it's failed IX series of camera/lenses .. maybe that where they eventually see Dx going too(considering the threat of these micro mirrorless types).
Afterall, Mp is what everyone supposedly wants!

of course design is always an issue, and the likes of 16mm f/1.8 lens for full frame is always going to be a big lens .. so there may be some specialty lenses designed to fill a niche, but overall, I think Dx in the next 10 years or so, will become much less important to DSLR makers in general.
D600 6D is proof of this, and if Sony were as popular a a brand, I thin the old A800 was the catalyst that started this product segment.

I can see a DSLR product range looking something like a D5000 type camera, containing a 24Mp(current) Fx sensor, priced below $1K!! one day soon.

As the D610 range flows into it's successor, the 24Mp sensor will have matured as a profit item, and installing it into a cheaper Fx camera really is a bit of a no brainer for Nikon to do.
This is how they've operated for over 10 years now .. closer to 20years really, and it's worked for them as a marketing strategy.

if they can't compete with the compact mirrorless market in terms of similarly sized, and or better priced camera bodies, they can with higher quality products at decent prices!

That starts with lenses .. a comprehensive range of affordable lenses that basically screams ... 'Hey look. we're cheaper than Sigma, and our name is Nikon!'

I can tell you with 100% surety, I avoid almost any Nikon lens simply due to price. if I can't get the lens I want from other manufacturers, then I may loo at Nikon's lenses(although reluctantly)
example of this now is the 16-35VR. No one else seems to currently offer anything like it for.
I want one! Price is reasonable tho, I just can't afford one now(until I start working again soon).

This is actually a good thing, as I'm hoping Sigma will provide a better and cheaper alternative for me soon when money starts flowing in again

As for camera bodies of the future .. whatever Nikon make, I'm fairly confident that one of their camera products will suffice. Although I know there will be one small niggle in their design that won't overly impinge on the user experience, but will of course just niggle away, and I'll look for a home made fix for it(if possible), or just work around it.

[swifty]

Ermm.. ok. It's quite obvious we don't see eye to eye on this topic so I'll try and keep my reply short so we don't stray off topic too much.

DSLRs already cater for those with larger hands. The topic is what we'd like to see and I would like to see Nikon address the smaller, slimmer camera in its DX F-mount line.

The GM1 example was only to illustrate the LCD depth required behind the sensor. Dunno why you would suggest mounting a 14-24/2.8 on a GM1. But it kinda illustrate my point. You wouldn't cos you wouldn't mount a FF lens on anything other than a FF camera at the non-tele end. It is a waste. Hence why DX lenses are a good idea for DX cameras and just using FX lens cos you can mount it isn't really a solution.
The 35/1.8DX was a good idea and I reckon a few other small DX primes will also be. If the chorus wanting it is loud and abundant then maybe a not unsubstantial subset of photographers actually would like and buy it??!! You don't have to get it, it is just a preference for the type of lens we want to use ie. small primes on slim bodies with an OVF.

Slim alternatives don't exist in DSLR form. They did in SLR form though.

I don't think DX is going anywhere. I think if Nikon abandons DX it would be a poor financial choice regardless of how low FX body prices fall.

The bit about the need for affordable FX primes isn't really relevant to the discussion so I won't comment on it.

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds so much like being a kid in a lolly shop ----- what fun!!!!

LOL. Call it payback for all the times I waited around whilst my wife shop for shoes.
But yes, a lot of fun. I tried out every DSLR too, including the Df. Not what I expected I'm afraid.

[Cage]

My ideal camera is a dedicated 'still' camera with faster than currently available flash shutter speeds and full wireless control.

If I want to do video, I'll buy a video camera.

Cheers

Kevin

[arthurking83]

....... with faster than currently available flash shutter speeds and full wireless control.

This has many consequences as cameras like the D70 had shown,
For a focal plane shutter camera, speeds are limited to 1/200-1/250 due to shutter design for good reason.
D70 allowed 1/500 but only due to it's inferior shutter mechanism!
Because the shutter was of a lower quality Nikon countered this design issue with the use of electronic gaiting the sensor electronically.
The problem of electronically limiting the sensor(D70 used CCD) were numerous..... mainly blooming against bright light sources.
Sounded like a good idea... but didn't work well in an overall sense.

.... If I want to do video, I'll buy a video camera.

Cheers

Kevin

This has been a topic of discussion before, it's not a hindrance .... but when you do find it useful it is there.
but in being there ..... it's not really bogging you down in any way, is it?

FWIW: I've seen the introduction of video in stills cameras as more of a bonus really.
It's forced the increased speeds that video entails ..... buffer, CPU processing basically overall bandwidth increases in general.
I can't see faster cameras as a bad thing.

anyhow... Panasonic is leading the charge onto 4K video ...... that's a lot faster than they are now ... think of a D600 shooting at 12fps without any slowdown

[znelbok]

I think that a D800 update is due. It uses an old CF card slot, has been around for a while now and is a very popular camera without being over priced. They can build on the success of the 800 by upgrading it.

The D810 is my bet for 2014.

I dont have any real experience with the 800, not much of the nikon line at all really, on the D80 and D600, but that just feels right to me looking at whats on offer.

[I @ M]

I think that a D800 update is due.

It is almost 2 years since the announcement date of that model. I don't know if a 2 year replacement / upgrade cycle is on the books for that model because it does 99% of things very well. What would you like to see improved with the D800?

It uses an old CF card slot,

It also uses an old SD card slot. What do you think the upgraded model should use?

[arthurking83]

Photokina coming up later in the year ... could possibly update the D800 .. say to a D810!

It'd have a better aligned focusing sensor for starters!

LOL .. they could do an incremental update, just to keep interest up in the model.(we know they're doing that with the D4s soon)

it is starting to hit that mid to low $2K threshold .. where Nikon seems to make much less money on them I'm guessing.

Wifi update?(yeah why not), triple card slots .. I doubt they'd change all that much in terms of hardware really.

D800s maybe?

[nimrodisease]

Photokina coming up later in the year ... could possibly update the D800 .. say to a D810!

It'd have a better aligned focusing sensor for starters!

I thought that the focus issues were fixed in later models? Or are there still focusing issues with brand new D800s today?

[arthurking83]

LOL! it was more sarcasm pertaining to D600's and prior D800 issues.

D800's(at least since Nikon unofficially identified the issue have all been good AFAIK. Mine purchased in Oct 12 is spot on.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL! it was more sarcasm pertaining to D600's and prior D800 issues.

D800's(at least since Nikon unofficially identified the issue have all been good AFAIK. Mine purchased in Oct 12 is spot on.

[mattweller]

They should make a replacement for the D610 with more AF points & not crammed in the middle of the viewfinder (one can dream right?)

[richardb]

Photokina Tuesday 16 - Sunday 21 September 2014 in Cologne Germany will tell us.

[I @ M]

This is a bit much. http://www.camerapro.com.au/nikon-d4...FUNfpQodbngAWg

Yep, totally out of the ball park.
Either it is the worlds worst typo when building their web page or they are going for the of the year award.

[I @ M]

Is this to scare us into buying the old D4 stock so they don't have to discount it?

Sent from my Nexus 5

Quite frankly, anyone considering a D4 wouldn't be looking at their site anyway -----

- - - Updated - - -

Is this to scare us into buying the old D4 stock so they don't have to discount it?

Sent from my Nexus 5

Quite frankly, anyone considering a D4 wouldn't be looking at their site anyway -----

[Cage]

This has many consequences as cameras like the D70 had shown,
For a focal plane shutter camera, speeds are limited to 1/200-1/250 due to shutter design for good reason.
D70 allowed 1/500 but only due to it's inferior shutter mechanism!
Because the shutter was of a lower quality Nikon countered this design issue with the use of electronic gaiting the sensor electronically.
The problem of electronically limiting the sensor(D70 used CCD) were numerous..... mainly blooming against bright light sources.
Sounded like a good idea... but didn't work well in an overall sense.



This has been a topic of discussion before, it's not a hindrance .... but when you do find it useful it is there.
but in being there ..... it's not really bogging you down in any way, is it?

FWIW: I've seen the introduction of video in stills cameras as more of a bonus really.
It's forced the increased speeds that video entails ..... buffer, CPU processing basically overall bandwidth increases in general.
I can't see faster cameras as a bad thing.

anyhow... Panasonic is leading the charge onto 4K video ...... that's a lot faster than they are now ... think of a D600 shooting at 12fps without any slowdown

Thanks for the heads up on flash shutter speeds.

And no, the video function doesn't cause me any problems. I guess being a miserable old fart I don't like paying for something I don't use. And I concede that a lot of the bell's and whistles required for video have enhanced the camera's still functionality.

But, and ain't there always a 'but', I would really like full wireless capability. The possibilities for wildlife are endless.

Cheers

Kevin